How much has Tennis actually evolved over the past 20 years?

[aman92]

I started following tennis regularly in 2005, right at the start of the Big 3 era. While over the past 2 decades there have been changes in court speeds, equipment, general ball striking intensity, if I go back and watch clips of top matches from that era - the level of gameplay doesn't seem significantly different from what it is today.

Conversely, if back in 2005, I was watching clips from 1984 - that truly felt an ancient era in terms of tactics, equipment, courts and general level of play.

Is it just my eye test going wrong or there truly hasn't been that much evolution in the past 20 years? The fact that a player who emerged in that era (Djokovic) is still no. 3 speaks volumes on this. Even Nadal has multiple victories over the 2 dominant players of this era when he was on his last legs.

 

[paolo2143]

I was rewatching the 2011 and 2015 Wimbledon finals , and 2012 Australian open and RG 2013 and to me there is not much difference in power and speed of top few players today, than then.

However, i would say more top 20 players are hitting the ball harder than top 20 from those days.

 

[Racquet_smash]

The idea that what follows the past is automatically better than it is detatched from reality.

Involutions exist as much evolutions.

 

[junior74]

I think "evolved" is wrong word. Today's players are glued to the baseline or a meter behind it and there is a lack variation in game styles.

20 years is a very short time. Many top players of today look one-dimensional and unskilled compared to Fedal from 20 years ago.

 

[Gastino]

Is it just my eye test going wrong or there truly hasn't been that much evolution in the past 20 years? The fact that a player who emerged in that era (Djokovic) is still no. 3 speaks volumes on this. Even Nadal has multiple victories over the 2 dominant players of this era when he was on his last legs.

You have a agassi problem in your equation. Agassi started in the 80's and was doing just fine mid 00's like novak. Which further proves that ATG's trenscend eras.
You can look at Nadal's example and do the same parallel with Sampras who also had success in the early 00's. Sampras also started in the 80's like agassi.

 

[Gastino]

I think "evolved" is wrong word. Today's players are glued to the baseline or a meter behind it and there is a lack variation in game styles.

20 years is a very short time. Many top players of today look one-dimensional and unskilled compared to Fedal from 20 years ago.

Point taken but these players adapt to the meta and demands of the current game , we don't know how they would play 20 years earlier.
Nadalovic are actually the precursors to these baseline style so there's that.

 

[junior74]

Point taken but these players adapt to the meta and demands of the current game , we don't know how they would play 20 years earlier.
Nadalovic are actually the precursors to these baseline style so there's that.

We could say tennis players develop physically, because the game today demands a different sort of fitness, because the game is more physical.
But tennis itself has become less exciting because it lacks diversity - as I see it.

 

[Gastino]

tennis itself has become less exciting because it lacks diversity.

I agree with you there , that's why i mostly always root for the more skilled players rather than the muscle freaks who rely solely on power and serve i.e FAA.
But again let's not forget that the physical demands to be a great was exacerbated by the 2 greats nadal/djoko. Contrary to felix they are highly skilled though .

I personally enjoy the Carlos/Sinner matches as much as the fedal matches if not more. More than the Nedalovic matches for sure.
There are still lots of entertaining players in the game such as carlos, dimi, TP, Sinner, Musetti, Tien, Fonseca etc.

 

[tennis_pro]

I dont think tennis has evolved since 2005 that much. Fed was the guy that took the game light years ahead and everyone had to step up.

There's a huge difference between 1990 and 2005, but 2005 to now I dont think so. Players hit harder on average, but they also have way less variety. It's more adjustment than evolution.

 

[junkieballer]

Evolution stopped in 2009 for Fed fans and in 2014 for Nadal fans

 

[Gastino]

I dont think tennis has evolved since 2005 that much. Fed was the guy that took the game light years ahead and everyone had to step up.

There's a huge difference between 1990 and 2005, but 2005 to now I dont think so. Players hit harder on average, but they also have way less variety. It's more adjustment than evolution.

You cannot overlook Nadal/Djoko who developped styles to counter Fed (in novak's case both fed/nadal) with a strong baseline penchant. The modern players developped their games based on those 2 rather than Fed Because:
1) It's a less risk-averse style
2) Fed was supremely talented with the racket so harder to emulate though some tried like stefanos for example.

The meta in tennis always evolves based on the best players in said era , it's not a sport where people use datascience to come up with new ways to play.

 

[tennis_pro]

You cannot overlook Nadal/Djoko who developped styles to counter Fed (in novak's case both fed/nadal) with a strong baseline penchant. The modern players developped their games based on those 2 rather than Fed Because:
1) It's a less risk-averse style
2) Fed was supremely talented with the racket so harder to emulate though some tried like stefanos for example.

The meta in tennis always evolves based on the best players in said era, it's not a sport where people use datascience to come up with new ways to play.

They had to up their level, but played with more replicable styles. Djokovic in particular, it's not like Nadal is easy to copy either. Djokovic is like "default player no 1" with all the stats maxed out - a really good reference point for upcoming players.

 

[ibbi]

Physically you can last a lot longer at a higher level. I wouldn't quite say that 40 is the new 30, but it's not all that far off.

Guys born in the 21st century are generally breaking out looking to play/happy to play more inside the baseline than the guys born in the 15 years prior.

 

[Gastino]

They had to up their level, but played with more replicable styles. Djokovic in particular, it's not like Nadal is easy to copy either. Djokovic is like "default player no 1" with all the stats maxed out - a really good reference point for upcoming players.

Yeah it's a overly physical risk-averse baseline game I'm talking about that is the basic template for current players that was created by Nadalovic. Of course they cannot access skills Nadal's unique FH or Novak's redirection which are very high level. But most players slide on HC for example(copied from Novak)

 

[messiahrobins]

I started following tennis regularly in 2005, right at the start of the Big 3 era. While over the past 2 decades there have been changes in court speeds, equipment, general ball striking intensity, if I go back and watch clips of top matches from that era - the level of gameplay doesn't seem significantly different from what it is today.

Conversely, if back in 2005, I was watching clips from 1984 - that truly felt an ancient era in terms of tactics, equipment, courts and general level of play.

Is it just my eye test going wrong or there truly hasn't been that much evolution in the past 20 years? The fact that a player who emerged in that era (Djokovic) is still no. 3 speaks volumes on this. Even Nadal has multiple victories over the 2 dominant players of this era when he was on his last legs.

Players hit harder now, largely due to racket and string advancements and overall move better than 20 years ago.

Tactically players now are more aggressive and will attack 2nd serves, 20 years ago the default play on 2nd serve was to get the ball back deep and get the rally going. Now many players will try and hit a winner off a 2nd serve.

 

[NachoGPT]

Yeah there’s a big difference in quality between tennis in the 80s and tennis in the 2000s. It’s very similar now. Guys like Safin and Nalbandian would excel in this era. Wouldn’t look out of place at all.

 

[Mustard]

Up to 1973, not much had changed for 25 years prior. There were a few changes from 1974-1982, but nothing really big beyond the Connors, Borg and Vilas styles. From 2005, not much has changed in 21 years. In between, around 1982-2005, there was regular change all the time, almost like Formula 1, and not keeping up with the new technology threatened to leave you behind. Lendl seemed to be the start of that, and it ended with Nadal's serious rise in 2005.

 

[Cecilia]

I would say the players are more athletic but I feel like we have less cracks as the Spaniards would say. With few exception I do think the game has less diversity and contrast than it had 20 even 15 years ago.

 

[McGradey]

The floor has raised. On average guys now are better athletes with better defence and fewer obvious weaknesses.

That said, the peak level hasn’t actually increased much, if at all, in the past 20-odd years. It is obvious that 11 Djok or 09 Nadal or 06 Federer would monster everyone today except Alcaraz and Sinner, who they would have to work much harder against.

The younger players benefit from being able to incorporate some of the improvements bedded in by the above legends, such as better passing shots, better defence to offence transition etc, but fundamentally I don’t think that makes them better tennis players.

Don’t forget, Tsitsipas was a top 3 player not long ago with a very weak backhand. Medvedev won a slam. Fritz made a final. These guys are not evolved in any significant way from similarly performing top 10 guys you could pick out from the 2000s.

 

[ebar86]

I don't think the coaches would take Nadal as an example for the students. I can't remember since I started watching tennis in 90s, that someone playing like him. His balls floated more in the air and jump up after the bounce. He played like table tennis player but on the court instead of the table. Roddick once said coaches in US would stop you if you're hitting backhand like Nadal.

On the other hand, djokovic is the best example to be used by coaches; textbook, efficient tennis, baseliner, flat balls. Current players play very similarly to djokovic, but it became dull duels since most playing similarly, with the exception probably alcaraz. Though, the only one who can max it out close to djokovic is only sinner.

 

[Razer]

I dont think tennis has evolved since 2005 that much. Fed was the guy that took the game light years ahead and everyone had to step up.

There's a huge difference between 1990 and 2005, but 2005 to now I dont think so. Players hit harder on average, but they also have way less variety. It's more adjustment than evolution.

In a few areas the game has evolved compared to 05-06

01. Stamina - In this aspect it was Nadal who took things forward, later even Federer had to work more on his stamina and he did.
02. Hitting the ball harder on an average, even in Fed's era you had Gonzales, Blake, lter JMDP etc, but now the field on the whole hits hard.
03. Rally Tolerance today in greater than it was in 2000s, it is level with 2010s which was higher than 2000s.
04. Tall players move better now than before

So in these areas game has evolved, but yeah, Fed would still mop everyone if he was here.

 

[Third Serve]

I think poly ushered in the last big evolution in tennis. Once the tour had fully adapted to it in the early 2000's, I think any other improvement beyond that point has been only incremental and better represented in the lower echelons of the ATP Tour as opposed to the top players. Though I'm not sure how much of that is true, actually. I think we just forgot about the #50-100 players of the past and the ones that are playing today are still fresh in our minds.

That was also part of why players didn't really last that long in the 1980s-early 2000's. By the time they had left their primes, there was already some important new advancement in the sport, and so they were in greater danger of being left behind. That's why I find it so impressive that Connors lasted as long as he did in that era.

 

[langley]

the "harder" ball hitting today is imo more a response to ball and court construction than anything.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Andy Roddick was #1 in 2003.
Roddick, Safin, Lleyton Hewitt.
It was certainly the Dark Ages of tennis.


But change was soon to come.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Very little if at all. The biggest change is that guys are playing longer due to advancements in medical technology. Injuries in days past were far more detrimental to a player’s career. Guys can now come back quicker and with better results.

As far as how the game is actually played I’d say it’s actually devolved. There’s less variety now than ever. Players on average are taller now, but you still want to be in that sweet spot of 6’0-6’2. Beyond that movement starts to be negatively affected for most players. Yeah, tall players today move better than tall players of old, but you still don’t want to be in that 6’4-6’6 range. Zverev, Medvedev, and Tsitsipas are all 6’4-6’6 and move well for their heights, but they don’t move well enough compared to ATGs like the Big 3 and Sampras did.

There also hasn’t been a major equipment change like there was with poly strings and graphite racquets. Sure there’s been more fine tuning throughout the years, but we haven’t had a a huge leap in equipment since the late 90’s/early 00’s.

 

[McGradey]

I think poly ushered in the last big evolution in tennis. Once the tour had fully adapted to it in the early 2000's, I think any other improvement beyond that point has been only incremental and better represented in the lower echelons of the ATP Tour as opposed to the top players. Though I'm not sure how much of that is true, actually. I think we just forgot about the #50-100 players of the past and the ones that are playing today are still fresh in our minds.

That was also part of why players didn't really last that long in the 1980s-early 2000's. By the time they had left their primes, there was already some important new advancement in the sport, and so they were in greater danger of being left behind. That's why I find it so impressive that Connors lasted as long as he did in that era.

Yep. The last revolutionary thing to happen technique wise was Nadal's poly-enabled extreme topspin which made for deadly passing shots and the ability to be far more aggressive when dealing with slices.
Since then most improvements appear to be grounded in better training and recovery regimens, and a generally more professional approach to the game.

 

[helterskelter]

We could say tennis players develop physically, because the game today demands a different sort of fitness, because the game is more physical.
But tennis itself has become less exciting because it lacks diversity - as I see it.

Differently physical, in my view, not more physical. Players don't rely on quick reactions/reflexes anywhere near as much as they used to, which is one reason why teens are less competitive and players in their early 20s no longer have an age advantage over players in their late 20s.

 

[Aabye5]

Point taken but these players adapt to the meta and demands of the current game , we don't know how they would play 20 years earlier.
Nadalovic are actually the precursors to these baseline style so there's that.

I think though there is a question here about whether or not the players have adapted or if they are just one-dimensional and very powerful.

 

[Aabye5]

Differently physical, in my view, not more physical. Players don't rely on quick reactions/reflexes anywhere near as much as they used to, which is one reason why teens are less competitive and players in their early 20s no longer have an age advantage over players in their late 20s.

I think they do have an advantage, I just think that most players only know how to hit it hard, so they don't use droppers and slices to take the legs away of their opponents.

 

[helterskelter]

I think they do have an advantage, I just think that most players only know how to hit it hard, so they don't use droppers and slices to take the legs away of their opponents.

I actually think that late 20-somethings tend to have an age advantage over early 20-somethings in contemporary tennis, and I'm confident it's not the other way around but at best a wash. There are plenty of sports in which players tend to be closer to their best at (say) 28 than at 22, so it wouldn't be surprising if that were true in tennis, too. It depends on which physical skills the sport favors, but it's not a universal truth that 22-year-olds are closer to their athletic prime than 28-year-olds.

(Please note: I am not arguing that players in their mid-30s have a physical advantage. There's a big difference between being 28 and 37).

 

[SlapBackhands]

It seems like the average level of the top 20 is little worse nowadays compared to the 2010's but the level of guys 30-50 is a little better. I think the argument that just because players back then were less complete makes them less good. For example, Steven Johnson is notorious for not having a topspin backhand whatsoever but he still is an extremely tough guy to play. His forehand, movement, and slice make it difficult to punish that weakness and his mentality to add on top of that just makes things more difficult(case in point a very successful pro career and a historic college career). However, I do agree with the general point that more of today's players have less obvious weaknesses(no topspin forehand/backhand, 2nd serve, etc). I just don't think that determining the quality of players should purely be measured by their tennis abilities, but also by mental strength

 

[Razer]

It seems like the average level of the top 20 is little worse nowadays compared to the 2010's but the level of guys 30-50 is a little better. I think the argument that just because players back then were less complete makes them less good. For example, Steven Johnson is notorious for not having a topspin backhand whatsoever but he still is an extremely tough guy to play. His forehand, movement, and slice make it difficult to punish that weakness and his mentality to add on top of that just makes things more difficult(case in point a very successful pro career and a historic college career). However, I do agree with the general point that more of today's players have less obvious weaknesses(no topspin forehand/backhand, 2nd serve, etc). I just don't think that determining the quality of players should purely be measured by their tennis abilities, but also by mental strength

Great post.

 

[abmk]

Level has gone down now. Physically, technically, stamina wise and mentally.

Only 2 things have evolved - More sliding on HCs (better shoes helping) and medical science.

 

[Vito Andolini]

If we talk about the absolute top i.e. Sinner and Alcaraz vs the big 4, the former clearly play a more game theory optimal brand of tennis. Djokodal played much more high percentage tennis. 2012 AO is the true exhibit of that.

Federer in general but especially the version from 2004-2006 was an anomaly because he was pressing the trigger the same way as Sinnercaraz do now.

Compare the speed and depth of the shots from the AO 2012 final and the AO 2026 Sinner vs Djokovic(whenever they were playing good in that match) semi and that's the evolution at the absolute top level of tennis. Shorter rallies in general and shots played with the intent of ending the point in 2026.

The topmost specimen of an era do tell something about what the best minds of the time decided was the most optimal style of play.

As for the general field the biggest change is indeed the increase in the ball striking intensity. Court coverage in general is probably also a bit better and so is defence.
But at the same time this era has failed to create more than 2 players with weapons of mass destruction or rather players which can wield the weapons of mass destruction without self destruction but that's not necessarily an indictment on the tennis technique or practices of the era.

 

[jackson vile]

A lot, THE END

 

[EddieChang]

I was rewatching the 2011 and 2015 Wimbledon finals , and 2012 Australian open and RG 2013 and to me there is not much difference in power and speed of top few players today, than then.

However, i would say more top 20 players are hitting the ball harder than top 20 from those days.

you need to look at stats not just eyeballing it. And if you think djokovic has as much power as sinner and alcaraz you probably need to have your eyes checked. I am not saying they are better than djokovic nadal at all but just in terms of power and only compared to djokovic

 

[The Guru]

Djokovic has averaged 118 MPH on his first serve in the last 12 months. That is the LOWEST in the top 10.

Move along.