If homogenization never happen. BIG 3 don' t surpass Sampras record?

[The Blond Blur]

Wasn’t peak homogenization when 3 of the 4 slams were grass?

Idk how people miss this

 

[BeatlesFan]

Most objective observers would agree that Sampras was better than Fed at volleying.

Sampras was 100 times the volleyer Fed ever has been and 1 trillion superior to anyone else currently active in tennis.

 

[tonylg]

For those thinking Nadal or Djokovic could have served and volleyed on every point to win Wimbledon, watch a pure baseliner like Lendl do that on every single point on fast grass. He had to transform his game entirely to play on grass, baseline rallies like you have now on grass were non-existent:

If Lendl were playing today, he'd be a top 3 volleyer out of the entire top 100.

I understand recency bias - but you are not right if you think he is better than Pete at aspects like volleying, running forehand or overhead smashes.

I don't know who you are quoting (love the ignore list), but Sampras was a better volleyer than anyone on tour today and had the best the smash in the history of tennis.

Dont overlook how clutch Pete was either. He was damn boring to watch sometimes because of it. Seemed like he always had a few aces up his sleeve when needed to get out of a whole.

This is not serve botting. This is the definition of clutch.

A few insomnia-laden thoughts.

Homogenization? It's been a factor (and perhaps, a positive for all three), though I think it's been greatly overplayed as a factor. There are many players today who look at home on HC, but not on grass or clay. The true greats will find a way to achieve.

You should have gone to sleep. This nonesense about true greats always finding a way is tiresome. Lendl spent almost a decade with Tony Roche trying to develop a net game good enough to win Wimbledon. He couldn't do it and neither could the baseline bots of today.

I think this also has to do with different play styles. For example, SnV matches had much more variance involved. I feel like today's baseline game has increased the chance that the better player baseliner also actually wins.

Fixed for you.

Have you guys ever played on grass in the US and on grass since they changed the surface in England? There is no way around it that the surface completely different. You would not win without coming to net on the old grass. Borg, who is on par with the Big 3 IMO, went from staying back all tournament and winning RG to serve and volleying at Wimbledon and winning. So you have the best backcourt player in the world serve and volleying - to 5 straight titles. Why on earth would he do that? Rafa and Djoker would never have won Wimbledon playing the style they play. Look at Lendl - best player in the world and since he wasn't as comfortable at net he couldn't get over the hump. People who think the grass hasn't drastically changed have either not played on both types of grass, or are too young to have watched the PRE - 100% rye grass Wimbledons. I have played on both - here and in England where they have the qualifying event. When you walk on a grass court today in England the surface under your feet feels like a hardcourt. I was shocked. When you bounce the ball before you serve you can bounce it over your head. Previously you needed to throw the ball down really hard to reach your knee. My forearm would be sore the next day. On the newer grass you can kick the ball pretty high on groundies and the bounce you get from your opponent allows you to easily get under the ball. On the older grass it was very difficult just to get a ball high enough to hit spin. It is like night and day today. I love the new grass and hated the old - and dislike the grass we have here in the US. The last point is that they roll the courts more, which make them harder and give a better bounce. I once played a national event on grass at Forest Hills in my age group. I lost to a guy that never switched from a continental grip since he had a great lefty serve and volley and just gave me junk to hit all match - I could barely hit my semi-western FH. You never wanted the ball to bounce. I would have beaten him soundly on a court like I played in England.

Great post. I don't agree with your preference as I like fast grass.

Pete’s overhead was also superior.

Again, can't see who you are quoting, but Pete's overhead was/is superior to anyone's.

Surface homogenization or Slowing down playing conditions. Whatever it is, for sure helped those who play defensive and also helped avoid early upsets. Its obvious who they were trying to promote.

After the great Borg/McEnroe, Lendl/Edberg, Sampras/Agassi rivalries, they manufactured conditions under which Federer would have a rival.

Nadal never sniffs a Slam outside of the FO and LOL at Djokovic being a 5 time Wimbledon champion. This is the only time that someone with no smash and limited volleying skills can win Wimbledon 5 times (Djokovic could actually volley better in 2007/2008)

Nothing to add, just quoted because it smacks the nail on the head.

The game is actually much faster today, due to the new racquets. The only exception may be grass in the 90s, but even that is debatable. Getting balls back was more difficult because of bad bounces and non-poly racquets, but not because of faster game as such.

The game was infinitely faster in the 90s. What on earth are you talking about?

Also, low and fast isn't a bad bounce .. it's how grass courts are meant to be.

 

[AceSalvo]

After the great Borg/McEnroe, Lendl/Edberg, Sampras/Agassi rivalries, they manufactured conditions under which Federer would have a rival.

Bingo.

 

[Lew II]

Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Budge, etc. were good on all surface, no?

Heavy surface specialization seems to be related to one short period in tennis history.

 

[magnut]

Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Budge, etc. were good on all surface, no?

Heavy surface specialization seems to be related to one short period in tennis history.

right .......because tennis didnt exhist before Laver, Budge, Tilden etc.

Check.

 

[Clay lover]

Wasn’t peak homogenization when 3 of the 4 slams were grass?

Just shows how people are not merely going back for nostalgia -- what we're looking at is often more ugly.

 

[Lew II]

Wasn’t peak homogenization when 3 of the 4 slams were grass?

True, up until 1977 slams were held on two surfaces. Since 1978 on three surfaces.

 

[magnut]

Dumb arguement... nobody wants 3 of 4 slams on one surface. We are too close to that already. Peak tennis and popularity and participation was when we had 4 different surfaces and lots of depth.

 

[JackGates]

But...it happened. Why do we need to find excuses or near-conspiracies to explain it?!

Ok, in this case, Laver is better than them, he won two calendar grand slams, the highest achievemet in tennis. He did it, we shouldn't compare eras or try to explain why it happened, who cares, right, let's just accept what online fanboys are telling us. If something rare happens, it must be god, right, let's just accept it and not trying to explain it, god created us, what is science?

 

[RaulRamirez]

Ok, in this case, Laver is better than them, he won two calendar grand slams, the highest achievemet in tennis. He did it, we shouldn't compare eras or try to explain why it happened, who cares, right, let's just accept what online fanboys are telling us. If something rare happens, it must be god, right, let's just accept it and not trying to explain it, god created us, what is science?

Yes, because that's exactly what I was advocating. How did you know? Do you know how ludicrous that type of mischaracterization is? Would you like some more straw to play with, so you can "win" more arguments?

 

[Jd1boo]

Honestly I think the invention and widespread adoption of poly strings changed everything most significantly. Consistency across tournaments and surfaces with poly and extreme grips seems higher than it was when people were using gut and continental or eastern grips and hitting flatter.

 

[mike danny]

So, according to your point, Federer won 5 US Open titles in medium/fast Decoturf (until 2009) and nothing in slow Decoturf (since 2010).

USO 2010 was fast, IMO. From 2011 onwards it has become slow with 2017-present unbearable.

 

[mike danny]

Idk how people miss this

Ahhh, Cobblepot, already miss the guy. My favorite character in Gotham. I was more interested in his story than Jim's.

 

[mike danny]

Wasn’t peak homogenization when 3 of the 4 slams were grass?

Honestly, the 90's had the best slam surface distribution:

AO: medium or the slower HC slam

FO: slow

Wimb: fast, as grass should be

USO: fast or the faster HC, something we haven't had as recently as 2018

Wimb has become a calamity when guys like Pella and Bautista Agut have deep runs.

 

[6august]

I recommend you search and watch some USO matches in the past. If Lendl and Wilander could win (several times), so do Nadal and Djokovic.

In reality, according to official reports, both Wimbledon and USO have been slowed down before Big 3 won anything.

 

[Arafel]

Nadal never sniffs a Slam outside of the FO and LOL at Djokovic being a 5 time Wimbledon champion. This is the only time that someone with no smash and limited volleying skills can win Wimbledon 5 times (Djokovic could actually volley better in 2007/2008)

Given that Wilander won a U.S. Open, I disagree. I think Nadal would win at the US at least once. And if they were playing the AO on the 90s surface, which bounced very high, I think Nadal actually wins more than one Aussie

 

[tennis_pro]

Given that Wilander won a U.S. Open, I disagree. I think Nadal would win at the US at least once. And if they were playing the AO on the 90s surface, which bounced very high, I think Nadal actually wins more than one Aussie

The current AO surface other than in 2017-2018 where it was faster (I think) has been an utter joke since 2008 - super slow and the ball bounces high - absolutely perfect conditions for Nadal and no wonder he beat Federer a couple of times there. No way Nadal wins more on the older surface.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Another thread how “real” tennis players had to play uphill in the snow on both side of the court while using tooth picks to hit fleas.

All players now are better in court IQ and far surpass last players is fitness and movement. The current crop of players learned from and improved on what players of the past did. That is what makes them better.

There is nothing homogenized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike danny]

Another thread how “real” tennis players had to play uphill in the snow on both side of the court while using tooth picks to hit fleas.

All players now are better in court IQ and far surpass last players is fitness and movement. The current crop of players learned from and improved on what players of the past did. That is what makes them better.

There is nothing homogenized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, there is. Look at Pella and Bautista Agut having deep runs at Wimb.

 

[mike danny]

Another thread how “real” tennis players had to play uphill in the snow on both side of the court while using tooth picks to hit fleas.

All players now are better in court IQ and far surpass last players is fitness and movement. The current crop of players learned from and improved on what players of the past did. That is what makes them better.

There is nothing homogenized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And players today are not necessarily better than the players of yore, so to speak. They are just different. Zverev has lousy net game and so does Medvedev, so they haven't learned from past players that much.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Another thread how “real” tennis players had to play uphill in the snow on both side of the court while using tooth picks to hit fleas.

All players now are better in court IQ and far surpass last players is fitness and movement. The current crop of players learned from and improved on what players of the past did. That is what makes them better.

There is nothing homogenized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But in all fairness, players could generate amazing racquet head speed with those toothpicks.

 

[mike danny]

But in all fairness, players could generate amazing racquet head speed with those toothpicks.

Exactly.

I don't consider today's players better, just different. And as a side note, I propose an experiment:

Give today's players wooden racquets and I doubt they'd manage. Give the old timers today's improved racquets and they'd do just fine, IMO.

 

[bjsnider]

The important thing about homogenization is not what the current generations would not have done without it, but what past generations could have accomplished with it, the same as the equipment changes, which is why comparing eras makes no sense.

 

[California]

For all the " homogenization doesn't exist" crowd, let's break this down into small pieces. Simple question: Do you feel that the AO, Wimbledon, and the US Open play slower and higher bouncing than in the 80's and 90's? Yes or No? Let's start with this question only. Be objective and don't think about the ramifications on your favorite players legacy. Simple, yes or no?

 

[ChaelAZ]

But in all fairness, players could generate amazing racquet head speed with those toothpicks.

It's the new basalt carbon composite that allows current players to do it.

 

[RaulRamirez]

It's the new basalt carbon composite that allows current players to do it.

I was really being irreverent, picturing literal toothpicks. Mostly, I agree with you that - while I respect previous generations of players - that the exaggeration of what those players had to go through (and yes, I started out playing with wood racquets, even on my high school team) sometimes gets out of hand. I firmly believe that the true greats - and obviously, each of The Big 3 qualify - would always find a way to succeed.

 

[TMF]

Federer yes, would still sit on at least 20. He is simply better than Sampras.

Nadal yes, would still win 13 french opens and would definetely manage to win at least two other grand slams, so he would have at least 15 slams, but less than 19.

Djokovic not sure.

Federer would be better off had the court speed stays the same instead of slowing everything down including grass. I do believe Federer would be sitting over 20 slams.

Without homogenization, Nadal and Nole would suffered because their game suits better on slow court.

 

[tonylg]

For all the " homogenization doesn't exist" crowd, let's break this down into small pieces. Simple question: Do you feel that the AO, Wimbledon, and the US Open play slower and higher bouncing than in the 80's and 90's? Yes or No? Let's start with this question only. Be objective and don't think about the ramifications on your favorite players legacy. Simple, yes or no?

They can't do that. You may be a fan of tennis first and particularly players second, but most on here are the reverse.

 

[scotus]

For those thinking Nadal or Djokovic could have served and volleyed on every point to win Wimbledon, watch a pure baseliner like Lendl do that on every single point on fast grass. He had to transform his game entirely to play on grass, baseline rallies like you have now on grass were non-existent:

Agassi didn't s&v to win Wimby.

Nadal will have a tough time beating expert S&V'ers, especially if he returns from 15 feet behind the baseline.

But Djokovic has a game very similar to that of Agassi and would do well against grass specialists.

 

[tonylg]

Agassi didn't s&v to win Wimby.

Nadal will have a tough time beating expert S&V'ers, especially if he returns from 15 feet behind the baseline.

But Djokovic has a game very similar to that of Agassi and would do well against grass specialists.

Agassi beating Becker and Ivanisevic to win in 92 shows what a terrible knee jerk reaction it was to neuter the tournament only a few years later.

Djokovic would have indeed done okay on proper grass. He moves much better than Agassi did, but his net game is inferior. Probably balances out.

No-one should be able to stand so far back to return at Wimbledon. That practice is akin to forfeiting the point on grass.

 

[DSH]

USO 2010 was fast, IMO. From 2011 onwards it has become slow with 2017-present unbearable.

do you know any site where you can know the speed of each Major tournament and make a comparison with previous years?

 

[DSH]

Federer would be better off had the court speed stays the same instead of slowing everything down including grass. I do believe Federer would be sitting over 20 slams.

Without homogenization, Nadal and Nole would suffered because their game suits better on slow court.

And your estimate is...?

 

[mike danny]

do you know any site where you can know the speed of each Major tournament and make a comparison with previous years?

Honestly, no. But from the eye test it seemed like the 2010 USO was still fast enough to not be labeled slow.

 

[beltsman]

I consider it the Inflation Era. Slam wins mean very little now.

 

[Valdez737]

80 percent chance Rafa will pass 14 slams...... on a single surface!!!!

 

[Deleted member 22147]

People don't like the truth, but Nadal and Djokovic are definitely not winning as many slams if the surfaces aren't all snail slow.

 

[netlets]

Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Budge, etc. were good on all surface, no?

Heavy surface specialization seems to be related to one short period in tennis history.

3 Slams were on grass - US, Wimbledon and AO then. So if by all surfaces, you mean grass and clay, I would say not really. They all seemed to be more comfortable on grass. The reason, I believe, they could win on clay here and there is because they played the same grass court game with flat strokes and slices aside from Laver. Once Borg came around and started hitting topspin, that style of player would never win on clay again. Even Connors was never able to do it, although it would have been fun to see him play a young Borg some of those years he didn't play RG.

 

[PMChambers]

90 to 10
AO med /slow.to Med {RA could play Med at night}
FO slow to slow
Wim Fast to Med {was more erratic especially around service box}
US Fast to Med
Masters haven't changed a lot clay still clay, IW and Miami still play slow.
Carpet gone which hurts given US, Wim & YEC where all fast.
So generally things have slowed down, but poly has made it a much faster game. Graphite originally assisted in making the game faster assisting servers over volleyers but that now changed to assist powerful baselines. Making a surface faster or more erratic won't do anything, no one's S&V given what you can do with poly.
Poly made tennis of 00's what it is and not surface change.
All big 3 benefited.
If more all court tennis is aim, make natural gutt the only pro choice. Simple to facilitate.