2001 sorry about that. thanks for pointing that out.
Has the slowing down of courts killed tennis?
- Thread starter Giroudsleftboot
- Start date
2001 sorry about that. thanks for pointing that out.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
regardless, it was really only around 05-06 when Wimby grass slowed down to the point where the tournament was dominated by baseline play. And in 05-06 the grass was quite a bit faster than it is today or was from 09-11 which is hilarious. 03-04...while obviously slower than previous conditions, were still fairly fast and favored attacking play and coming forward.
actually people are speculating a bit of quickening last a few years, corresponding with
atp's effort to quickening the game.
well, we had Patrick rafter-Ivanesvic in 2001.
Hewitt-Nalbandian in 2002. baseline counter punchers.
in 2003, Federer was reducing S&V round by round.. by 2004-5, he was playing baseline.
in 2004, us open announced surface change (which actually happened in 2003).
by this time players were taking time off to retool their game into a baseline ones.
This was abrupt change.
people in the know, speaculated surface changes at wimbledon by 2003-2004. wimbledon denied (never acknowledged it even now).
tennis fans started to realize when they saw Nadal reaching Wimbledon final in 2006 (only in his 3rd appearance) .
by 2006, the it became a public knowledge.
everything was coordinated 2001-2003 by atp, wimbledon and usta.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2006-07-16-surface-tension_x.htm
"You don't have these American hardcourt tournaments which are just unplayable from the baseline, unreturnable," says No. 1 Roger Federer, the reigning U.S. Open champion who won his fourth consecutive Wimbledon crown July 9 against Rafael Nadal. "Everywhere you sort of get into the points. It's actually quite slow now."
The evidence is more than anecdotal. After the 2000 Open, U.S. Tennis Association officials felt the DecoTurf II at the National Tennis Center in New York was too fast. They slowed it down for 2001 and made another adjustment in 2003.
When Spanish baseliner Juan Carlos Ferrero made it to the final that year against cannon-serving Andy Roddick, officials felt they had achieved a happy medium. It hasn't changed since.
No less an intergenerational authority than Martina Navratilova is convinced this homogenization has taken over the sport.
Last edited:
metsman
G.O.A.T.
USO hard courts have gotten way slower than 03-04 and even 05-06 as has Wimbledon. Besides the AO, pretty much all the courts have gotten progressively slower besides Wimbledon's little 12-13 resurgence to try and help Murray win.
And 03 was pretty much dominated by baseline tennis (outside Wimbledon) so the shift definitely didn't happen as late as you say it did. Tennis was pretty much already well in the baseline era when Fed got to his peak.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
and Fed was serving and volleying on pretty much ever first serve point in the 03 final and a few second serves. Scud was serving and volleying pretty much on everything. The 04 final was all court play from both guys, serve and volley was less but both guys still did it and both guys came into net alot. I think Fed served and volleyed 50% in 03 Wimbledn and 25% in 04 so he was still doing it a good bit.
Grass got progressively slower after that, bottoming out in 09-11 and today. 05-06 was still acceptable...by 07 it was too slow.
Both Federer and Nadal rose with slowed conditions.
2003 is beginning of modern baseline era on homogenized surface. That defined last decade or so.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
nah from 03-05 conditions were still fairly different, not as much as the 90's but still a good amount. 06 it started getting closer and closer but still it was way better than it is today.
Fed benefitted a little from homogenization at his peak but he has given that back later in his career. He would have done just as well, probably even better if he was in sampras' place imo
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Not really sure what's going on in here and I haven't even read any of the posts but I just thought I'd post this.
nmanimaran15
Rookie
No.It has given life to tennis.When the courts were faster, players had to serve, serve, serve only.Only "serve and volley"was enough at that period.Now, players have to give their best to win a match.They are playing better tennis than the 90's. According to Rafael nadal's interview before Wimbledon, 2011.
Leolionroar1983
New User
Hard courts are the best IMO. Grass is too fast, and the points lack development. Clay is OK, as it gets some good rally’s, but at same time, there’s not much volleying. Hard courts are a surface where any player has a chance. Whether serve and volley, or baseline grinder. There’s more variety and opportunity For all styles of play to win.
on site note: IMO, I see the late 80’s to appx. 2004 as the golden era of tennis. Before late 80’s, players had good all court play, but it lacked explosiveness and spins. After 2004 ish, now players have 120 sq in. Rackets, and they just spin away from the baseline. The golden era kind of saw artistry and precision with all court play and smaller rackets still, while also having power and intensity in the shotmaking. Grips started rotating, and more heaviness was being put on the ball. Players who would play the baseline, and still look to come in and finish off at net. More finesse in those days, but a powerful finesse. Federer seemed to carry that last torch from those days, into todays modern game. Now, seems no one is trying to come to net whenever possible.
on site note: IMO, I see the late 80’s to appx. 2004 as the golden era of tennis. Before late 80’s, players had good all court play, but it lacked explosiveness and spins. After 2004 ish, now players have 120 sq in. Rackets, and they just spin away from the baseline. The golden era kind of saw artistry and precision with all court play and smaller rackets still, while also having power and intensity in the shotmaking. Grips started rotating, and more heaviness was being put on the ball. Players who would play the baseline, and still look to come in and finish off at net. More finesse in those days, but a powerful finesse. Federer seemed to carry that last torch from those days, into todays modern game. Now, seems no one is trying to come to net whenever possible.
Last edited:
Tennfan123
Legend
Yes.
NEXt!
NEXt!
I have no knowledge regarding the relative speed of the different courts and surfaces today compared to previous years.
One thing, however, that strikes me as very obvious is that the level of physical fitness is at a different level today compared to 15-20 years ago.
During Covid, Eurosport showed a lot of reruns of older matches. The movement, flexibility, strength and endurance of tennis players has IMHO made vast leaps forward in just a decade or two.
For me this counts as a positive, even if it means having to wait longer in a rally for the winning shot. I prefer chess to checkers.
One thing, however, that strikes me as very obvious is that the level of physical fitness is at a different level today compared to 15-20 years ago.
During Covid, Eurosport showed a lot of reruns of older matches. The movement, flexibility, strength and endurance of tennis players has IMHO made vast leaps forward in just a decade or two.
For me this counts as a positive, even if it means having to wait longer in a rally for the winning shot. I prefer chess to checkers.
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
I think it hit a nice balance in the mid 2000s. It allowed for contrasting styles like the classic Fedal matches at Wimbledon, and even Roddick Vs Ferrero at the US Open. It also allowed for slightly longer matches without completely disrupting the schedules.
I hope it doesn't get any slower though. It's not healthy for the players to be out there for 2-3 his every day during the ATP tour, and 3-4 hours (or more!) during the slams, and neither is it particularly exciting watching two guys return the ball at each other in a 50 shot rally because both players know they can't put it away for a winner; we all remember the classic rallies with two guys scrambling desperately to win, but hardly any of them are like that.
I hope it doesn't get any slower though. It's not healthy for the players to be out there for 2-3 his every day during the ATP tour, and 3-4 hours (or more!) during the slams, and neither is it particularly exciting watching two guys return the ball at each other in a 50 shot rally because both players know they can't put it away for a winner; we all remember the classic rallies with two guys scrambling desperately to win, but hardly any of them are like that.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Who plays/played with 120 inch racquet? I can't think of a single player, but I presume you have a ton?
heavyD
Semi-Pro
Court speeds and balls have always fluctuated over the decades. Returners are simply too good today to base a career of strictly an attacking game. You see a lot of players come to the net after a well placed first serve and half the time the returner still manages to hit an incredible angle on the return for either a straight up passing shot or difficult volley that puts the serving player on their heels. I enjoy watching Cressy play because you just don't see that type of player much anymore but he's not going to have a substantial career as the margins are too slim playing that way. Also it's a be careful what you wish for thing as I always found Edberg and a lot of Sampras matches (when he wasn't playing Agassi) to be pretty boring due to the short nature of serve, volley, point over, rinse and repeat. Outside of McEnroe's artistic flair, the rest of the serve and volleyers weren't overly exciting to watch because at its core it's a very robotic form of tennis with little in the way of point construction.
Federev
Legend
Sort of?
I think it’s the homogenization of courts that is bad for the game. There should be
a very fast slams at USO,
a faster grass slam at Wimby
a med slow slam at AO
a very slow slam at RG.
But honestly - those Sampras Wimbledon’s killed tennis watching for me as a kid. Peter was so able to exploit that surface with his serve and 1-2 punch that it was super boring to me.
Then Fed destroying everyone in the 2000s was boring to hear about - I didn’t watch so I didn’t know how captivating his game was till later via YouTube.
I was back in the game in 2012 when the big 4 were all competitive, but the surfaces were relatively similar by then.
Slow courts getting slower and slower destroyed the art of playing all-around tennis. Homogenous conditions only suits for baselined grinder, defense, without having variety of skills to win big matches.
Diversity of court speed(and bounce) demands great challenge for pro tennis players. You have to adapt and be good at all playing style, not just one being dimensional dominant baseliner. Fast court favors attacking tennis, serve/volley, big serve and dominant forehand. Aggressive/offensive style requires more skills than a defensive grinding/pusher specialist.
Would Djokovic win 22 slams and many other tournaments in an diverse environment? Hell no.
The entire article here breaks down the tour have slowed down the courts. Sadly, tennis today is still the same with no variety.
Diversity of court speed(and bounce) demands great challenge for pro tennis players. You have to adapt and be good at all playing style, not just one being dimensional dominant baseliner. Fast court favors attacking tennis, serve/volley, big serve and dominant forehand. Aggressive/offensive style requires more skills than a defensive grinding/pusher specialist.
Would Djokovic win 22 slams and many other tournaments in an diverse environment? Hell no.
The entire article here breaks down the tour have slowed down the courts. Sadly, tennis today is still the same with no variety.
Hard Courts Fast, Clay Slow, Not so much ...
Can we please put this one to bed once and for all? Vidcap from BBC shows a Fed serve in 2008 goes slower and bounces higher, on slowed Wimbledon courts, helping returners. Tennis used to benefit from the variety provided...
jimfawcette.typepad.com
Similar threads
- Poll
