90s tennis was just ace feast and serve-and-volley (they say)

[mattennis]

It wasn't.

Most top-10 (and top-20) players were NOT serve-n-volley players (not ace-machines either). The majority were great baseliners, and many of them could actually volley and finish points at the net consistently.

Another myth is that there were only fast hard courts. Wrong. There was a huge variation in speed of hard courts, back then.

Miami for example was always very slow.

Of course there were still SOME great serve-and-volley players too, but not many.

 

[tonylg]

Well done .. Now half this forum is now sitting the corner of the room repeating the word "servebot" over and over, Rainman style.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Even Sampras was winning from the baseline mostly in a lot of his best matches.
And that epic 1999 Wimbledon Final when he demolished Agassi, was a baseline masterclass.
Edberg and Rafter were the true serve-volleyers.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

5/5

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Even Sampras was winning from the baseline mostly in a lot of his best matches.
And that epic 1999 Wimbledon Final when he demolished Agassi, was a baseline masterclass.
Edberg and Rafter were the true serve-volleyers.

Very true @NADALalot ! Pete often won his best matches against baseliners by out rallying them from the back at the biggest moments.

 

[Sudacafan]

I don’t remember that tennis.

 

[Robert F]

TC replayed Becker vs. Chang at the Aussie Open. 1996 final I think. What impressed me was how often Chang would come to the net to finish points and on the other side how well Becker played from the baseline. Both had skills for both and obviously both had their strengths. No ServBotting, just a great match with a lot of attacking tennis from all parts of the court.

 

[Jonesy]

S&V never existed in the first place. It was all but a myth created to impress the newer generations.

 

[tonylg]

TC replayed Becker vs. Chang at the Aussie Open. 1996 final I think. What impressed me was how often Chang would come to the net to finish points and on the other side how well Becker played from the baseline. Both had skills for both and obviously both had their strengths. No ServBotting, just a great match with a lot of attacking tennis from all parts of the court.

Liar!

Now repeat: "90s was only servebots. Servebots are bad. 90s are bad. Baseline bots make me happy. Protect the baseline bots."

 

[Cashman]

I think what is often disregarded is the assistance that modern strings have given to the accuracy of big servers.

Back in the 90s there were plenty of serve heavy players, but they were never as one dimensional as the likes of Opelka and Isner. Ivanisevic was the prototypical servebot, but he could hit a decent forehand and volley.

I’m not saying that the game didn’t favour servers too much, but the way it’s changed hasn’t been for the better.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think what is often disregarded is the assistance that modern strings have given to the accuracy of big servers.

Back in the 90s there were plenty of serve heavy players, but they were never as one dimensional as the likes of Opelka and Isner. Ivanisevic was the prototypical servebot, but he could hit a decent forehand and volley.

I’m not saying that the game didn’t favour servers too much, but the way it’s changed hasn’t been for the better.

Players hold more often than ever, in fact. With homogenisation, the faster tournaments are less serve-centric than before but the slower tournaments are a lot more serve-heavy.

 

[Deleted member 776206]

S&V never existed in the first place. It was all but a myth created to impress the newer generations.

Just like Vermont. Have you ever met someone who was born in Vermont? Vermont is a government hoax

 

[BeatlesFan]

Well done .. Now half this forum is now sitting the corner of the room repeating the word "servebot" over and over, Rainman style.

And the OP got the decade wrong. Prior to the 90’s is when serve and volley tennis was the norm, but there were still outstanding baseliners like Wilander or Chang. Or baseliners who were forced to volley on grass like Borg or Lendl.

 

[Red Rick]

The only thing that looks worse than the 3 shot rallies from the 90s is the long rallies from the 90s.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

The only thing that looks worse than the 3 shot rallies from the 90s is the long rallies from the 90s.

I know. Inside out, down the line, approaches, lobs, overheads, all that variety...yikes! Too much for the "modern" mind to process. Better to watch Thiem and Zverev shiver their way through a grindfest, each trembling at the thought of beating the other one and raising the trophy.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

It's not that there was no baselining. Just that the baselining was sheet. But I suppose it was the best they could manage with the racquets of those times. Baselining was also very primitive.

Using chess as an analogy, like chess used to be majorly about tactics back in the classical era in the 19th century, baselining used to be all about attacking in the 90s.
Chess became much moar positional and that improved the tactical play as well, meaning that first you make sure your position is secure enough before you go full blown attack, meaning when your attack/tactics don't materialize you have a good position to fall back on.

Similarly baselining became much moar like that. You don't attack all out now unless you know that if it backfires you can defend your position because going about it otherwise is just dumb. You have a lot moar balance between attack and defence.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

It's not that there was no baselining. Just that the baselining was sheet. But I suppose it was the best they could manage with the racquets of those times. Baselining was also very primitive.

Using chess as an analogy, like chess used to be majorly about tactics back in the classical era in the 19th century, baselining used to be all about attacking in the 90s.
Chess became much moar positional and that improved the tactical play as well, meaning that first you make sure your position is secure enough before you go full blown attack, meaning when your attack/tactics don't materialize you have a good position to fall back on.

Similarly baselining became much moar like that. You don't attack all out now unless you know that if it backfires you can defend your position because going about it otherwise is just dumb. You have a lot moar balance between attack and defence.

This is a joke right? Your bro won the friggin' war at the Trident by taking the fight TO Rhaegar, not trading endless skirmishes with Princey Poo and letting him catch his breath every week.

Back to tennis. There is no "positional" baseline tennis these days. Big 3 aside, "baselining" consists mostly of grinding the other guy off the court. Players are not better at attacking now. Players aren't really even better at defending. They're definitely not better at approaching/volleying. What they're better at is hitting balls with depth with the consistency and spin the poly in their crosses allows them.Thiem is a happy exception to this rule more often than the rest of his peers but even then its not a sure thing.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

This is a joke right? Your bro won the friggin' war at the Trident by taking the fight TO Rhaegar, not trading endless skirmishes with Princey Poo and letting him catch his breath every week.

Back to tennis. There is no "positional" baseline tennis these days. Big 3 aside, "baselining" consists mostly of grinding the other guy off the court. Thiem is a happy exception to this rule more often than the rest of his peers but even then its not a sure thing.

It was a dumb move by Robert to even take the battlefield but you know that's Robert, a rank dumb, thick of head warrior. How did "taking the fight" to the boar go for him pray tell me my lord?

As for tennis being grinding all I have to say is that the old timer fans have been spoiled by the brainded tennis of the 90s where people didn't care about holding their ground and attacked like stupid, ran to the net on extremely bad approach shots. The reason that was even possible was because baselining was a baby back then and because poly wasn't a thing. There is a reason baselining became the way it is. Survival of the fittest.

You have to play measured tennis now. The reason why the non big 3 suck today has little to do with the style of tennis but everything to do with them being relatively talent less, bad technique afflicted mugs.

 

[Sport]

Pete Sampras has the most aesthetically gifted game the universe has ever witnessed.

He who only used a first serve, he who attacked every single ball, he who approached the net like a boss. Mr. Sampras, Pete Sampras.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's not that there was no baselining. Just that the baselining was sheet. But I suppose it was the best they could manage with the racquets of those times. Baselining was also very primitive.

Using chess as an analogy, like chess used to be majorly about tactics back in the classical era in the 19th century, baselining used to be all about attacking in the 90s.
Chess became much moar positional and that improved the tactical play as well, meaning that first you make sure your position is secure enough before you go full blown attack, meaning when your attack/tactics don't materialize you have a good position to fall back on.

Similarly baselining became much moar like that. You don't attack all out now unless you know that if it backfires you can defend your position because going about it otherwise is just dumb. You have a lot moar balance between attack and defence.

Comparing 1990s in tennis to 1890s in chess is peak of ricockulosity.
You wouldn't dismiss 1970s chess as ancient and primitive but you would dismiss 1990s tennis let aline 1970s? What?

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Pete Sampras has the most aesthetically gifted game the universe has ever witnessed.

He who only used a first serve, he who attacked every single ball, he who approached the net like a boss. Mr. Sampras, Pete Sampras.

Yes, because if there's one thing everyone knows about Rafa, its how aesthetically pleasing and varied his game is.

 

[Sport]

Comparing 1990s in tennis to 1890s in chess is peak of ricockulosity.
You wouldn't dismiss 1970s chess as ancient and primitive but you would dismiss 1990s tennis let aline 1970s? What?

His analogy is on point though, you should check chess games of the classical era. He meant that, during the classical era, chess was ultra-aggresive, and he compared it to tennis in the 1990s in that sense: that it was ultra-aggresive.

 

[Sport]

Yes, because if there's one thing everyone knows about Rafa, its how aesthetically pleasing and varied his game is.

As Magnus Carlsen stated, Nadal has a brutal and unmerciful playstyle, rather than an "artistic" one.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

As Magnus Carlsen stated, Nadal has a brutal and unmerciful playstyle, rather than an "artistic" one.

Ironically that's what Agassi said about Pete's game. He said prior to Pete, tennis was two men playing relaxedly, a stroll in the park. Then Pete came along and turned it into an athletic, violent, brutal war between two men in a fight for survival.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

It was a dumb move by Robert to even take the battlefield but you know that's Robert, a rank dumb, thick of head warrior. How did "taking the fight" to the boar go for him pray tell me my lord?

As for tennis being grinding all I have to say is that the old timer fans have been spoiled by the brainded tennis of the 90s where people didn't care about holding their ground and attacked like stupid, ran to the net on extremely bad approach shots. The reason that was even possible was because baselining was a baby back then and because poly wasn't a thing. There is a reason baselining became the way it is. Survival of the fittest.

You have to play measured tennis now. The reason why the non big 3 suck today has little to do with the style of tennis but everything to do with them being relatively talent less, bad technique afflicted mugs.

Describe to me the measured, tactical, style of baseline tennis we see now. Excluding the Big 3, since this is a phenom we see across the board.
I'd say it worked well, seeing he died a King. What did you die as Stanni?

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Comparing 1990s in tennis to 1890s in chess is peak of ricockulosity.
You wouldn't dismiss 1970s chess as ancient and primitive but you would dismiss 1990s tennis let aline 1970s? What?

I wouldn't dismiss 70s chess as primitive because you had players who were super strong at defence and positional play. It was already quite modern in the sense that it was well accepted that tactics weren't the be all and end all anymoar. It wasn't a romantic era at all. Even in the 60s you had guys like Petrosian who was called "the first defender with a capital D" by Vlad Kramnik.
Sure engine involvement has made positional play bread and butter for players today but it was already there in the 70s.

Well chess has a much bigger history than baselining so I don't see why it's so ridiculous to say that 90s baselining was primitive while 70s chess wasn't.

Btw I am not shïtting on 90s baselining in and of itself even though it might seem like that, the same way I would never shït on romantic era chess. I am shïtting on the idea that 90s baselining is comparable to or in the same league as today's baselining. It isn't.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Imagine the Nadal in the 90s aka most-serious-tennis-era-ever: 0 slams ... "They is playing too fast, no?"

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Imagine the Nadal in the 90s aka most-serious-tennis-era-ever: 0 slams ... "They is playing too fast, no?"

"Starta da game"

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Imagine the Nadal in the 90s aka most-serious-tennis-era-ever: 0 slams ... "They is playing too fast, no?"

The opposite actually.
Nadal has won the Canada Open FIVE times.

Also remember that 2017 Australian Open Federer won, and everyone said it was extremely fast and helpful to Federer? Nadal made the Final, and was up a break in the 5th Set.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

The opposite actually.
Nadal has won the Canada Open FIVE times.

Also remember that 2017 Australian Open Federer won, and everyone said it was extremely fast and helpful to Federer? Nadal made the Final, and was up a break in the 5th Set.

"fastest on tour since 2016"=/=fast by 90s (or any objective) standard
That said, Rafa would be clay GOAT in any era. Only era that it'd be a close fight would be Borg's.

 

[MeatTornado]

The opposite actually.
Nadal has won the Canada Open FIVE times.

Also remember that 2017 Australian Open Federer won, and everyone said it was extremely fast and helpful to Federer? Nadal made the Final, and was up a break in the 5th Set.

So many examples of Nadal doing well on fast courts in the past.

And you choose Canada as your evidence. Smh.

And no, 2017 Australia was not extremely fast. It was extremely fast compared to how the tournament had been in the past.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

"fastest on tour since 2016"=/=fast by 90s (or any objective) standard
That said, Rafa would be clay GOAT in any era. Only era that it'd be a close fight would be Borg's.

Rubbish. Borg was too passive. Even Ferrer is more aggressive than Borg.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

So many examples of Nadal doing well on fast courts in the past.

And you choose Canada as your evidence. Smh.

And no, 2017 Australia was not extremely fast. It was extremely fast compared to how the tournament had been in the past.

Canada is a great example, because its the fastest on tour.
Australia was extremely fast, no matter how you phrase it.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Rubbish. Borg was too passive. Even Ferrer is more aggressive than Borg.

Nah, you don't get 6 RG AND Wimbledons in the same year by being passive. Without Borg, there's no Rafa. And give Rafa Borg's tech, he does the same thing. Just a bit more effectively and probably gets 8 RG and 1 Wimbledon (if any).

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Nah, you don't get 6 RG AND Wimbledons in the same year by being passive. Without Borg, there's no Rafa. And give Rafa Borg's tech, he does the same thing. Just a bit more effectively and probably gets 8 RG and 1 Wimbledon (if any).

The reason why Borg was great on grass, while Ferrer is not, is because Borg felt extremely comfortably moving on grass. Its about footwork more than anything else.
Nadal had nothing to do with Borg. Nadal took tennis to a whole new level of physicality. And before that it was Muster and others. And Lendl was more physical than Borg. And Borg did not create Lendl.

 

[MeatTornado]

Canada is a great example, because its the fastest on tour.
Australia was extremely fast, no matter how you phrase it.

Canada is not the fastest on tour. CPI is an extremely flawed stat. If you go by CPI then Madrid is slower than Rome or Monte-Carlo, which is a joke.

And even if it was accurate, it's still only for that one edition of the tournament and even the system describes as only "Medium Fast" based on that rating. But by all means, push your chips in on winning Canada 2019 against Medvedev as proof of Rafa's fast court supremacy when you've got 2 Wimbledons in your back pocket.

 

[tonylg]

Australia was extremely fast, no matter how you phrase it.

If I didn't think you were serious, I'd say that was funny.

The AO hasn't been fast in decades, nothing in the past 10 years has been "very fast".

 

[Deleted member 770948]

If I didn't think you were serious, I'd say that was funny.

The AO hasn't been fast in decades, nothing in the past 10 years has been "very fast".

That's easy to say, but very difficult to prove.

 

[tonylg]

That's easy to say, but very difficult to prove.

It's basically the same as saying prove the sun comes up tomorrow. You'd look outside the observe the obvious.

 

[Silverbullet96]

B-b-but what about that one Wimby match Goran Vs. Pete ? Clearly that's irrefutable proof that every single Tennis match before 2005 (Monte Carlo, to be exact) were 1-2 shot serve fests.

 

[Start da Game]

It's not that there was no baselining. Just that the baselining was sheet. But I suppose it was the best they could manage with the racquets of those times. Baselining was also very primitive.

Using chess as an analogy, like chess used to be majorly about tactics back in the classical era in the 19th century, baselining used to be all about attacking in the 90s.
Chess became much moar positional and that improved the tactical play as well, meaning that first you make sure your position is secure enough before you go full blown attack, meaning when your attack/tactics don't materialize you have a good position to fall back on.

Similarly baselining became much moar like that. You don't attack all out now unless you know that if it backfires you can defend your position because going about it otherwise is just dumb. You have a lot moar balance between attack and defence.

paul morphy from 1850s and 60s and capablanca from 1920s had almost engine like precision and were known for positional play, morphy can be argued as the greatest positional ever considering there were no engines, heck he din;t even care about learning openings.........tal is the mad attacker you are probably referring to the 90s baseline game and i am sorry 90s baseline game was a lot more than that........i am a big fan of tal btw........

 

[Start da Game]

i have posted this video before, please see for yourself what 90s tennis looked like from the back........the point construction and stuff, this wasn't even from the top players back then........no wonder federer found arazi difficult in 2002 roland garros and lost in the first round........

 

[Deleted member 777746]

i have posted this video before, please see for yourself what 90s tennis looked like from the back........the point construction and stuff, this wasn't even from the top players back then........no wonder federer found arazi difficult in 2002 roland garros and lost in the first round........

Epic starting score as well

 

[Start da Game]

Epic starting score as well

40-15 haaha i din't notice that until you pointed it out.......

 

[Deleted member 777746]

40-15 haaha i din't notice that until you pointed it out.......

Commentators were even kind enough to narrate it so we wouldn't miss out

 

[Deleted member 770948]

It's basically the same as saying prove the sun comes up tomorrow. You'd look outside the observe the obvious.

We can dispute the speed of hardcourts, but clay is definitely faster now than it was in the 90s.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

We can dispute the speed of hardcourts, but clay is definitely faster now than it was in the 90s.

Very true again! Something the Wodgi fans conveniently forget in their admirable haste to speed up all the courts he played on

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

paul morphy from 1850s and 60s and capablanca from 1920s had almost engine like precision and were known for positional play, morphy can be argued as the greatest positional ever considering there were no engines, heck he din;t even care about learning openings.........tal is the mad attacker you are probably referring to the 90s baseline game and i am sorry 90s baseline game was a lot more than that........i am a big fan of tal btw........

1) Paul Charles Morphy was a phenomenon ages ahead of his time.
2) He could play positional chess when needed but his instinct was to play romantically as moast of his 59 official games suggest. He played the Sicilian once and was very vocal about his hatred for it calling it dull. He moastly preferred open positions as opposed to close ones because his game was so much about tactics rather than positional play.
3) And no he can't be called the greatest positional player but even if he can he was an exception in 1800s. So my point about attacking tactical chess being the predominant form of play in the romantic era remains true.

And yes Capablanca was a very positional player but then again he isn't from the romantic era is he?
As for 90s baselining sure there might be moar to it than just attack but again it was the predominant style of play. Today defence is so much better and developed.

 

[ChaelAZ]

It wasn't.

Most top-10 (and top-20) players were NOT serve-n-volley players (not ace-machines either). The majority were great baseliners, and many of them could actually volley and finish points at the net consistently.

Another myth is that there were only fast hard courts. Wrong. There was a huge variation in speed of hard courts, back then.

Miami for example was always very slow.

Of course there were still SOME great serve-and-volley players too, but not many.

Was just watching a 90's Samparat v. Mac match on HC and it was about as exciting as watching paint peel. Serve, return, volley, done. All within a few seconds. Next point, repeat. So glad the organizations realized the sport needed more excitement and the game evolved to allow more variety of play.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Was just watching a 90's Samparat v. Mac match on HC and it was about as exciting as watching paint peel. Serve, return, volley, done. All within a few seconds. Next point, repeat. So glad the organizations realized the sport needed more excitement and the game evolved to allow more variety of play.