Insane 44 shot rally (Rotterdam)

Tennisfan339

Semi-Pro

I've seen a lot of last shots like this one and a lot of long rally... But both combined at the same time and this long? Huge intensity during the whole point and amazing defense in the last 3 shots. Such an incredible last shot after such a long rally, that's huge.
You need to watch and appreciate this insane rally. :)
 
Kid you not, when they were trading backhands, I didn't know which one was which. Only when De Minaur hit a forehand I realized it was him.

No offense to Millman, but around the 20th shot everyone knew that DM was gonna win the point. DM mishit a couple of shots and M didn't do anything with it.

Anyway sure, it was an entertaining point but not really high-quality tennis.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Kid you not, when they were trading backhands, I didn't know which one was which. Only when De Minaur hit a forehand I realized it was him.

No offense to Millman, but around the 20th shot everyone knew that DM was gonna win the point. DM mishit a couple of shots and M didn't do anything with it.

Anyway sure, it was an entertaining point but not really high-quality tennis.
No match with Millman in it is high quality.
 

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
They should show a shot counter on the tv screen after about ten in a row, so you can just stop watching the players and instead watch the number increase.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
It was a great rally from two dogged baseline players, but this is TW mate, we don't appreciate that sort of tennis around here :rolleyes: :-D

Demon can hit some incredible end of range of forehands DTL

It was quite a bit better than that extended Simon/Novak rally a week ago
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
That was a one-off from Verdasco, but certainly a great match.

This is just an example. He sure has some boring matches but when will De Minaur make something interesting like that, he looks like he is skating, not playing tennis.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
What's your point here? Clay has always been slow. Indoor courts have not. Go watch some indoor events from the 90s/early 2000s.
My POINT was HUMOR, which I realize is wasted in this miserable place. But OK, since you want to be serious and all pissy, here goes. EVERYONE OF YOU, including you, who goes on and on about how things are getting slower and slower is flat out wrong. Why? Because the rackets and strings themselves are making it possible to hit so much faster that the overall speed of the ball just keeps going up and up, which would be obvious to all of you if you stopped ranting and started THINKING. But you don't. You just rant.

You have these strings that allow so much spin that players can control pace, so they tee off harder and harder without being penalized for it. When you can hit groundstrokes higher and higher over the net and the shots still land in, you have so much margin that everything gets faster.

What is the result? The number of games won on serve goes up and up and up, which has been happening for decades. So the only way to bring that number down, so that everyone is not winning close to 95% of all service games on fast surfaces is to slow them down.

How do you do that? You add grit and make the bounce higher.

Now, before you go on the attack - again - did I say at any time that I like what is happening? NO I DID NOT. But you guys are ranting about the wrong thing. The genie is out of the bottle. Poly is here to stay, and THAT has ruined fast tennis, NOT making things slower, which only decreases the overall speed up due to poly.

When you speed things up more, where players start getting well over 90% of games on serve, you don't get a whole lot more net play, although you do get some. You just get a lot more of serve + one and aces.
 
My POINT was HUMOR, which I realize is wasted in this miserable place. But OK, since you want to be serious and all pissy, here goes. EVERYONE OF YOU, including you, who goes on and on about how things are getting slower and slower is flat out wrong. Why? Because the rackets and strings themselves are making it possible to hit so much faster that the overall speed of the ball just keeps going up and up, which would be obvious to all of you if you stopped ranting and started THINKING. But you don't. You just rant.

You have these strings that allow so much spin that players can control pace, so they tee off harder and harder without being penalized for it. When you can hit groundstrokes higher and higher over the net and the shots still land in, you have so much margin that everything gets faster.

What is the result? The number of games won on serve goes up and up and up, which has been happening for decades. So the only way to bring that number down, so that everyone is not winning close to 95% of all service games on fast surfaces is to slow them down.

How do you do that? You add grit and make the bounce higher.

Now, before you go on the attack - again - did I say at any time that I like what is happening? NO I DID NOT. But you guys are ranting about the wrong thing. The genie is out of the bottle. Poly is here to stay, and THAT has ruined fast tennis, NOT making things slower, which only decreases the overall speed up due to poly.

When you speed things up more, where players start getting well over 90% of games on serve, you don't get a whole lot more net play, although you do get some. You just get a lot more of serve + one and aces.
"Super-slow"

 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Yes:

In this super slow court, I'm expecting some... rallies.

Translation: as I just said, fast courts, no rallies, people holding serve like clockwork. If you like faster holds and very few breaks, that's what you want. If you want more breaks and "slow things down", the best you get is still way more holds and fewer breaks than in the 90s. Not really hard to understand for a working brain. Either way, if you love net play, that's gone. Poly did it.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Slow as the court maybe, it was a heck of a point, and will be contender for point of the year. (y)
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
My POINT was HUMOR, which I realize is wasted in this miserable place. But OK, since you want to be serious and all pissy, here goes. EVERYONE OF YOU, including you, who goes on and on about how things are getting slower and slower is flat out wrong. Why? Because the rackets and strings themselves are making it possible to hit so much faster that the overall speed of the ball just keeps going up and up, which would be obvious to all of you if you stopped ranting and started THINKING. But you don't. You just rant.

You have these strings that allow so much spin that players can control pace, so they tee off harder and harder without being penalized for it. When you can hit groundstrokes higher and higher over the net and the shots still land in, you have so much margin that everything gets faster.

What is the result? The number of games won on serve goes up and up and up, which has been happening for decades. So the only way to bring that number down, so that everyone is not winning close to 95% of all service games on fast surfaces is to slow them down.

How do you do that? You add grit and make the bounce higher.

Now, before you go on the attack - again - did I say at any time that I like what is happening? NO I DID NOT. But you guys are ranting about the wrong thing. The genie is out of the bottle. Poly is here to stay, and THAT has ruined fast tennis, NOT making things slower, which only decreases the overall speed up due to poly.

When you speed things up more, where players start getting well over 90% of games on serve, you don't get a whole lot more net play, although you do get some. You just get a lot more of serve + one and aces.
Firstly you are taking this place far too seriously, chill out man.

Secondly they slowed the courts down in the very early 2000s, before everyone switched to poly, back when there were s&v players like Ivansievic, Rafter, Sampras etc.
They decided that the public wanted to see long baseline rallies instead of big serves/s&v. So you went from Wimbledon finals like Ivanisevic vs Rafter (great match) to Hewitt vs Nalbandian (!!) the very next year.

Now you have super slow, gritty courts AND poly strings so players have all day to wind up and bash the ball...slow courts plus poly=no one comes to net anymore. If they sped up the courts, even with poly, players WILL come to net. It might take a year or so for them to catch on but the good players won't waste time slugging it out when they can come in.
 

Yugram

Legend
Firstly you are taking this place far too seriously, chill out man.

Secondly they slowed the courts down in the very early 2000s, before everyone switched to poly, back when there were s&v players like Ivansievic, Rafter, Sampras etc.
They decided that the public wanted to see long baseline rallies instead of big serves/s&v. So you went from Wimbledon finals like Ivanisevic vs Rafter (great match) to Hewitt vs Nalbandian (!!) the very next year.

Now you have super slow, gritty courts AND poly strings so players have all day to wind up and bash the ball...slow courts plus poly=no one comes to net anymore. If they sped up the courts, even with poly, players WILL come to net. It might take a year or so for them to catch on but the good players won't waste time slugging it out when they can come in.
Good drama, absolutely dreadful tennis.
 

Frylock

Rookie
My POINT was HUMOR, which I realize is wasted in this miserable place. But OK, since you want to be serious and all pissy, here goes. EVERYONE OF YOU, including you, who goes on and on about how things are getting slower and slower is flat out wrong. Why? Because the rackets and strings themselves are making it possible to hit so much faster that the overall speed of the ball just keeps going up and up, which would be obvious to all of you if you stopped ranting and started THINKING. But you don't. You just rant.

You have these strings that allow so much spin that players can control pace, so they tee off harder and harder without being penalized for it. When you can hit groundstrokes higher and higher over the net and the shots still land in, you have so much margin that everything gets faster.

What is the result? The number of games won on serve goes up and up and up, which has been happening for decades. So the only way to bring that number down, so that everyone is not winning close to 95% of all service games on fast surfaces is to slow them down.

How do you do that? You add grit and make the bounce higher.

Now, before you go on the attack - again - did I say at any time that I like what is happening? NO I DID NOT. But you guys are ranting about the wrong thing. The genie is out of the bottle. Poly is here to stay, and THAT has ruined fast tennis, NOT making things slower, which only decreases the overall speed up due to poly.

When you speed things up more, where players start getting well over 90% of games on serve, you don't get a whole lot more net play, although you do get some. You just get a lot more of serve + one and aces.
That's my Gary the voice of the reason for this forum.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Secondly they slowed the courts down in the very early 2000s, before everyone switched to poly, back when there were s&v players like Ivansievic, Rafter, Sampras etc.
It is not just poly. It's a trend that has been going on for decades. It's not just one factor. The game has been speeding up ever since rackets themselves were changed. Poly is just the last step in the evolution.

It's a tipping point. As you make it harder and harder to win points at the net, players back away more. When did the guys you're talking about, from the 90s, start playing tennis? Sampras was born in 71. By 81 he had already played a lot of tennis. His game and his mindset started way before the 90s
They decided that the public wanted to see long baseline rallies instead of big serves/s&v. So you went from Wimbledon finals like Ivanisevic vs Rafter (great match) to Hewitt vs Nalbandian (!!) the very next year.
Who is "they"? Is this a conspiracy? WHY did they do this? Answer: because there were so few breaks of serve and so many short rallies. You can argue that it was an over adjustment. But someone saw a pattern and decided most people didn't like what was happening. OK, maybe it was too much. Maybe it was an overreaction. But this pattern of more and more holds and fewer breaks had been going on for a long time and probably started about the time wooden rackets were replaced.

I don't know what "the public" wants because that's too much of a generalization, but I do know that if the courts themselves were not slower now, there would be very few breaks of serve. Every year return stats go down more. Check the return stats on the younger players. They are not impressive. Is it all the strings and rackets? I don't know.
Now you have super slow, gritty courts AND poly strings so players have all day to wind up and bash the ball...slow courts plus poly=no one comes to net anymore. If they sped up the courts, even with poly, players WILL come to net. It might take a year or so for them to catch on but the good players won't waste time slugging it out when they can come in.
But you are not getting my point. Speed up the courts, to get more net play, and breaks are going to go down. If that's what you like, fine, but I don't like it, and I don't think most fans do either. I don't want to figure nothing is going to happen until a TB. What I want, personally, is to go back in time a bit, to where there was net play but where there were enough breaks that you just didn't know who was going to win the next game.

I don't think you can have that now. You can either have more game parity, in which case everyone winds up and hits bazooka shots, or you can have more net play but at the cost of almost no breaks of serve. And all of you leave off the biggest factor, which is the bounce. Low bounce is not fast. Low bounce never meant faster. It just meant lower, thus less reaction time, and that makes the game feel faster. The moment you reduce bounce your going to get more net play, but you will also have less breaks. The two are connected. So slick and low gives you the old "faster tennis", which was never really faster in terms of the speed of the ball, but slick and low gives you escalating service holds and fewer breaks.

In other words, there is no answer that will give you what you want, and I think what I want, which means more drama, more suspense, but also more variety.
 
Top