How much has tennis actually evolved in the last 15-20 years?

[Third Serve]

There's a common argument that tennis is in a state of continuous evolution whereby one batch of players is better than the previous batch of players and will be superseded by the next batch of players. In essence, the sport is always refining and perfecting itself.

It's not difficult to see how this may have been the case in the 1970's to 2000's. There were huge, sweeping changes in the very nature of the sport, such as the movement away from heavy wooden rackets with tiny frames, the gradual reduction of grass and later carpet courts on the tour, and the onset of poly strings to largely replace gut strings. In fact, you could make a decent argument that the reason all-time greats in these eras didn't really have stellar longevity compared to the generations before them (which included guys like Rosewall who competed in the late rounds of Slams in their late 30's and even early 40's) or the generations after them (like the Big 3) was because their playing styles were made obsolete as they were playing, which phased them out of the sport rather early by modern standards. At least that's the argument.

I personally think that whether tennis is evolving or not means little for GOAT debates and the like because past players never really had the benefits enjoyed by current players and current players never had to deal with the circumstances that limited the games and careers of past players. I believe talent has a way of shining through no matter the circumstances which is why I hold a very high opinion of the old greats even though modern players like the Big 3 have statistically blown them out of the water. So this isn't about the GOAT debate.

This is about the actual physical evolutions in tennis that have occurred since the 2000's. To what extent has tennis actually evolved over the last fifteen years?

By my estimate, all of the completely revolutionary changes in the sport had ceased at this point. Poly had been around for a while by the mid to late 2000's and a lot of the old school players were retired at this point, their games somewhat neutralized by this new technology (and perhaps some changes in the Wimbledon surface that had occurred in 2001). Over the next several years, I haven't really seen too much change in the way the sport has been played. Perhaps a few medicinal and training advancements have occurred, maybe, but beyond that I don't think the sport has really evolved that much since like 2006 or 2007. Without a significant change in technology or conditions, I think the sport has kinda plateaued, and I think it's been sitting on this plateau for a while. What do you guys think?

 

[onehandbh]

There are some that believe that the current generatation are the best ever. That Medvedev, Alcaraz, Rublev, Tsitsipas, Sinner, Zverev, Rune, and Ruud would have beaten Nadal and Federer if they played from 2004 - 2009.

Accorind to this thinking, never has the #1 player ever had to face a top 10 that would have each won 5+ slams if they had played in a different era.

Imagine ATG clay courter Ruud going against Lew Hoad or Pancho Gonzalez at Roland Garros. Ruud would have wiped them out in straight sets.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Basically agree with all of your insights. Poly’s far-reaching changes (and getting used to them, until the meta stabilized) is most of why tennis is more impressive-looking today as compared to, say, 2001. As soon as poly became widespread (sometime in the early 2000’s), first serve-in %’s improved dramatically…from 57.5% in ‘00 to 60.3% in ‘04. That probably didn’t happen organically.


how much physical “”””evolution”””” (the term is misused plenty on here, but I know you’re just using it as shorthand) was there? Probably not a lot. I manually tallied up heights in ‘09, not much difference in the top 50 so even the “tennis is getting bigger” meme is overblown. Serves aren’t hit much harder, sliding is down to shoe selection and the aforementioned shifts in meta/training (@Kralingen’s post referencing Hewitt’s late-career change in footwear and resultant reliance on sliding is a helpful nugget), groundstrokes are probably a bit faster even when accounting for all the variables , but the effect is exaggerated by having more prep time enabled by deeper court positioning.

 

[President]

Basically agree with all of your insights. Poly’s far-reaching changed (and getting used to them, until the meta stabilized) is most of why tennis is more impressive-looking today as compared to, say, 2001. As soon as poly became widespread (sometime in the early 2000’s), first serve-in %’s improved dramatically…from 57.5% in ‘00 to 60.3% in ‘04. That probably didn’t happen organically.


how much physical “”””evolution”””” (the term is misused aplenty on here, but I know you’re just using it as shorthand) was there? Probably not a lot. I manually tallied up heights in ‘09, not much difference in the top 50 so even the “tennis is getting bigger” meme is overblown. Serves aren’t hit much harder, sliding is down to shoe selection and the aforementioned shifts in meta/training (@Kralingen’s post reference Hewitt’s late-career change in footwear and resultant reliance on sliding is a helpful nugget), groundstrokes are probably a bit faster in a vacuum, but the effect is exaggerated by having more prep time enabled by deeper court positioning.

Great post. I think one notable difference is the emergence of the “servebot pusher” style, which Med, Z, and Hurkacz exemplify. This style really wasn’t seen much back in the day, with the possible exception of mid-late career Andy Roddick. Re hitting harder, I think the top players in the late 2000s and early 2010s chose to hit with more spin.

 

[DSH]

One word: Regression.
The last few years are a perfect example that there is no generation of great players that has broken with the status quo.
Apart from the fact that they have many technical, tactical and strategic deficiencies, the excessive increase in monetary prizes has meant that the vast majority are happy with winning a lot of money at the expense to achieve eternal glory.
They are content with being famous and not so much with following the legacy of the great tennis players who have preceded them.

 

[The Blond Blur]

 

[TheFifthSet]

Great post. I think one notable difference is the emergence of the “servebot pusher” style, which Med, Z, and Hurkacz exemplify. This style really wasn’t seen much back in the day, with the possible exception of mid-late career Andy Roddick. Re hitting harder, I think the top players in the late 2000s and early 2010s chose to hit with more spin.

Yeah their emergence as a player-type has been notable (and dull, but that’s another discussion LOL). Before them the tree’ers played with the same aggression off the ground as on the delivery, with a few exceptions (Pancho? But he wasn’t a pushbot by any means, just favoured variety over power-groundstroking).

 

[nolefam_2024]

Yeah their emergence as a player-type has been notable (and dull, but that’s another discussion LOL). Before them the tree’ers played with the same aggression off the ground as on the delivery, with a few exceptions (Pancho? But he wasn’t a pushbot by any means, just favoured variety over power-groundstroking).

How is Servebot not a style in 90s? I see it as natural progression. What is rare is someone like Zverev who can play servebot pusher tennis.

 

[TheFifthSet]

How is Servebot not a style in 90s? I see it as natural progression. What is rare is someone like Zverev who can play servebot pusher tennis.

The combo of servebotting and pushbotting, not regular serve-botting. We are in agreement.

 

[NedStark]

Yeah their emergence as a player-type has been notable (and dull, but that’s another discussion LOL). Before them the tree’ers played with the same aggression off the ground as on the delivery, with a few exceptions (Pancho? But he wasn’t a pushbot by any means, just favoured variety over power-groundstroking).

Actually most of these giraffes used to be serve-and-volleyers (like Pancho, Becker…)

Berdych/Delpo-like players did not really emerge until the 1990s - I think Magnus Larsson was among the first of this type.

And tall servebot pushers are absolutely a new thing - but it seems like they are a temporary phenomenon. Tall Gen-2000 players like FAA, Sinner and Shelton are aggressive.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Actually most of these giraffes used to be serve-and-volleyers (like Pancho, Becker…)

Berdych/Delpo-like players did not really emerge until the 1990s - I think Magnus Larsson was among the first of this type.

And tall servebot pushers are absolutely a new thing - but it seems like they are a temporary phenomenon. Tall Gen-2000 players like FAA, Sinner and Shelton are aggressive.

I agree, maybe I didn’t word my reply well but this is basically in lockstep with my views.

Pancho did s+v but played with variety and touch when confined to the baseline.

Hoping bolded is true.

 

[Deleted member 295013]

I personally find myself watching old videos of the 80s. I simply cant watch modern tennis anymore. Its simply just a slug fest to see who can outlast the other. No beauty in this modern style at all..

 

[socallefty]

Hopefully you watched some pro tournaments in person 10-15 years ago. Go watch some now and you can make up your own mind on whether tennis has evolved positively or not. You can’t form a realistic opinion about this by just watching on TV.

 

[Bubcay]

Hopefully you watched some pro tournaments in person 10-15 years ago. Go watch some now and you can make up your own mind on whether tennis has evolved positively or not. You can’t form a realistic opinion about this by just watching on TV.

This^^^^. It is miles faster in real life than on TV and comparing current levels of physical fitness, power, etc. with the past ages is not even funny.

 

[socallefty]

It is miles faster in real life than on TV

It is not that it is faster in real life. It is more that on TV, you can’t see a 5 mph difference in shot speed or a 200 RPM increase in spin unless the commentators mention it. In person, you can clearly notice these nuances between different players, different shots hit by the same player or players from the past. That’s why on TV, WTA players playing at UTR levels of 12-13 can look almost as good as ATP players playing at UTR levels of 15-16. In person, the difference is striking especially in speed of movement, serve speed and shot spin.

 

[Deleted member 295013]

Hopefully you watched some pro tournaments in person 10-15 years ago. Go watch some now and you can make up your own mind on whether tennis has evolved positively or not. You can’t form a realistic opinion about this by just watching on TV.

I won`t go into my tennis background. However, I will state that I have been to many tournaments all over the world (including GS`s) since the mid 1980`s. Although I am currently living overseas. My local tennis club when home is at Pat Rafter Arena at the Queensland Tennis Centre in Brisbane. I have seen a lot of tennis up close and personal. I don`t find the modern game exciting at all.

I simply expressed an opinion. As I am sure you understand, I am allowed to do...

 

[Deleted member 295013]

This^^^^. It is miles faster in real life than on TV and comparing current levels of physical fitness, power, etc. with the past ages is not even funny.

I never compared anything. I just said that I have gone back to watching old matches, as modern tennis doesn`t appeal to me. In person, or on TV.

 

[Kralingen]

The average top 100 player is by far the best it’s ever been. Fitness is taken more seriously and players are more explosive, fit, and conditioned than ever before. Poly strings allow ludicrous amounts of spin. This leads to grueling rallies becoming the norm, the level of “buy-in” in any given baseline rally is higher than in any decade previous.

The mass advent of sliding completely changed the way the game is played on hard courts. Serving, in accuracy, spin, and power is the best it’s ever been. Players can generate more spin and power off the same balls than they could 20 years ago, and the game is constantly faster and faster.

Players actively try to play defense on every point. This did not happen 20 years ago. It just didn’t. Players gave up on trying to reach winners far more easily back then. Now players run and stretch for everything.

And yet, the game is duller. Players are raised in baseline factories and lack forecourt skills. Most have a 2HBH and find themselves converging on the same style of play.

We all thought that Fedal would define an era, but that hasn’t been the case at all. Federer has almost zero acolytes in the current game, aside from the ascendant Dimitrov. Nadal has Casper Ruud and little else.

No, little did we know, Murray-Djokovic matches were the archetype, the blueprint, the genesis from which 2010s tennis onwards would flow.

Watch this video between two random ~70 ranked players and all will become immediately clear.

 

[The Sinner]

Perhaps they are hitting harder on average than 15-20 years ago, but other than that it’s hard to see how much more it’s evolved. I mean, take the best two non-Big 3 of last couple years, Alcaraz and Medvedev… I’m struggling to see which slam(s) they’d win if they were teleported back to 2004-07.

 

[Kralingen]

By the way, I don’t think the level of tennis has really changed at all since the early 2010s. Maybe average depth has gotten better.

What has changed is just the generation of players who grew up with poly strings and footwear you could slide in, who idolized the Big 3 instead of Sampras, Kuerten, and Agassi growing up. This just means more convergence and standardization.

 

[Cortana]

Is there a way of actually telling if todays young players would have beaten Federer and Nadal in the 00s? I mean some stats? Forehand speed, running speed etc.?

 

[Deleted member 295013]

Is there a way of actually telling if todays young players would have beaten Federer and Nadal in the 00s? I mean some stats? Forehand speed, running speed etc.?

To me, its all relative. Look at someone like Boris Becker. On his day, I believe he would have matched it with Federer. And with todays tech, keep up with todays crop. Same with top of his career Pete Sampras v Federer. Top of his game Agassi would have held his own against Nadal, just out of pure determination. Marit Safin could definately keep up with these guys today power wise. Not so much as in power. But Hewitt would still run everything these guys do down. The only thing that has changed is the technology. But asthetically, it is now quite boring.

 

[DSH]

I personally find myself watching old videos of the 80s. I simply cant watch modern tennis anymore. Its simply just a slug fest to see who can outlast the other. No beauty in this modern style at all..

Joker is outlasting opponents 10, 15 years younger than him, funny, right?

 

[Deleted member 295013]

Joker is outlasting opponents 10, 15 years younger than him, funny, right?

Yes, because he is not a one dementional bludgener of the tennis ball. Although he can go into that mode if needed.

 

[DSH]

Yes, because he is not a one dementional bludgener of the tennis ball. Although he can go into that mode if needed.

Of course not, he is a big bad wolf next to defenseless puppies.

 

[McGradey]

The average top 100 player is by far the best it’s ever been. Fitness is taken more seriously and players are more explosive, fit, and conditioned than ever before. Poly strings allow ludicrous amounts of spin. This leads to grueling rallies becoming the norm, the level of “buy-in” in any given baseline rally is higher than in any decade previous.

The mass advent of sliding completely changed the way the game is played on hard courts. Serving, in accuracy, spin, and power is the best it’s ever been. Players can generate more spin and power off the same balls than they could 20 years ago, and the game is constantly faster and faster.

Players actively try to play defense on every point. This did not happen 20 years ago. It just didn’t. Players gave up on trying to reach winners far more easily back then. Now players run and stretch for everything.

And yet, the game is duller. Players are raised in baseline factories and lack forecourt skills. Most have a 2HBH and find themselves converging on the same style of play.

We all thought that Fedal would define an era, but that hasn’t been the case at all. Federer has almost zero acolytes in the current game, aside from the ascendant Dimitrov. Nadal has Casper Ruud and little else.

No, little did we know, Murray-Djokovic matches were the archetype, the blueprint, the genesis from which 2010s tennis onwards would flow.

Watch this video between two random ~70 ranked players and all will become immediately clear.

Great post mate.

Modern tennis bears an uncanny similarity to the relentless topspin rallies of table tennis.

There’s a procedural feeling to many matches. Both players follow the same process in a visually similar way.

But look how everyone jumped on Carlos, it’s at least partly because he highlights some of the different dynamics of tennis that were starting to fade into the background. He’s not cookie cutter.

Like with most forms of entertainment, once a status quo has been maintained for a lengthy period, some people will start to want a shake up, some fresh elements in the mix. It feels like we’re hitting that point with the game.

To me, it is simply boring watching Zverev play his defensive tennis, and most guys now play more like this rather than trying to attack like Alcaraz.

I have noticed a similar trend in other sports, where defences have gotten so much better with modern tech and analysis that it’s often not the percentage play to try and attack — it’s considered too risky. There’s a preference for low-risk attritional tactics that gradually wear down the defence rather than the riskier dash of uptempo attacking play.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Modern tennis bears an uncanny similarity to the relentless topspin rallies of table tennis. There’s a procedural feeling to many matches. Both players follow the same process in a visually similar way.


I have noticed a similar trend in other sports, where defences have gotten so much better with modern tech and analysis that it’s often not the percentage play to try and attack — it’s considered too risky. There’s a preference for low-risk attritional tactics that gradually wear down the defence rather than uptempo attacking play.

Good observations. I sense that the tech innovations like poly, deeper analysis and greater fitness have shifted the game over the last two decades to the current meta. Federer has in retrospective increasingly become the great outlier despite personally revolutionising the game in many ways.

The last number 1 which was not an outstanding defensive player was Federer but who was there before him? Roddick? Even among the top 5 of the last years I see only Tsitsipas as an attacking player with clear defensive weaknesses. Alcaraz is truly the combination of gritty defence and creative attack.

Still there is hope, and in the last years I have noticed that more players are trying to mix in attacking tennis, especially in combination with the great serving we so often see nowadays. Djokovic is maybe the best example. But there seems no way to have big long-term success without mastering the new meta where defence is fundamental.

To make a prediction, I don't think we will see a number 1 with fewer than 35% return points won in the next seven years. Arguably the mark should be higher.

 

[ChrisRF]

There are some that believe that the current generatation are the best ever. That Medvedev, Alcaraz, Rublev, Tsitsipas, Sinner, Zverev, Rune, and Ruud would have beaten Nadal and Federer if they played from 2004 - 2009.

Accorind to this thinking, never has the #1 player ever had to face a top 10 that would have each won 5+ slams if they had played in a different era.

Imagine ATG clay courter Ruud going against Lew Hoad or Pancho Gonzalez at Roland Garros. Ruud would have wiped them out in straight sets.

I would like to see ONE tournament per year with modern equipment on that kind of surface. Exactly ONE, because I actually like to watch tennis normally, but I would just be interested how it looks like. And let's say once per year, because new players always arrive and others may be in different form compared to last year.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I think @Rovesciarete nailed it mentioning the deeper analysis in tennis now (also agree with his remark about return stats).

Data aggregation and analysis is the big development in tennis over the last decade and it’s scary what the top players have access to. It’s hard to quantify because it’s off court and invisible in a way.

The access to expensive data teams or lack thereof has been one of the most glaring examples of the poverty gap in tennis, but the ATP has addressed this somewhat and announced a platform available to all players this year, which is huge.

@Third Serve - which decade in the open era had the biggest “jump” or progression in your opinion?

It can be for any reason - ie off court stuff, playing style, athleticism, growth of the game etc etc.

Even starting at ‘68, I’m inclined to think the biggest changes might have been either from the 60s decade into the 70s, or the 80s into the 90s.

 

[Halfdan]

But look how everyone jumped on Carlos, it’s at least partly because he highlights some of the different dynamics of tennis that were starting to fade into the background. He’s not cookie cutter.

Like with most forms of entertainment, once a status quo has been maintained for a lengthy period, some people will start to want a shake up, some fresh elements in the mix. It feels like we’re hitting that point with the game.

I was about to formulate a post emphasising these points, but you basically said it better and more succinctly than I would have been able to.

A lot has been said about baseline bashers and pushers etc, but I still believe there's room in the modern game for variation and cleverness. Some of the younger guys are making better use of slice shots, drop shots and angles than I've seen for quite a few years. Still a lot of room to explore or rediscover these aspects though.

To me, what separates the great players from the good is no different in tennis than in any other sport. The best players make smarter decisions.
That's where their true advantage lies, more than in superior technique, fitness etc.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Ferrer would beat Tsitsipas so let’s start there

 

[NatF]

Considering that 40 year old one legged Federer was making 4R and QF appearances at slams in 2021 its not improved much at all...

 

[tennis_pro]

evolving backwards

there's some hierarchy at least for now, but you'll see it when djokovic stops winning and alcaraz doesn't immidiately take over

 

[RS]

People are using it to say guys like Jordan and Ali and Sampras would be pub players if they played today. While others go overboard and say they would win without breaking sweat

 

[Rovesciarete]

The access to expensive data teams or lack thereof has been one of the most glaring examples of the poverty gap in tennis, but the ATP has addressed this somewhat and announced a platform available to all players this year, which is huge.

Easy access is a huge step forward. Still there is a lot on the table for the professionals. I'm increasingly convinced that one of the greatest assets on the tour is to be a good manager. There is just so much stuff to do in an intelligent manner. Having a great resources and a good staff is an incredible advantage.

On the very top level it was quite interesting to see how Medvedev countered at once Sinner's serve and volley strategy after putting the ball out wide to his forehand. It was almost automatic, indicating quite the level of prep.I had also a bit of fun trying to anticipate patterns of play in Vienna as both tried to counter each other strengths.

Sadly the on court coaching will likely make it more difficult for weaker players to defeat better ones creatively. We will have more data analysis and player management live.

 

[mike danny]

Considering the fact that a 36 year old is the most dominant guy on the planet, no it hasn't evolved.

 

[Pheasant]

The human race has evolved immensely in the last 15-20 years. Neanderthal men from 2004 were quite different from the hybrid humans of today. Now, humans are a foot taller, 30 lbs heavier on average, despite having half the body fat.

Case in point. Federer was at his peak physically in 2021. He was so much faster and stronger that year, when compared to 2004-06. I couldn’t believe how fast Fed was in 2021; probably 10 mph faster than in 2004. He was even 6 inches taller as well. And yet, Fed quit after winning his first 3 matches at the FO. He was well-rested after not playing for 14 months. So he had a huge advantage heading into the 2021 FO. But he’s a Neanderthal man from a different era. He just wasn’t evolved enough. He figured that out, which is why he forfeited R4.

I’m convinced that Casper Ruud would slug Pete Sampras off the court at Wimbledon on the fast grass. . He’s simply too evolved. Pete with super-advanced 85 inch Wilson racket only peaked out at 136 mph during his match against Federer. Ruud with that racket would win 95% of his return points against Pete on that Wimbledon court using that same 85 inch racket.

But it’s not a fair comparison. Comparing Sampras to Ruud is like comparing a 1920s sedan to a 2023 hopped up Tesla for racing purposes. It’s not fair.

 

[nolefam_2024]

The human race has evolved immensely in the last 15-20 years. Neanderthal men from 2004 were quite different from the hybrid humans of today. Now, humans are a foot taller, 30 lbs heavier on average, despite having half the body fat.

Case in point. Federer was at his peak physically in 2021. He was so much faster and stronger that year, when compared to 2004-06. I couldn’t believe how fast Fed was in 2021; probably 10 mph faster than in 2004. He was even 6 inches taller as well. And yet, Fed quit after winning his first 3 matches at the FO. He was well-rested after not playing for 14 months. So he had a huge advantage heading into the 2021 FO. But he’s a Neanderthal man from a different era. He just wasn’t evolved enough. He figured that out, which is why he forfeited R4.

I’m convinced that Casper Ruud would slug Pete Sampras off the court at Wimbledon on the fast grass. . He’s simply too evolved. Pete with super-advanced 85 inch Wilson racket only peaked out at 136 mph during his match against Federer. Ruud with that racket would win 95% of his return points against Pete on that Wimbledon court using that same 85 inch racket.

But it’s not a fair comparison. Comparing Sampras to Ruud is like comparing a 1920s sedan to a 2023 hopped up Tesla for racing purposes. It’s not fair.

The sarcasm is good..

But compare Federer serve at his start of the career vs serve at the ending.

He was bang average on serve speed by the end and game had Evolved. Same thing happens with every gen. Stronger opponents physically.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Good discussion!
I'm not sure what evolution would look like, but perhaps, that is the point.

Would it take a rule change, equipment/technology changes or simply a great player or two?

With Alcaraz, there is some promise on the latter aspect, and in him, one can see elements of each of the Big3.

I don't know that it's a great evolution (let alone, better or more exciting tennis) but one thing I saw when Med, Zv and Tsit emerged was big guys who could really move. Tsit plays more aggressively, and I get the servebot/pushbot descriptions (often) of Med and Zed. But if they played power tennis, would that be an evolution?

Today, to generalize, I probably see more drop shots and angles, if nothing all that innovative. What's most missing is that great player and rivalries to supplant the Big 3 -- tough acts to follow.

(Is a lot of this analytics-based? It's changed the NBA, to simplify, into 3-point shooting contests, and MLB into more relief pitching and hitters thinking more about launch angles and hitting home runs rather than playing "little ball". Evolutions? Yes. Improvements? Not sure.)

 

[nolefam_2024]

Good discussion!
I'm not sure what evolution would look like, but perhaps, that is the point.

Would it take a rule change, equipment/technology changes or simply a great player or two?

With Alcaraz, there is some promise on the latter aspect, and in him, one can see elements of each of the Big3.

I don't know that it's a great evolution (let alone, better or more exciting tennis) but one thing I saw when Med, Zv and Tsit emerged was big guys who could really move. Tsit plays more aggressively, and I get the servebot/pushbot descriptions (often) of Med and Zed. But if they played power tennis, would that be an evolution?

Today, to generalize, I probably see more drop shots and angles, if nothing all that innovative. What's most missing is that great player and rivalries to supplant the Big 3 -- tough acts to follow.

(Is a lot of this analytics-based? It's changed the NBA, to simplify, into 3-point shooting contests, and MLB into more relief pitching and hitters thinking more about launch angles and hitting home runs rather than playing "little ball". Evolutions? Yes. Improvements? Not sure.)

 

[Benf15harp]

it has evolved into pickleball. Pbtv!

 

[DSH]

Considering the fact that a 36 year old is the most dominant guy on the planet, no it hasn't evolved.

Joker is peaking at 36, according to his fans, pal.

 

[tudwell]

It's easy to see certain changes across time – the added power of graphite and larger racquet heads, for example. The game on faster services was much bigger in 1990 than it was in 1980. Poly killed serve-and-volley as the percentage, default play. Etc.

When people start asking how the game's evolved in the last 10 or 15 years, I find it harder to pinpoint things that are truly obvious to the naked eye. There do seem to be some shifts – sliding on hard courts, for example, which greatly altered the nature of defensive plays, especially on the backhand side. Almost everyone these days can crack 130 mph on serve, even someone with a "weak" serve like Alcaraz (although he clearly sacrifices placement, so is it even a net improvement in such cases?). But I'd love to see hard numbers as far as average groundstroke speed, spin, depth, etc. How far each player ran per rally. Things of that sort.

None of us, no matter how much tennis we watch, can generate more than a fairly blurry impression of a small slice of all the matches played. What you choose to watch and your own disposition toward it is going to greatly color your impression of the game and its evolution. I wish tennis had more extensive analytics that were publicly available. As it stands, we can make informed, though fairly inexact, opinions on this kind of thing, but ultimately there's little that's truly tangible to pick up and set side-by-side and compare.

 

[shamaho]

Imagine ATG clay courter Ruud going against Lew Hoad or Pancho Gonzalez at Roland Garros. Ruud would have wiped them out in straight sets.

I totally disagree lets have Ruud play with the same gear and shoes as those greats you mention... those shoes (or maybe those of a decade earlier) would classify as barefoot shoes today...

Have you seen that video with Rublev and Dimitrov playing with classic wooden rackets ? they basically resorted to the exact same style as those greats you see on the B&W vids...

 

[Baseline_Bungle]

Decent insight to be found in this thread. Let me sum it up to the best of my ability:

Science, technology and artificial intelligence are slowly destroying tennis. Just like they are destroying everything else - including humanity as a whole.

 

[ErrorMachine]

Whatever is going on, I like it. The power and speed these players possess are amazing. The players of the past were also amazing athletes but limited due to gear. Even watching the Challengers is a treat as these players can absolutely blast the ball, then drop it right over the net. I think the current player generations close, but it’ll be interesting to compare 2010-2025 to 2035+ to see how much/if the game is changing.

 

[InsideOut900]

Fed's gen was essentially the transition generation between the aggressive players of a 90s to today's style of play, mostly dropping SnV and opting for aggressive baselining and first strike tennis from the baseline.

With Djoko, Nadal and Murray, as well as courts getting slower, tennis shifted from aggressive baselining to a milder aggression style, residing between power hitting and grinding, which has defined tennis since.

The evolution of tennis is mostly determined by equipment changes and with poly being the standard for like 20 years now, it's only adaptions based on what works best. Speed of play hasn't improved, tennis is less aggressive and rallies tend to be more about outlasting.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Fed's gen was essentially the transition generation between the aggressive players of a 90s to today's style of play, mostly dropping SnV and opting for aggressive baselining and first strike tennis from the baseline.

With Djoko, Nadal and Murray, as well as courts getting slower, tennis shifted from aggressive baselining to a milder aggression style, residing between power hitting and grinding, which has defined tennis since.

Key to modern baseline tennis is the combination of power and spin from both sides, enabling to play high percentage balls with depth and weight. Without that ability you will not do very well at the highest level of the tour. Key to a modern defence is the ability to restrain or limit the attack. Medvedev is a pusher which doesn't often push, he reflects flat and deep. Maybe he has shifted towards this style due to a lack of natural power, so this might be one way to individually adapt to the current tennis meta...

 

[InsuranceMan]

It is not that it is faster in real life. It is more that on TV, you can’t see a 5 mph difference in shot speed or a 200 RPM increase in spin unless the commentators mention it. In person, you can clearly notice these nuances between different players, different shots hit by the same player or players from the past. That’s why on TV, WTA players playing at UTR levels of 13-14 can look almost as good as ATP players playing at UTR levels of 15-16. In person, the difference is striking especially in speed of movement, serve speed and shot spin.

No WTA players are playing at the 14 level

 

[wang07]

It's all about percentages and probabilities on the long run, and with excessive court homogenization, better defensive skills are becoming more and more rewarding. It is somewhat counterintuitive* to admit as a viewer, but if players are more effective, then by definition that is evolution, isn't it?

*But there might be a strange problem. I'm inclined to believe (and this is subjective) that there comes a point when entertainment value is almost entirely nullified by evolution and technology. And this is true in general, just think of the famous saying "a perfectly played game of football will always be 0-0", or top chess players playing more and more like computers resulting in draws 65-70% of the time, dominance in F1 taken to unprecedented levels, etc.

Tennis is no exception. Ultimately the "necessary human error" that makes for great entertainment will disappear as the game becomes more understood and refined, backed up by immense amounts of data and stats. The only reason we don't see entire TBs and sets with virtually no UEs regularly is because there's only one Djokovic out there today - but it will happen and eventually become the "norm", as uncanny as it may sound.

Next to all of this there is also a "lack of great talent" problem, but that is a different discussion. What's relevant here is that todays players possess the most reliable shots, while both serve and groundstroke average speeds are increasing, so strictly speaking, 'evolution' is and has been constant for the last 10-20 years. And it can be true even if entertainment and variety are undeniably on the decline (this is why there is a conflict around a statistically improving field that somehow appears to be weaker) - that said, it'd be foolish to criticize players and coaches for developing a style and approach that is proven to hold up and win over a long period of time.

Spoiler