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

Poisoned Slice said:
Tyson Fury led the weakest heavyweight division in history. Its sewer level standard makes Wlad's time on top feel like fine dining.
Click to expand...
Again Fury can be sloppy but he example of how far being big and athletic can get you. Look at Ngannou despite having never really boxed a pro fight.
 
Curious what tennis level The Guru and others who think tennis is dramatically better now than 2009-2012 are. 2011 Djokovic and Nadal would both barely lose matches this year, probably literally 0 until the indoor season. The quality of competition is worse. Nadal himself has spoken candidly in recent years and admitted he used to be a better player in his prime.
 
Kralingen said:
Absolutely not. Jordan fans are constantly talking about how soft the current NBA is and how these pretty boys wouldn’t be able to survive in the 90s. The Jordan fanboys somehow all believe basketball peaked in the 1990s and has now been ruined.

Jordan idolatry mixed with LeBron hatred has literally ruined the way an entire generation views basketball.

Basketball fans are just like tennis fans calling everyone a weak era mug who couldn’t survive in the epic 90s. The irony of saying LeBron who is arguably the most physically imposing player of all time would struggle with physicality is hilarious of course.
Click to expand...
I can see why as a LeBron fan this view may seem prevalent to you but it's really not especially in serious circles (circles like ttw but for basketball). It's a fringe view that no one takes seriously. It's the type of view that someone on First Take says and then everyone laughs at and maybe some dumb people who take that show seriously may adopt it but anyone who knows anything about ball would never say that.

And it's ridiculous that you attributed it to me. Kinda messed up.
 
Last edited:
President said:
Curious what tennis level The Guru and others who think tennis is dramatically better now than 2009-2012 are. 2011 Djokovic and Nadal would both barely lose matches this year, probably literally 0 until the indoor season. The quality of competition is worse. Nadal himself has spoken candidly in recent years and admitted he used to be a better player in his prime.
Click to expand...
He said those years are stronger IIRC but I don't think he is that big on the strength 2009 or 2010 so maybe I was wrong for those 2.
 
Grafil Injection said:
What is the 'evolution' really? Seems like slower courts, slower balls and slightly more spinny strings are the main change. Given that Steffi won 6 RG against players in the first moon-ball era, I don't think she would have struggled to adapt to today's slow game, and obviously her fitness was superior. Good players are just good players, any era.
Click to expand...
The strokes are different.
 
If we time-machine players from the 1970s with 1970s tools, then they will get crushed against modern players. But that's not fair at all to them. That's handicapping them immensely by denying them modern resources such as shoes, nutrition, supplements, sports psychologists, medicine, surgeons, equipment, training, etc, etc, etc.

If they are allowed to grow up with all of the modern advantages, then that will likely be a much different story. This is why it's a completely futile effort to compare players that are several generations apart.

Of course, we all do that; myself included. It's kind of fun arguing the unprovable.

How would Bill Tilden growing up in the modern era do today? I bet that he'd be a very good pro. Would he be better than Federer? I have no idea. It's possible. But who knows? How about Pancho? Same deal, but who really knows? How would Wilt Chamberlain do? I don't know. I think that a 7 foot 1 290 lb guy that had huge hops would probably love growing up in the modern era. But who knows if he'd be better than guys like Giannis, Embiid, and Jokic.
 
The Guru said:
I can see why as a LeBron fan this view may seem prevalent to you but it's really not especially in serious circles (circles like ttw but for basketball). It's a fringe view that no one takes seriously. It's the type of view that someone on First Take says and then everyone laughs at and maybe some dumb people who take that show seriously may adopt it but anyone who knows anything about ball would never say that.

And it's ridiculous that you attributed it to me. Kinda messed up.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's just growing up in NC but I must have heard that same sort of refrain a million times by now. From my coaches, from older people I know, hell even from people my age in college. Not just from the likes of Bayless and Stephen A but it's a very common talking point on Inside the NBA and from former players too.

NBA players are notorious for talking down on today's players and saying 'we had it harder in my era' etc. There is definitely a nostalgia bias, a huge one, in the NBA not just limited to today. I mean Wilt was going on every talk show who would take him to spout off about how he was better than Michael during the 90s lol.

So I think it has more weight in the general consensus than you're making it out. Even online you always get the 'well Jordan didn't get to play with today's spacing and refs imagine him with a 5-out offense' as the ultimate rebuttal. And that is actually a good argument imo Jordan would scale amazingly well if he got to play in someone like SGA's role today.

But no I wouldn't attribute that particular piece to you. I was saying the video where the guy was like 'LeBron is a bum he's not even top 100' is how most Jordan fans argue about LeBron. It's all about poisoning the well for the MJ fanbase.

You ask a LeBron guy who's #1 and #2 all time some might even still pick Jordan. I have long had them as 1a 1b. Some idiots sure but almost all of them respect him and have him top 2.

You ask a Jordan guy, 99% of the time for them LeBron isn't even top 3 (something you yourself do) and in fact, a lot of them try to argue him lower than the likes of Curry or Magic etc. This is what I mean about the rhetorical stances of MJ fans. Well poisoning.
 
McGradey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Kind of like watching NFL the past 10 to 15 yrs. The focus & strategy is on play action 5 yard passes and running yards after the catch. Not exciting.

In tennis, the biggest change I have noticed are the spins on the ball since 2007. I recall watching Gonzalez at the USO from ground level and these guys put all sorts of spin on the ball vs. the 90s. I went to a recent ITF junior tournament at IMG. and every one of these youngsters slides into their shot on a hardcourt. Beautiful to hear but it's a distinct evolution.
 
Last edited:
Third Serve said:
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?
Click to expand...
I agree with the core of your findings. I do believe that poly strings and racquet technology have fueled the power baseline game that you see today. I think you still had plenty of one handed backhands in 2000 and many players couldn’t finish points from that wing. Today, just about all players can finish from either side. You can play aggressive, high percentage tennis…I am not sure you can elevate the game above its current level.
 
Athleticism and technique have evolved for sure. The guys playing today are hitting better balls more often, making far fewer mistakes and leaking far fewer points, moving so much better and exhibiting far better defensive skills.

But, The B3/4 being so good for so long completely robbed three generations of players of the opportunity to really cut their teeth on the big stages.

Hard to say the game is in a better place when there's zero suspense about who wins the big titles.
 
TheFifthSet said:
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.
Click to expand...
agree. it's different thanks to racket and string technology, and players are extending careers thanks to improvements in sports medicine. But it's not like the human body has undergone serious evolutionary change in the past 20 years...the athletes of the past and the athletes of the present are of the same caliber, again with the exception that today we benefit from nutritional/recovery science.

every era makes the most of the equipment and surfaces it's given. tilden, hoad, vines etc. were playing the game at the highest level possible with that gear, just like today novak, fed, nadal etc. do likewise. also just as an aside, some of the older footage of woodie tennis is deceptive, not sure what the deal is...but there are some YT clips at court level with laver, borg etc., and it's a very different look than maybe some people are used to seeing...extremely athletic game and they hit the ball quite hard. today's game is different but maybe not as different as you might think.
 
If you went back in time grabbed peak Mickey Mantle out of the 50s and put him on LSU he would struggle to compete with college competition leave alone the pros. Pitchers now throw harder, smarter, and with more spin than they did in the 1950s theres absolutely no comparison. The average fastball last year was over 95 mph. 20 years ago it was in the high 80s. Can you imagine what it was in the 50s another 50 years ago? Today's pitchers also pitch on a lower mound so add another couple ticks compared to the 50s guys. And that's not even the biggest change. Have you seen the movement today's pitchers are able to achieve it's absolutely outrageous. Do you think they were talking about how to manipulate seam shifted wake for more movement in 1950 or not? I'm gonna go with no. In today's game we have Adonises like Luis Robert who's all of 6'2" 220 pounds covering more ground in CF than Mantle could dream of. He hit a ball over 115 mph and hit a top speed of 20 mph on the basepaths and he probably topped that in the field. He would be an alien in 1950.
Click to expand...

I think it's a little silly to debate the "time machine" scenario re: Mickey Mantle with you. You can say that Mickey would struggle, I would say that he would adjust just fine. But you're sort of missing the point here: why are the pitchers throwing differently than in the 1950s and why is the mound leveled differently? Because of the economics of the game. Recall why the mound was lowered after 1968: the game was too low-scoring. The call was made by the guys on the business side of the game. Pitching has also changed due to the business side of the game, bigger contracts namely. But there's also the advanced stats side, which has ruled that it makes more sense to have more guys pitch because a starting pitcher provides less value after 5/6 innings of work. So now you have a lot of guys pitching fewer innings and throwing extra hard. A pitcher in the 50s wouldn't do that because he had to save himself. The differences between the eras reflect the corporate-economic context: teams working to get a competitive edge on each other (remember Moneyball?).

So the point in all of this is that sports change due to factors that are bigger than the players themselves, and it's all wrapped in the corporate-economics side of sports. It's what makes money, what wins games, what is presumed to improve the business model. The reason I brought up baseball is that it's one sport where you can literally look at an athlete's body from decades ago and not see a significant difference from what is fielded today. And that's because the game hasn't seen the same seismic shifts we've witnessed in tennis. Some changes of course, but not to the same extent.

Babe Ruth ate 6000 calories a day mostly in hot dogs and steaks chainsmoked on the sidelines was a massive alcoholic and was constantly partying and sleeping with prostitutes and he dominated professional baseball. How is this possible? Because the level of professionalism in the game during his time doesn't even compare to today. He would never even sniff the lowest level of minor league baseball if we teleported him to today.
Click to expand...

So what? I'm not suggesting that Babe Ruth would be eating 6,000 calories in today's context. He would obviously have to get with the program, which he absolutely would. I mean you're faulting Babe Ruth for being a man of his time and it's pretty dumb. What else could he be?

Again with the NBA the changes were driven by amazing players and smart coaching. Eventually teams figured out that slow half court offense built around post ups and isolations was inefficient. Getting out in transition is the best way to score and spacing the game out allows for your best players to have the most impact on offense and of course 3>2. Thus pace and space was born driven largely by Nash and D'Antoni and perfected by Kerr and Curry. It wasn't the rules. It was the game moving closer and closer to its platonic ideal over time aided by greater talent. Same thing in baseball with the move towards three true outcome hitting the death of the volume starter and emphasis on power pitching. The 2023 Nuggets would trounce any team from the 2003 NBA. Just the way of the world.
Click to expand...

"Amazing players and smart coaching" is not mutually exclusive from the business side of the game. In recent decades the players have pretty much become a significant component of the business side of the game, ever since Jordan signed that shoe deal. So I'm not sure what you're arguing with here.
 
Kralingen said:
Maybe it's just growing up in NC but I must have heard that same sort of refrain a million times by now. From my coaches, from older people I know, hell even from people my age in college. Not just from the likes of Bayless and Stephen A but it's a very common talking point on Inside the NBA and from former players too.

NBA players are notorious for talking down on today's players and saying 'we had it harder in my era' etc. There is definitely a nostalgia bias, a huge one, in the NBA not just limited to today. I mean Wilt was going on every talk show who would take him to spout off about how he was better than Michael during the 90s lol.

So I think it has more weight in the general consensus than you're making it out. Even online you always get the 'well Jordan didn't get to play with today's spacing and refs imagine him with a 5-out offense' as the ultimate rebuttal. And that is actually a good argument imo Jordan would scale amazingly well if he got to play in someone like SGA's role today.

But no I wouldn't attribute that particular piece to you. I was saying the video where the guy was like 'LeBron is a bum he's not even top 100' is how most Jordan fans argue about LeBron. It's all about poisoning the well for the MJ fanbase.

You ask a LeBron guy who's #1 and #2 all time some might even still pick Jordan. I have long had them as 1a 1b. Some idiots sure but almost all of them respect him and have him top 2.

You ask a Jordan guy, 99% of the time for them LeBron isn't even top 3 (something you yourself do) and in fact, a lot of them try to argue him lower than the likes of Curry or Magic etc. This is what I mean about the rhetorical stances of MJ fans. Well poisoning.
Click to expand...
I guess that was my cue, **a lot of them**
Let's face reality that the coddled thin players today could not handle the physicality and hand-checking of the late 80s and 90s Jordan had to face.
These advanced fitness guys today sit out with sprained fingers, need rest days off, back tweaks, etc. Soft, softies. Soft like cotton candy.
I could name some current players today that would never be as big a star as back then; Anthony Davis comes to mind.
To start off, they're both equally great but we all know they play entirely different positions.

100% of fans today and back then say MJ would play even better today while LeBron's performance in MJ's physical era is in question.
Lebron as muscular as he is complains about a lot of ticky-tack fouls when these were the norm in the 90s driving down the lane.

Now picture Stephen A. Smith talking to you below.
MJ faced a lot of top 50 NBA players of all-time from the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Cavs, Pacers, Magic, Heat, and Knicks with extremely physical players.
I mean. C'mon now. Do I need to really list the stars on those teams? Ok, I get it. Time makes people forget and young people just don't know. Same with rap music.
And then MJ gets to the finals and still has to play against an elite western conf. powerhouse which also has 1 or 2 top 50 players of all time (Blazers, Lakers, Sonics, Suns, Jazz). It was never a cakewalk in the playoffs for MJ ever and he overcame each one.

OTOH, LeBron faced a mediocre Mavs team and young OKC in the finals. He went 1-1. His epic collapse (paired with D-Wade) against the Mavs was sad as were those 1-4 and 0-4 finals losses to the Warriors and Spurs.
www.sportskeeda.com

LeBron James Finals Record: Reviewing LeBron James's six NBA Finals losses

LeBron James is inarguably one of the best in basketball history, for some people he is the greatest of all time, but his finals record might be the Achilles heel of his legacy.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com
Swept in not one, but two finals. That's a dam shame for what some call the greatest or even 1b.

Based on LeBron's finals record as the best player on his team he is not even close to being on par with MJ. He is not 1b. Nope. No way, no how. Else I can take Wilt or Jerry West for making all those finals and losing. Great players? Yes. but not the greatest.
Having said that, I do think if Bron and Kyrie could've worked it out and got another great player and role players his finals records would be better today. But, then I have to rethink that because losing to the Mavs in six with two hall of fame players, Wade and Bosh, was terrible.

I'm really not a Jordan guy. I hated watching him because I knew the outcome. It's just like watching Djokovic. He's too good and I know who will win. I remember turning off the finals games against the Jazz.

6-0 - MJ and six finals MVPs (undisputed); took 2 years off bored of winning and came back to win 3 more in a row.
4-6 - LeBron

I wouldn't give LeBron the edge if he was 8-2 in finals because of the depth of competition MJ had to go through compared to LeBron. The eastern conf. was very, very weak so it was easy for the Cavs to make the finals.

We are in the generation of celebrating participation trophy's and runner-ups as great. I understand people are caught up in the present moment or what they know. I dismissed Elgin Baylor as if he was nothing while my Dad & boomers thought he was great. I didn't see him play at all so I base who the greatest is on what I saw. The difference is I have seen both MJ and Bron play at their peaks and their level of competition.
Let's not use the Horry argument either. We're talking about the best player on the team.
 
Last edited:
80 % Slower surfaces ruined tennis and the diversity in styles , 20% Poly strings... the slower surfaces don't react to slice for example, and volleys (don't skid) and simply just bounce too much up not giving all the advantage to the beseline returner. It basically has killed the nature and essence of tennis in my opinion, and is the main reason i don't watch much tennis anymore. Also makes tennis less interresting for non tennisplayers to watch,(less diversity and cat and mouse rallies) which again makes tennis less popular than in the 80s and 90s...
 
a10best said:
I guess that was my cue, **a lot of them**
Let's face reality the coddled thin players today could not handle the physicality and hand-checking of the late 80s and 90s Jordan had to face.
These advanced fitness guys today sit out with sprained fingers, need rest days off, back tweaks, etc. Soft, softies..
I could name some current players today that would never be as big a star as back then; Anthony Davis comes to mind.
To start off, they're both equally great but we all know play entirely different positions.

100% of fans today and back then say MJ would play even better today while LeBron's performance in MJ's era is in question.
I believe Bron's scoring would be down incl. his already poor FT percentage.
Lebron as muscular as he is complains about a lot of ticky -tack fouls when these were the norm in the 90s driving down the lane.

Now picture Stephen A. Smith talking to you below.
MJ faced a lot of top 50 NBA players of all-time from the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Cavs, Pacers, Magic, Heat, and Knicks with extremely physical players.
I mean. C'mon now. Do I need to really list the stars on those teams? Ok, I get it. Time makes people forget and young people just don't know. Same with rap music.
And then MJ gets to the finals and still has to play against an elite western conf powerhouse which also has 1 or 2 top 50 players of all time. It was never a cakewalk in the playoffs for MJ ever and he overcame each one.

Otoh, LeBron faced a mediocre Mavs team and young OKC in the finals. he went 1-1. His epic collapse (and paired with D-Wade) against the Mavs was sad as were those 1-4 and 0-4 finals losses to the Warriors and Spurs.
www.sportskeeda.com

LeBron James Finals Record: Reviewing LeBron James's six NBA Finals losses

LeBron James is inarguably one of the best in basketball history, for some people he is the greatest of all time, but his finals record might be the Achilles heel of his legacy.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com
Swept in not one, but two finals. That's a dam shame for what some call the greatest or even 1b.

Based on LeBron's finals record as the best player on his team he is not even close to being on par with MJ. He is not 1b? Nope. No way, no how. Else I can take Wilt or Jerry West for making all those finals and losing. Great players? Yes. but not the greatest.
You'd have to be a fool or just hate Jordan. Statistics, performance and results speak volumes.
I do think if Bron and Kyrie could've worked it out and got another great player and role players his finals records would be better today. But, then I have to rethink that because losing to the Mavs in six with two hall of fame players, Wade and Bosh, was terrible.

I'm not really a Jordan guy. I hated watching him because I knew the outcome. It's just like watching Djokovic. He's too good and I know who will win. I remember turning off the finals games against the Jazz.

MJ's team: Scottie, Barkley/Malone, Olajuwon/Ewing, Magic or Stockton vs. Bron's team: Curry/Lillard, Giannis/Jokic, Durant and a player not taking a rest day off.

6-0 - MJ and six finals MVPs (undisputed) ; took 2 years off bored of winning and came back to win 3 more in a row.
4-6 - LeBron

We are in the generation of celebrating participation trophy's and runner-ups as great. I understand people are caught up in the present moment or what they know. I dismissed Elgin Baylor as if he was nothing while boomers thought he was great. It didn't see him play at all so I base who the greatest is on what I saw. The differences is I have seen both MJ and Bron play.
No need to use the Horry argument either. We're talking about the best player on the team.
Click to expand...
You might be right honestly.
 
Kralingen said:
There haven’t been technological changes that make a baseball bat twice as powerful
Click to expand...
I mean, there have been. They just haven't been adopted. If they allowed batters to use graphite bats you would see balls being launched with ease.

Apparently new technology has created a problem in golf courses because golfers can hit the ball significantly further these days
 
In like 40-50 years will we have elite tennis players who are like 7'0?
 
Last edited:
gqnelly said:
I am not sure you can elevate the game above its current level.
Click to expand...
I imagine the present almost always feels like that. For all we know in ten years there'll be a new kind of string that allows players to average 90 mph on forehands while still controlling the ball. Then everyone will look back at the Big 3 and laugh at how slow they hit the ball.
 
morten said:
80 % Slower surfaces ruined tennis and the diversity in styles , 20% Poly strings... the slower surfaces don't react to slice for example, and volleys (don't skid) and simply just bounce too much up not giving all the advantage to the beseline returner. It basically has killed the nature and essence of tennis in my opinion, and is the main reason i don't watch much tennis anymore. Also makes tennis less interesting for non tennisplayers to watch,(less diversity and cat and mouse rallies) which again makes tennis less popular than in the 80s and 90s...
Click to expand...
Agreed. The contrast of styles has always been popular with matchups like Edberg vs. Chang, Sampras vs. Agassi. It was never just a serve and volley era except for Wimbledon.
I take it Murray and Djokovic matches weren't must see matches for you. I intentionally didn't watch just like I wouldn't watch an Isner/Anderson or Sampras/Krajicek match.
 
players today play a more demanding, difficult and faster game than 15-20 years ago. Todays players are better athletes as well and that is a result of the game becoming more demanding and faster. It's just the way it is. The fact is for the top players of 15-20 years ago alot of adjustments would need to be made for them if they'd want to be competitive in 2023. I believe all of them would get dunked on if we had a time machine.

This thread question to me sounds more like "tennis hasn't really evolved the last 20 years". It has, significantly.
 
RF-18 said:
players today play a more demanding, difficult and faster game than 15-20 years ago. Todays players are better athletes as well and that is a result of the game becoming more demanding and faster. It's just the way it is. The fact is for the top players of 15-20 years ago alot of adjustments would need to be made for them if they'd want to be competitive in 2023. I believe all of them would get dunked on if we had a time machine.

This thread question to me sounds more like "tennis hasn't really evolved the last 20 years". It has, significantly.
Click to expand...
2023 Laslo Djere vs. 2007 Djokovic at the US Open?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Kralingen said:
2023 Laslo Djere vs. 2007 Djokovic at the US Open?
Click to expand...
I want to stretch Djokovic fans more on stuff like these but I spam too much.

Some of the relative vs absolute takes do seems far fetched but I also agree on a sizeable amount with a decent chunk of it.
 
RF-18 said:
Top players. Like put Safin of early 00s in todays ATP finals. What do you think is gonna happen to him? He is gonna be competitive?
Click to expand...
The possibility than Safin loses with no prep and being teleported directly from the early 00s is pretty good but what if he gets to adjust for who he is playing in the 2020s?
 
The honest truth is that the overall average top 100 player is better now. But the cream of the crop i.e. the top 20 players are some of the weakest players to occupy these top spots. There’s less variety than ever so for anyone to say that players from 15-20 years ago (one of which is in his late 30’s and still dominating :unsure:) would need to make major adjustments is laughable. There’s been a 20 plus year long stagnation as far as equipment goes since nothing has replaced polyester strings and especially graphite racquets. Tennis was played primarily from the baseline 15-20 years ago too, it’s just that a greater percentage of players were able to play all court tennis. Today’s guys are much more incompetent in the forecourt compared to their predecessors and extension much worse at passing shots since they aren’t being tested in that area nearly as frequently.
 
Last edited:
RF-18 said:
Top players. Like put Safin of early 00s in todays ATP finals. What do you think is gonna happen to him? He is gonna be competitive?
Click to expand...
RS said:
The possibility than Safin loses with no prep and being teleported directly from the early 00s is pretty good but what if he gets to adjust for who he is playing in the 2020s?
Click to expand...
I think if Safin of 2000 got to play the entirety of 2023 and had an offseason to prepare he'd easily be right up there.
 
The Blond Blur said:
The honest truth is that the overall average top 100 player is better now. But the cream of the crop i.e. the top 20 players are some of the weakest players to occupy these top spots. There’s less variety than ever so for anyone to say that players from 15-20 years ago (one of which who is in his late 30’s and still dominating :unsure:) would need to make major adjustments is laughable. There’s been a 20 plus year long stagnation as far as equipment goes since nothing has replaced polyester strings and especially graphite racquets. Tennis is was played primarily from the baseline 15-20, it’s just that a greater percentage of players were able to play all court tennis. Todays guys are much more incompetent in the forecourt compared to their predecessors and extension much worse at passing shots since they aren’t being tested in that area nearly as frequently.
Click to expand...
Stop that. You are making way too much sense now.
 
Kralingen said:
I think if Safin of 2000 got to play the entirety of 2023 and had an offseason to prepare he'd easily be right up there.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about the Agassi's the Sampras's and the Lendl's the Borg's the Pancho's etc etc etc

With no prep they will lose but on a level playing field with everything being equal it's totally different. The same with big 3 compared to the best players in 2060.
 
Last edited:
RS said:
The possibility than Safin loses with no prep and being teleported directly is pretty good but what if he gets to adjust for who he is playing in the 2020s?
Click to expand...

That's where you missed a key part of my post. I said they would need to adjust wich is playing in these times to get prepped. OP was asking has the game really evolved from 20 yeara ago and with such a question there is no adjustments involved or taken into consideration. It's a very straightforward question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
RF-18 said:
That's where you missed a key part of my post. I said they would need to adjust wich is playing in these times to get prepped. OP was asking has the game really evolved from 20 yeara ago and with such a question there is no adjustments involved or taken into consideration. It's a very straightforward question.
Click to expand...
Fair enough I was just asking you though as a separate thing.

Can I ask if this applies to 2011-2013 Djokovic?
 
morten said:
80 % Slower surfaces ruined tennis and the diversity in styles , 20% Poly strings... the slower surfaces don't react to slice for example, and volleys (don't skid) and simply just bounce too much up not giving all the advantage to the beseline returner. It basically has killed the nature and essence of tennis in my opinion, and is the main reason i don't watch much tennis anymore. Also makes tennis less interresting for non tennisplayers to watch,(less diversity and cat and mouse rallies) which again makes tennis less popular than in the 80s and 90s...
Click to expand...
great point on variety of play/cat and mouse-type stuff...agree that is what's fun to watch for non-tennis players. the sport would be smart to make some changes to encourage more of that style of play.
 
RS said:
Can I ask if this applies to 2011-2013 Djokovic?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. But that's a 10-12 year difference, not 20. So the drastic change isn't there quiet yet but still I would claim that certain adjustments and prep would need to be made. It's still 10-12 years, alot happens in a sport during that time frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Red Rick said:
Not just possible but likely, if given no time to adjust.

People conflate "players are better now" with "players should get more respect now". Current players learned to play in a higher level environment ofcourse they're largely better.
Click to expand...
This is akin to today's guitar players. So many technical merchants who can rip and hybrid pick like there's no tomorrow, yet so few stalwarts as there were in bygone eras.
 
This largely depends on your definition of the word evolve.

I think what we are seeing in the present game is a direct result of the style of play of the most successful players. Consistency from the baseline and trying to eventually produce an error in your opponent to set up a putaway shot has become a predominant formula for most players. And it's painfully boring to watch. On the men's side at least, it's promoting this attitude that they have to be able to hit the ball harder and harder if they want to hit a winner because most opponents can run down everything.

I find myself constantly longing for players to mix up the shots with changes of pace and direction so they can come on an approach or finish at the net. Those points are far more exciting than some 40-shot baseline bashfest.
 
Let's flip this around. How does Alcaraz do against Sampras at Wimbledon in 1994(those conditions with the much faster court)? Let's go ahead and time machine Alcaraz there. If you give Alcaraz an 85 inch Wilson racket, then he'd get buried in straights on that fast surface. Even if you give that version of Alcaraz a year to get acclimated to that racket, I'd still pick Sampras in 4 sets max. Sampras had the skills to play on those types of courts and those types of balls.

The game today requires a different skill set. That doesn't mean that the game has evolved. It means that it's simply different. The extreme straight-forward speed required back to get to the net quickly back then is no longer required today(far different from side-to-side speed). The cat-like reflexes are not required like they were then, since 80% of the game is played from the baseline these days. The touch at the net isn't required like it was back then. But today, you need great side-to-side speed, a better backhand, and more endurance than before. Different attributes are needed now. Players have better side-to-side speed before. And they have a lot more endurance than before(on average; there are always exceptions).

I've played competitive racquetball for over 30 years now. People, even today, say I'm very fast. I'm still very quick with my side-to-side speed. But my straight-forward speed is complete garbage, despite my workout routine. I.e, the straight-forward speed has declined much more than the side-to-side speed. That's one physical attribute that goes down the drain as you age. And it starts dropping in your late-20s. And I believe this is yet another reason why players aged much more quickly back then. So many players were done winning slams by age 30 back then(Wilander, Mac, Becker, Edberg, Lendl). Summing up: My endurance held very strong into my mid-30s(as good as my peak years). The side-to-side speed held very strong into my mid-30s(down maybe only 5%). But my straight forward speed was down a good 20% by that age; if not more. And I'm talking about quick bursts of 10-20 feet, not 40 yard dashes or more.

Oh yeah, and don't ever underestimate the shoes and rackets. I had some 150.00 all-court shoes. Many years ago, I switched to racquetball-specific shoes, which also costed 150.00. I couldn't believe how much more agile I was, simply due to that minor tweak in shoes. Nothing like those shoes existed 20+ years ago. As for racket and ball technology, my tennis elbow issues that plagued me in my 20s have been gone since my mid-30s, thanks to the changes in strings, rackets, and the balls. The equipment makes a massive difference. I can't believe it.

So I agree with what Blond Blur said. I believe that the top-100 is better on average. But when looking at the top-5, I don't think there's a difference.
 
RF-18 said:
Yes, it does. But that's a 10-12 year difference, not 20. So the drastic change isn't there quiet yet but still I would claim that certain adjustments and prep would need to be made. It's still 10-12 years, alot happens in a sport during that time fram.
Click to expand...
Fair enough you are pretty consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Tennis has not evolved a great deal since 2000
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
8K
RacquetAbuse101
RacquetAbuse101
Raining hopes
Tennis truly has evolved.
Replies
39
Views
2K
WhiskeyEE
WhiskeyEE
The Dark Knight
Nadal has evolved into an all court phenom.
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
mattennis
M
Spencer Gore
The Myth of the last 15 years has been exposed
2 3
Replies
111
Views
9K
CentreCourt
C
Death Master
The Single Most Destructive Forehand In Tennis In The Last 20 Years
2 3
Replies
144
Views
13K
Death Master
Death Master
Back
Top