It's been 30 years, time to reverse conditions back to 1990's surfaces. Lets see what these kids are made of

Thats a true test of talent. Adapting to crazy diversifying conditions from one week to the next. I think its high time, we go back to Fast Slick, low bouncing grass, Rebound Ace, Fast HC Conditions, Ridiculously Slow Clay. We have "Dummy'd down" on tennis surfaces making it easier to dominate like they have done for kids on the SATs in High School in America and the result? A country of stupid people that no longer innovate/create and can't compete with countries we used to own. Dumbing things down only create a future of dumb people
 
Last edited:

Purestriker

Legend
Thats a true test of talent. Adapting to crazy diversifying conditions from one week to the next. I think its high time, we go back to Fast Slick, low bouncing grass, Rebound Ace, Fast HC Conditions, Ridiculously Slow Clay. We have "Dummy'd down" on tennis surfaces making it easier to dominate like they have done for kids on the SATs in High School in America and the result? A country of stupid people that no longer innovate/create and can't compete with countries we used to own. Dumbing things down only create a future of dumb people
I would support this change. I think it would surprise people that the big 2 might struggle as well.
 

Serve&Bash

Semi-Pro
297.png
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Without appropriate changes in racket tech, sending Wimbledon back to the 90’s might actually give the servebots a fighter’s chance at the title.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
The Isner/Opelka servebots would put up ridic serve numbers on old grass.

And the argument doesn't make sense:

"That's a true test of talent. Adapting to crazy diversifying conditions from one week to the next."

Well, most players in the 90s didn't adapt, hence the diversity of winners/finalists/semifinalists from clay to grass. In fact, a lot of clay dogs didn't even play wimbledon--they skipped the test entirely.

For example: Sampras and Bruguera weren't so hot on clay and grass, respectively.

And innovation is less about being smart and more about incentives, which the US still has the best of, hence even with "dumb" people, most business and innovation will continue to happen there. Read Taleb.

/finito
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
The strings have been a bigger change than any surface, believe me.

Poly strings enable players to hit with power and depth off the return of serve and during rallies, and more consistently, without making unforced errors. In turn, this discourages serve and volley play. You encourage serve and volley by making it very hard to hit shots during rallies with depth and power without making unforced errors, thus forcing players to come to the net to finish off points.

With gut strings in the last 15-20 years, we might have seen Isner, Berrettini or Anderson win Wimbledon, and I'm not joking.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
The strings have been a bigger change than any surface, believe me.

Poly strings enable players to hit with power and depth off the return of serve and during rallies, and more consistently, without making unforced errors. In turn, this discourages serve and volley play. You encourage serve and volley by making it very hard to hit shots during rallies with depth and power without making unforced errors, thus forcing players to come to the net to finish off points.

With gut strings in the last 15-20 years, we might have seen Isner, Berrettini or Anderson win Wimbledon, and I'm not joking.
:sick:
 

NonP

Legend
Just how many times do I have to tell you clueless mugs holding serve in fact has never been easier? Here, for the umpteenth time:


And no, today's "advanced" passing shots haven't hurt net stats at all (also see below). Simply put studs like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic would still make their opponents sweat and shiver regardless of era.

A couple more things:

Without appropriate changes in racket tech, sending Wimbledon back to the 90’s might actually give the servebots a fighter’s chance at the title.
You've actually got it backwards. On the contrary their service #s would take a dip while their return game is more exposed.

The Isner/Opelka servebots would put up ridic serve numbers on old grass.
LOL, no. I named you you the other day at least five non-giraffes who are getting 65% of their 1st serves in which was literally unheard of in the '90s. Zero chance Isner averages anywhere near 70% with an old stick. That's been by far the biggest factor in the not-so-fast-courts phenomenon. Height and (supposedly faster/slower) balls are a distant 2nd/3rd.

Here's how the bots would actually do on the old Wimby grass: Ivo would be going back and forth with Goran in ace % while John would be in the mix but still fall short of those two, considering the fact that the southpaw virtually equaled Isner's career % and got close to Karlovic's despite serving a whopping 13.4% and 9.3% less respectively:


And surprisingly Opelka would be well behind all of 'em, cuz his career ace % so far at Wimbledon doesn't even eclipse A-Rod's (16.1% vs. 15.7%) and relatively speaking he doesn't get that many 1st serves in to begin with (64.0% on all surfaces, 66.2% at SW19).

The strings have been a bigger change than any surface, believe me.

Poly strings enable players to hit with power and depth off the return of serve and during rallies, and more consistently, without making unforced errors. In turn, this discourages serve and volley play. You encourage serve and volley by making it very hard to hit shots during rallies with depth and power without making unforced errors, thus forcing players to come to the net to finish off points.

With gut strings in the last 15-20 years, we might have seen Isner, Berrettini or Anderson win Wimbledon, and I'm not joking.
That canard needs to die an immediate death. Here's the real status of S&V in today's game:

Of course I know this will just go in one ear and out the other for you and other jokers, but for those who do care to know here are the SnV Freq and SnV W% for every male player who S&Ved on at least 45% of their non-ace SPs (20 charted matches minimum):

Krajicek - 86.2%, 63.6%
Cressy - 84.0%, 70.8%
Rafter - 81.7%, 65.0%
Edberg - 77.6%, 66.7%
Karlovic - 76.4%, 65.3%
McEnroe - 75.8%, 66.6%
Stich - 73.1%, 66.8%
Ivanisevic - 62.8%, 67.9%
Becker - 61.2%, 68.1%
Sampras - 59.9%, 69.8%
M. Zverev - 54.3%, 59.4%
Brown - 52.0%, 66.9%
Henman - 45.2%, 65.9%

Notice how everyone but Sasha's bro (who doesn't have much of a serve) wins at least 60% of their S&V attempts, 65% if you exclude Rick with only 21 charted matches. And last I checked Maxime, Ivo, Mischa, Brown and Tim played pretty recently. It sure looks like the stories of S&V's death have been greatly exaggerated!
See how every recent net rusher but Sasha's big bro (who, again, doesn't have a serve to speak of) won at least 65% of their S&V points, every bit comparable to the old timers' own success rates*. And we know they're not half the players Pistol, Mac, Boris, Stefan, Pat, Mike, Rick and Goran were. The conclusion is obvious.

*Rick's relatively low 63.6% can be explained by 1) small sample size of 21 (now 22) charted matches and 2) S&Ving even more than Rafter or Edberg which likely means coming in on more 2nd serves, which I doubt was ever a high-% tactic except for the likes of Pistol, Newk and Kramer.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Thats a true test of talent. Adapting to crazy diversifying conditions from one week to the next. I think its high time, we go back to Fast Slick, low bouncing grass, Rebound Ace, Fast HC Conditions, Ridiculously Slow Clay. We have "Dummy'd down" on tennis surfaces making it easier to dominate like they have done for kids on the SATs in High School in America and the result? A country of stupid people that no longer innovate/create and can't compete with countries we used to own. Dumbing things down only create a future of dumb people
GTHO here! Want Alcaraz to break every tennis record. Then you have my permission to change conditions.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
That canard needs to die an immediate death. Here's the real status of S&V in today's game:
They don't use gut strings today, except as a mixture with poly for some players, so what's your point? I was talking 1990s strings for 21st century players.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Just how many times do I have to tell you clueless mugs holding serve in fact has never been easier? Here, for the umpteenth time:


And no, today's "advanced" passing shots haven't hurt net stats at all (also see below). Simply put studs like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic would still make their opponents sweat and shiver regardless of era.

A couple more things:


You've actually got it backwards. On the contrary their service #s would take a dip while their return game is more exposed.


LOL, no. I named you you the other day at least five non-giraffes who are getting 65% of their 1st serves in which was literally unheard of in the '90s. Zero chance Isner averages anywhere near 70% with an old stick. That's been by far the biggest factor in the not-so-fast-courts phenomenon. Height and (supposedly faster/slower) balls are a distant 2nd/3rd.

Here's how the bots would actually do on the old Wimby grass: Ivo would be going back and forth with Goran in ace % while John would be in the mix but still fall short of those two, considering the fact that the southpaw virtually equaled Isner's career % and got close to Karlovic's despite serving a whopping 13.4% and 9.3% less respectively:


And surprisingly Opelka would be well behind all of 'em, cuz his career ace % so far at Wimbledon doesn't even eclipse A-Rod's (16.1% vs. 15.7%) and relatively speaking he doesn't get that many 1st serves in to begin with (64.0% on all surfaces, 66.2% at SW19).


That canard needs to die an immediate death. Here's the real status of S&V in today's game:


See how every recent net rusher but Sasha's big bro (who, again, doesn't have a serve to speak of) won at least 65% of their S&V points, every bit comparable to the old timers' own success rates*. And we know they're not half the players Pistol, Mac, Boris, Stefan, Pat, Mike, Rick and Goran were. The conclusion is obvious.

*Rick's relatively low 63.6% can be explained by 1) small sample size of 21 (now 22) charted matches and 2) S&Ving even more than Rafter or Edberg which likely means coming in on more 2nd serves, which I doubt was ever a high-% tactic except for the likes of Pistol, Newk and Kramer.


Lol. Conflating serve hold % with serve performance still...You know just enough to be dangerous.

Once again, I'll just put this here: Introduced in 2001 to combat the power serve game that dominated much of 90s fast court tennis.

FYI - https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/5/4...GIRjy7Vqq-BpNE7rmMtgazFtS6kwAxOF82RWj3dYIpwc8

"The type 3 ball is 6–8% bigger than the type 2 ball but otherwise identical. The major effect of this difference is that the type 3 ball generates greater air resistance for a given speed, resulting in a greater deceleration as it flies through the air. Thus the type 3 ball tends to slow the game down, as it takes longer to reach the opponent. This ball is recommended for use on faster surfaces and for people learning the game to give them more time to prepare for shots."

ITF introduces three types of balls to counter power game

"The introduction of the different balls will slow down the power and speed of serves on hard courts, but speed up the game on slow surfaces, such as clay.

The ITF said the larger type 3 ball flies off the racket at the same speed as a standard ball, but will slow down during flight to give the receiver about 10 percent more reaction time."


This is a tired argument. Stats capture a small part of something, and you lean on it way too heavily and lose so much (read: all) nuance. The balls are slower, the courts are bouncing higher and more evenly, the returners stand deeper and are—on average—taller than the 90s field meaning a longer reach. All these headwinds aren't captured by stats, but anyone who's been following the game closely and has an implicit understanding of the game will know this.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I'm amazed at how this match continues to be cited as though representative of all matches at Wimbledon in the 90s
Because some will lie in order to damn serve and volley in favor of the easy, one-dimensional baseliner play of Agassi and everyone who followed that depressing kind of game into this century. There is nothing more sleep-inducing than watching two hacks stand at or behind the baseline for 5 hours trading shots / waiting for someone else to make a mistake instead of employing the endless S&V tactics to take control of or win a match.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
Just how many times do I have to tell you clueless mugs holding serve in fact has never been easier? Here, for the umpteenth time:


And no, today's "advanced" passing shots haven't hurt net stats at all (also see below). Simply put studs like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic would still make their opponents sweat and shiver regardless of era.

A couple more things:


You've actually got it backwards. On the contrary their service #s would take a dip while their return game is more exposed.


LOL, no. I named you you the other day at least five non-giraffes who are getting 65% of their 1st serves in which was literally unheard of in the '90s. Zero chance Isner averages anywhere near 70% with an old stick. That's been by far the biggest factor in the not-so-fast-courts phenomenon. Height and (supposedly faster/slower) balls are a distant 2nd/3rd.

Here's how the bots would actually do on the old Wimby grass: Ivo would be going back and forth with Goran in ace % while John would be in the mix but still fall short of those two, considering the fact that the southpaw virtually equaled Isner's career % and got close to Karlovic's despite serving a whopping 13.4% and 9.3% less respectively:


And surprisingly Opelka would be well behind all of 'em, cuz his career ace % so far at Wimbledon doesn't even eclipse A-Rod's (16.1% vs. 15.7%) and relatively speaking he doesn't get that many 1st serves in to begin with (64.0% on all surfaces, 66.2% at SW19).


That canard needs to die an immediate death. Here's the real status of S&V in today's game:


See how every recent net rusher but Sasha's big bro (who, again, doesn't have a serve to speak of) won at least 65% of their S&V points, every bit comparable to the old timers' own success rates*. And we know they're not half the players Pistol, Mac, Boris, Stefan, Pat, Mike, Rick and Goran were. The conclusion is obvious.

*Rick's relatively low 63.6% can be explained by 1) small sample size of 21 (now 22) charted matches and 2) S&Ving even more than Rafter or Edberg which likely means coming in on more 2nd serves, which I doubt was ever a high-% tactic except for the likes of Pistol, Newk and Kramer.

Those stats are surprising for me, sincerely.

Maybe Cressy and Brown are up there (talking about current players) because most of their matches are against low-ranked players, I guess, so that could up their stats a bit, but quite surprising anyway.

Ivo and Henman stats are not that surprising for me, because I know the high quality of their service/serve-and-volley game.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Because some will lie in order to damn serve and volley in favor of the easy, one-dimensional baseliner play of Agassi and everyone who followed that depressing kind of game into this century. There is nothing more sleep-inducing than watching two hacks stand at or behind the baseline for 5 hours trading shots / waiting for someone else to make a mistake instead of employing the endless S&V tactics to take control of or win a match.
Would love to see Rafa and Dominic returning PETE's serve from the second row at Wimbledon
 

NonP

Legend
They don't use gut strings today, except as a mixture with poly for some players, so what's your point? I was talking 1990s strings for 21st century players.
And the more recent guys did? The point was that just about every one of those net rushers won at least 65% of their S&V attempts regardless of era or strings.

Speaking of which:

Lol. Conflating serve hold % with serve performance still...You know just enough to be dangerous.

Once again, I'll just put this here: Introduced in 2001 to combat the power serve game that dominated much of 90s fast court tennis.

FYI - https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/5/4...GIRjy7Vqq-BpNE7rmMtgazFtS6kwAxOF82RWj3dYIpwc8

"The type 3 ball is 6–8% bigger than the type 2 ball but otherwise identical. The major effect of this difference is that the type 3 ball generates greater air resistance for a given speed, resulting in a greater deceleration as it flies through the air. Thus the type 3 ball tends to slow the game down, as it takes longer to reach the opponent. This ball is recommended for use on faster surfaces and for people learning the game to give them more time to prepare for shots."

ITF introduces three types of balls to counter power game

"The introduction of the different balls will slow down the power and speed of serves on hard courts, but speed up the game on slow surfaces, such as clay.

The ITF said the larger type 3 ball flies off the racket at the same speed as a standard ball, but will slow down during flight to give the receiver about 10 percent more reaction time."


This is a tired argument. Stats capture a small part of something, and you lean on it way too heavily and lose so much (read: all) nuance. The balls are slower, the courts are bouncing higher and more evenly, the returners stand deeper and are—on average—taller than the 90s field meaning a longer reach. All these headwinds aren't captured by stats, but anyone who's been following the game closely and has an implicit understanding of the game will know this.
Bro, you're the one who keeps trotting out tired talking points. That post alone cites % of net points won (if admittedly indirectly), ace % AND % of S&V points won but you choose to ignore 'em cuz they're not kind to the established narrative.

And your fixation on balls is downright laughable when we know for a fact that Pistol won the USO the following year despite those supposedly uber-slow balls, Henman still kept making QFs and SFs at SW19 and even posted his career-best SFs at RG and Flushing in '04, and another '90s holdover in Bjorkman reached his own career-best Wimby SF in '06. I see that Jonas has only two post-'01 matches charted by TA statheads so far, but it's a fair bet he still came in far more than the average guy in his later years given his career average (from 12 matches) of 31.7% (607/1913) Net Freq, which makes him a bona fide all-courter:

In case you're wondering here's my definitive classification of styles of play based on Net Freq:

45+% - pure S&Ver (only Edberg, Mac and Rafter among the TA database)
35-45% - full-time net rusher (Krajicek, Cressy, Stich, Karlovic, Becker, Henman)
25-35% - all-courter (M. Zverev, Brown, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Connors, Muller)
10-25% - full-time baseliner
0-10% - volleys-are-for-old-farts baseliner (Ferru, Dre, Nishi, Bull, Ruud, JCF and Delpo among them, unsurprisingly, but not Muster, A. Zverev and Bruguera, curiously enough)
Not to mention all of those bots would be serving a truckload of aces with a frying pan. I mean how long will y'all drone one about whatever "headwinds" until reality hits you in the head?

Oh and Opelka's 15.7% career ace frequency at SW19 isn't even in the same vicinity as Ivanisevic's corrected 23.4%, Arthurs' own adjusted 20.1%*, Isner's 24.5% and Karlovic's 25.0%. Hell, he's not even in the top 20 since '91 (check UTS if you remain skeptical), in fact lower than #21 since '90s studs like Rusedski and possibly even Sampras would get ahead of him with their own duplicate aces/DFs removed. You're fooling yourself if you still think Reilly would come anywhere near those bots' career averages even with all "headwinds" in his favor, especially when they were against Goran, Richard, Scud, Greg, Pistol and other '90s bombers.

*I was able to get Wayne's real % fairly easily cuz '99 is the only Wimbledon he participated in with the double service points. Here are the official scoreboards (in hyperlinks) for the 1st and 4th rounds (I took out the duplicates manually for the other two, hence the asterisks) and the key numbers (aces/service points and 1st-serve %, just like in the Goran thread) in case anyone's interested:

1999
1R - 19.3% (29/150), 67.3% (101/150)
2R* - 16.7% (17/102), 60.8% (62/102)
3R* - 27.6% (29/105), 47.6% (50/105)
4R - 18.1% (25/138), 52.2% (72/138)
Total - 20.2% (100/495), 57.6% (285/495)

Career - 20.12% (452/2246), 59.80% (1343/2246)

No doubt there are small discrepancies between the official #s and the ATP's after '99. I'll give Arthurs his own thread after I'm done double-checking the rest of his Wimby stats.

Those stats are surprising for me, sincerely.

Maybe Cressy and Brown are up there (talking about current players) because most of their matches are against low-ranked players, I guess, so that could up their stats a bit, but quite surprising anyway.

Ivo and Henman stats are not that surprising for me, because I know the high quality of their service/serve-and-volley game.
Well, if I've convinced at least one skeptical poster here that means my work wasn't all for naught!

And right, Brown didn't face a whole lot of big names in his charted matches which no doubt helped, but Cressy is another matter. I'll again quote my PM to @TheFifthSet from a couple months back:

Dunno, 32 matches is a pretty decent-sized sample and a close look at his opponents suggests otherwise: Tsits, PCB, Grigor (2 matches), Bull, Evans, Med, Hurkacz, Norrie, Fritz, Felix, Rublev, Korda, Karen, Diego, Djoker, Rune (2) and Sinner. Hardly a MM lineup.

His sky-high 2nd-serve Unret% doesn't surprise moi much, though, cuz he really goes for it on his 2nds:


IC his % of net points won sans S&V has risen to 45-46%, but that's still on the lower end and UTS tells us he hasn't stopped DFing on almost 1 out of every 10 SPs. I remain skeptical that's a smart or viable strategy for anyone, given how close these matches are, but it's obvious that when he does get those 1st-ish serves in he wins quite a few of 'em outright.

And like you said he's crap on return, as expected. Not sure anyone has ever put together such a contrast of extremes. Will need more data before I (or anyone else, really) can declare his unique MO a success/failure.
Now he's got 35 matches under his belt, with Berrettini and Wawrinka (if an admittedly diminished version) as his latest notable additions. And yet he's won a stellar 70.8% of his S&V points, more than any of his fellow net daredevils (yes including Pistol who stands at 69.8%) except Muller who's done him one better with a whopping 74.0%!

I mean what more proof do you need for the viability of S&V in today's game? Most of these guys' lackluster resumes are due to their poor return games, not the other half of the equation where their serves and volleys did more than their heavy lifting (again except for M. Zverev who doesn't have much of a serve to begin with). Simply put the likes of Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic would be kicking plenty of ass now and in whatever era.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
And the more recent guys did? The point was that just about every one of those net rushers won at least 65% of their S&V attempts regardless of era or strings.

Speaking of which:


Bro, you're the one who keeps trotting out tired talking points. That post alone cites % of net points won (if admittedly indirectly), ace % AND % of S&V points won but you choose to ignore 'em cuz they're not kind to the established narrative.

And your fixation on balls is downright laughable when we know for a fact that Pistol won the USO the following year despite those supposedly uber-slow balls, Henman still kept making QFs and SFs at SW19 and even posted his career-best SFs at RG and Flushing in '04, and another '90s holdover in Bjorkman reached his own career-best Wimby SF in '06. I see that Jonas has only two post-'01 matches charted by TA statheads so far, but it's a fair bet he still came in far more than the average guy in his later years given his career average (from 12 matches) of 31.7% (607/1913) Net Freq, which makes him a bona fide all-courter:


Not to mention all of those bots would be serving a truckload of aces with a frying pan. I mean how long will y'all drone one about whatever "headwinds" until reality hits you in the head?

Oh and Opelka's 15.7% career ace frequency at SW19 isn't even in the same vicinity as Ivanisevic's corrected 23.4%, Arthurs' own adjusted 20.1%*, Isner's 24.5% and Karlovic's 25.0%. Hell, he's not even in the top 20 since '91 (check UTS if you remain skeptical), in fact lower than #21 since '90s studs like Rusedski and possibly even Sampras would get ahead of him with their own duplicate aces/DFs removed. You're fooling yourself if you still think Reilly would come anywhere near those bots' career averages even with all "headwinds" in his favor, especially when they were against Goran, Richard, Scud, Greg, Pistol and other '90s bombers.

*I was able to get Wayne's real % fairly easily cuz '99 is the only Wimbledon he participated in with the double service points. Here are the official scoreboards (in hyperlinks) for the 1st and 4th rounds (I took out the duplicates manually for the other two, hence the asterisks) and the key numbers (aces/service points and 1st-serve %, just like in the Goran thread) in case anyone's interested:

1999
1R - 19.3% (29/150), 67.3% (101/150)
2R* - 16.7% (17/102), 60.8% (62/102)
3R* - 27.6% (29/105), 47.6% (50/105)
4R - 18.1% (25/138), 52.2% (72/138)
Total - 20.2% (100/495), 57.6% (285/495)

Career - 20.12% (452/2246), 59.80% (1343/2246)

No doubt there are small discrepancies between the official #s and the ATP's after '99. I'll give Arthurs his own thread after I'm done double-checking the rest of his Wimby stats.


Well, if I've convinced at least one skeptical poster here that means my work wasn't all for naught!

And right, Brown didn't face a whole lot of big names in his charted matches which no doubt helped, but Cressy is another matter. I'll again quote my PM to @TheFifthSet from a couple months back:


Now he's got 35 matches under his belt, with Berrettini and Wawrinka (if an admittedly diminished version) as his latest notable additions. And yet he's won a stellar 70.8% of his S&V points, more than any of his fellow net daredevils (yes including Pistol who stands at 69.8%) except Muller who's done him one better with a whopping 74.0%!

I mean what more proof do you need for the viability of S&V in today's game? Most of these guys' lackluster resumes are due to their poor return games, not the other half of the equation where their serves and volleys did more than their heavy lifting (again except for M. Zverev who doesn't have much of a serve to begin with). Simply put the likes of Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic would be kicking plenty of ass now and in whatever era.
no doubt those players would be dangerous in any era...sampras, mac, becker, edberg, stich in particular were simply phenomenal talents. rafter i think would be in a bit more trouble but still, great player. and goran...still the best 1st serve i've ever seen. his placement, speed and ball movement was crazy, i just remember players not being within a zip code of some of his aces.
 

Federev

Legend
Thats a true test of talent. Adapting to crazy diversifying conditions from one week to the next. I think its high time, we go back to Fast Slick, low bouncing grass, Rebound Ace, Fast HC Conditions, Ridiculously Slow Clay. We have "Dummy'd down" on tennis surfaces making it easier to dominate like they have done for kids on the SATs in High School in America and the result? A country of stupid people that no longer innovate/create and can't compete with countries we used to own. Dumbing things down only create a future of dumb people
I like it.

I like it a lot.

But I can’t go through Peter Sampras servbotting through a decade of Wimbledon again.

I know he’s amazing and a great talent and I under appreciate him. But for me as a fan it was incredibly boring and repetitive and there wasn’t enough flash in his game to make up for points that lasted .03 seconds a piece. I actually gave up watching the game to some degree.

As much as I might snore through Murrovic - I’d rather watch that!
 

Federev

Legend
Because some will lie in order to damn serve and volley in favor of the easy, one-dimensional baseliner play of Agassi and everyone who followed that depressing kind of game into this century. There is nothing more sleep-inducing than watching two hacks stand at or behind the baseline for 5 hours trading shots / waiting for someone else to make a mistake instead of employing the endless S&V tactics to take control of or win a match.
To each his own.

But I’m not lying that I found Sampras’ Wimbledon exploits repetitive and lacking in drama.

I’m not saying Murray v Novak is much better (tho I’ll take it), but give me any Fedalovic match over those Pete Wimbledon matches any day. Easy.

To each his own.
 
Top