I so agree with your notion but percentages there. I'd say slower courts are a large part but a bit smaller than 75% of the problem. Balls are also an issue lately. Suppliers/producers should be looked at. The new tech of strings and rackets has been expected and that's all workable with but the balls and courts not so much. The humulation is what pro players have to play on and what their rackets have to hit. Making it in the sport is a "rocket science" now. Players need a lot more complex blue print to success and that may not mean they will plan to play for the audiences or love of the sport.
Lack of variety in modern tennis
- Thread starter AlexATP
- Start date
It is not so difficult to change hard court speed actually as they paint the courts frequently, sometimes before each pro tournament. They can reduce the sand percentage, easy, and the ball will bounce faster and lower. Less sand will even make the balls fluff less..
Yes, but I think they do what they are told as do those tennis balls suppliers/producers that sign fat agreements with the tennis powers.
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
I've been thinking along same lines. Federer playing Blake in YEC final demonstrated off the chart variety, hitting low percentage shots time and time again, successfully. Such baseline variety is completely gone. Modern analytics discovered plays that are -EV, beyond what is available publicly in tactical systems like Wardlow's. Most top players have data analysts on their teams and buy advanced data, crafting very specific gameplans that exploit opponents weaknesses and counter-exploirt their game plans. That narrows the play to near-optimal tactics for both players (as in, game-theory equilibrium). On the flip side of it, frequent use of dropshots and the comeback of S&V, as a response to deep court positions, reintroduced some variety to the game. Increased RHSs give access to new areas of the court and more varied combinations of spin and speed.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, though the good thing about tennis was that if the conditions were further enough apart by venue variety could remain, even in spite of soulless optimization, because the optimal strategy on each surface would still differ.
An underdiscussed root cause is the tour catering to its players: TB's in 5th sets, no Super Saturday, no experimental tournaments like Blue Clay, no more carpet, increasingly sterile courts leading to surface convergence (recall Hewitt and others complaining about the stickiness of RA, bad bounces on the old grass making baselining a higher-risk strategy at Wimby), some courts getting slowed down at the behest of players (Paris/Fed)...on'n'on we go. For variety to return you need to make the Pro Tour Calendar less player-friendly and more of an obstacle course again. Now even if that happens, you won't get all of the toothpaste back in the tube (poly will make sure of that), but you'll get a lot.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
alright lets compare slam finals.
2000:
AO - two-handed baseliner vs two-handed baseliner.
RG - two-handed baseliner vs. one-handed baseliner.
Wimby - a one-handed all-courter/SnV'er vs a one-handed pure S'n'V'er.
USO - a one-handed all-courter/SnV'er vs. a two-handed baseliner and one of the first giants with very good movement.
2024:
AO - two-handed baseliner vs two-handed baseliner.
RG - two-handed baseliner vs two-handed baseliner.
Wimby - two-handed baseliner vs two-handed baseliner.
USO - two-handed baseliner vs two-handed baseliner.
Sure, it's a quick and superficial way of comparing variety, but the picture doesn't meaningfully change the more one zooms in.
Last edited:
That's what divides that top 100 or 200 from the rest of tennis players most often. Those "data analysts" come for a fee; the more "advanced data", the higher the fee which is why the very top players may also create a gap from the 20th-30th ranked players too. Perhaps the ITF should provide all players with equal "data analysts" when approving the surface of courts and quality of tennis balls too. But then they'd also have to offer diaticians and experts on how much doping is allowed/detectable uniformly. Where would the "competitiveness" be then? Or, where would the gap in between top and bottom be in ATP/WTA? Would we see more exciting tennis when winners would be more difficult to guess? How would that impact the betting.com? Could more high quality tennis players be grown then?
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Great post.
I think another unfortunate casualty is that "typically" suboptimal traits getting rooted out on the macro deprive us of the serendipity of individual players turning those things into outright strengths...Roddick and his late-junior career service motion switch, Fed/Agassi taking the ball earlier than anyone today, the one hander in general,,, among others.
Last edited:
EddieChang
Professional
People indulge in the highlights from the past especially the memorable matches but if they actually watch like a random 3rd round match from 50 years ago start to finish they sucked
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
We're talking about variety not quality. No nostalgia-tinted glasses required to acknowledge there's less of the former today. It seems like a fairly uncontroversial point.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Balls and court speed can't impact this trajectory significantly, and racquets and strings are not going to be artificially limited.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
It's not just balls and court speeds...
...though I agree that even changing both might not be enough on their own (frankly think the court speed angle is overblown anyway).
'90s tennis was more varied in pretty much every respect: balls, court speeds, equipment (well, late '90s), court composition/idiosyncracies and resultant differences in how they played, different tournament settings/formats/rules, etc.
I don't have a particular fondness for the era (before my time, as it were), but spades are spades.
Probably right, sadly.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
and here we are with info of recreational tennis players but professional TTW posters
Retired Pro, I take it? Anything you strongly disagree with? If so, what? Spell it out for the plebs, shouldn't be hard.
Last edited:
No, you keep "spelling it out" here. It's entertaining. Shoes and shirts will be sold on TTW no matter what.Retired Pro, I take it? Anything you strongly disagree with? If so, what? Spell it out for the plebs, shouldn't be hard.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
No, you keep "spelling it out" here. It's entertaining. Shoes and shirts will be sold on TTW no matter what.
Ah, yeah, checked your profile: half of your "contributions" seem to be vaguely rude/snide remarks wrapped around confidently bad English.
Will take the unwillingness to engage as a concession.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
America's Cup yachts are foiling monohulls that are driven by bicycle-winches. They are not going back to elegance and graceful anytime soon ... or at all.
Unless a technological step beyond the current racquets and strings emerges, you'll either have to like tennis as it is ... or forget about it.
Unless a technological step beyond the current racquets and strings emerges, you'll either have to like tennis as it is ... or forget about it.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
It’ll never get to the level of yesteryears variety without equipment intervention, but there can still be a significantly increased amount given the other kinds of tinkering I alluded to.
Either way, I will always enjoy tennis, even in its current form. That wasn’t in question.
Last edited:
I'll let your speedy personal data analysis speak. Perhaps, you can find a job to improve the modern tennis after all.Ah, yeah, checked your profile: half of your "contributions" seem to be vaguely snide remarks wrapped around confidently bad English.
Will take your unwillingness to engage as a concession.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Should I have defined the word “concession” for you?
Sorry, sometimes us proficient speakers get ahead of ourselves.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Guess your takeaway is that the guy responding to the unprompted snideness with prompted snideness is the baddie.
The general standard of players has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. Players today have very few weaknesses, they all are top flight athletes with very sound games with solid stokes off both sides. It is very difficult to be an out and out serve volley player as the groundstrokes are just so solid. The basic blueprint today is thump your groundies to force an error or you get to the net after a weak reply. Equipment wise large head rackets have been around since Prince in the seventies and the Babolat Pure drive since the mid nineties. Poly strings have also been around since the mid nineties as well and many players choose more traditional frames anyway. There are still many players using gut in a hybrid string setup as well. I think the athleticism of the players and the fact that tennis a truly world wide sport these days is the main reason for the basic blueprint that they all use, except Alcaraz.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It's the strings, i.e. poly instead of gut. Poly strings enable more power but also more margin for error (i.e. more control) because of more topspin with any given shot, which massively discourages serve and volley strategy.
netlets
Professional
And I would also add that the slower courts have made the matches much more physical all year round which has caused way more injuries.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Now ^here’s a proper, well-stated and respectful argument! Read and learn, @TennisBro.
Nonetheless, I do disagree on many of the finer details.
Serve-in rates hugely increased from ‘01 to ‘04 (3% tour-wide in only three years) which coincided perfectly with the mass-adoption of poly. Yes, its been around since the mid 90’s but only in the early 2000’s did it become truly widespread, with some hold-outs all the way up to the late 2000’s (Djoko played with an all-multi til around early '08, after which he started started using Luxilon crosses). Don’t know a single good player since him and Haas that didn’t have at least a hybrid set-up.
Anyway, this added security off the serve made s+v a little less viable, as going to the net is a higher variance play on serve (why do it if you can hold 90% of the time from the back of the court with a strong enough serve+1) and poly enhances passing shots more than volleys or other touch shots. Equipment definitely played a massive role in shaping the meta of the modern game.
However, even on a poly-dominated tour, I still don’t think style variety or novelty is necessarily dead, it’s just too convenient a thing to believe on a tour that is more homogenized than any other point in the last 60+ years. Return to 30% fescue and you will doubtless see wonkier bounces around the baseline at Wimbledon again; bring carpet back and it’ll liven the season for more offensively-slanted players; experiment with dyes on clay like they did in ‘12 or revive Hartru and it’ll be another thing for an athlete playing year-round to adjust to. Even if the the “basic blueprint” stays the same for most players, you’ll still have some wrinkles, some new (or rediscovered) ground to tread, SOMETHING to force a top player to adjust to that might at least improve the product and spike the parity index.
Mind you…I don’t think any of these changes will be implemented any time soon, IF AT ALL. But there are many non-equipment related things that can at least be tried before waving the white flag, imho.
Last edited:
What's "proper" and "respectful" isn't up to you and your computer program to decide.
That's your TTW privilege sadly as it seems.
Yes, you may have an opinion here.
Play pro tennis/coach pro tennis more often, travel to ATP/WTA events weekly/monthly, make a real effort rather than "think" and then "read and learn"!
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Oh?
Indeed. Opinions that you can mock, but not thoughtfully respond to (the ones you even understand, that is).
Definitely no thinking to be found on your part. Just performative sneering between the nightly Rosetta Stone sessions.
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
For me the biggest danger is the increasing dominance and importance of the serve. This fits sadly well with the growth of the average top player height. Don't know if Rafa looked at the data, but his recent comments about the future of tennis are on point.
Enjoying honestly clay more and more relative to fast hardcourt. Less oppressive serve+forehand leaves more room for variety.
Responding "thoughtfully" is truly a lot more constructive than mocking, when postings are productive.
What's the topic here? Oh, you've got one of your 5 AI components that reply to that.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, this is maybe the first time I’ve ever enjoyed clay more! I also am a bit worried about servebotting taking hold of the tour, though it seems as if there’s been at least a temporary plateau with some of the TallBots retiring and/or declining.
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Yes, we have less serve bots but the average quality of the serve has been creeping up over the years. Something needs to be done, sooner or later.
P.S: Keep in mind that I have been very critical about the lack of serve training in Italian youth tennis.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
I think you just can’t respond to any of my arguments but still have a compulsive need to save face. How’s that working out for ya?
What's the topic here? Oh, you've got your AI components that reply to that.
You think moderately fast typing (will I need to recommend TypingAcademy now?) and basic command of the language = “AI”?
Utterly embarrassing, LOL. Feel free to run my posts through any detector you want. Won’t be any sign of AI usage and I’ve never used an LLM for anything that wasn’t work-related.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Yep, the floor is absolutely higher, especially amongst Top 40-50 players where Nalby/Davy much less Fognini calibre of pure serving is quite rare now. I suppose it makes sense that the one thing that’s fully within a players control will see steady rates of improvement.
I would agree that poly plus poly/gut hybrids have taken over but at my club it's interesting to see the young 'would be' pros just basically stringing as tight as they can get away with. The idea being to crack the ball as hard as you can without it going out and most don't fool around with strings or tensions, basically using the top string for that brand, ie Babolat RPM in Babolat rackets. If you role back 20/30 years they were doing the same with Prince Synthetic Gut, but stringing at 65 plus pounds. So I'm not entirely sure that that 55lbs poly has any more power than 65lbs syn gut or 70lbs gut, but I guess they do get some extra free spin for the same shot.
Yeah ok, if you "think" so. I posted my two cents. Continue opinionating about modern tennis. I need to play the fifth set rather than just talk about it.I think you just can’t respond to any of my arguments but still have a compulsive need to save face. How’s that working out for ya?
You think moderately fast typing (will I need to recommend TypingAcademy now?) and basic command of the language = “AI”?
Utterly embarrassing, LOL. Feel free to run my posts through any detector you want. Won’t be any sign of AI usage and I’ve never used an LLM for anything that wasn’t work-related.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Yeah ok, if you "think" so. I posted my two cents. Continue opinionating about modern tennis. I need to play the fifth set rather than just talk about it.
Should give credit where it’s due, you’re definitely not using an LLM or Google Translate, this is clearly all you.
ALCARAZWON
Professional
Alcaraz has variety, that's why he's 4-0 vs. peak Sinner, including 2-0 on hardcourts!
Shelton played with variety vs. Sinner at this year's AO, for the first 10 games...
But its not Shelton's natural way, so he couldn't keep it up, and choked away the 1st Set.
Whereas Alcaraz plays every shot in the book at a high level, so his variety is constant.
Federer was known for this variety, except Federer's serve won a lot of cheap points.
Alcaraz has Nadal-type athleticism to make-up for the lack of cheap points on serve.
Shelton played with variety vs. Sinner at this year's AO, for the first 10 games...
But its not Shelton's natural way, so he couldn't keep it up, and choked away the 1st Set.
Whereas Alcaraz plays every shot in the book at a high level, so his variety is constant.
Federer was known for this variety, except Federer's serve won a lot of cheap points.
Alcaraz has Nadal-type athleticism to make-up for the lack of cheap points on serve.
Last edited:
The main reason are the new poly racquets though, and that very similar racquets stayed the gold standard for over two decades now. Therefore players have found the best style with them, while back then most young players were just speculating what might be effective when they were old enough to become pros and many players were simply searching for their best style.
The surface factor is quite overrated. They could bring back 90s surfaces, and the modern standard style with current racquets would still be unbeatable in the long range.
ibbi
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not talking about variety of play, but variety in the kinds of players. One dimensional players have always existed, but their different skillsets allowed them to thrive on different surfaces. Now, you have to play essentially one specific way in order to succeed everywhere with far less variance to that than ever before.
If you're talking about lack of variety in play, things are looking brighter than they have in over a decade. It's not just Alcaraz, but Rune, Mensik, Diallo, Mpetshi Perricard, Fils, Cobolli and Arnaldi are not bad even. These guys are playing with more variety, more touch, more interest in getting forward than we saw out of the vast majority of the 90s born guys. The key is that they succeed doing it, so they keep doing it.
Sinner is the exception, and has far more in common with those who came before than those who have come after. Surprise, surprise, he's world number 1. He's still trying to increase his capabilities though.
I "give credit" to the ones who deserve it, not trollers or slick-tongued profilersShould give credit where it’s due, you’re definitely not using an LLM or Google Translate, this is clearly all you.
Should shut up where it's due
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Last edited:
Daniel Andrade
Legend
never discussed before
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
You touch on a key and very often missed distinction.
Bolded is a more succinct and better-articulated version of what I’ve said in various threads throughout the years.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I don't see how it can be denied.
Absolutely. That's likely why it was done, to get reliable big names at the top, and across all surfaces. In the 1990s, it was a time of different playing styles thriving on different surfaces, and usually distinct best players on different surfaces, like the best players on clay, such as Bruguera, Medvedev, Muster, Kuerten etc. would usually struggle on grass, even if doing great on clay. To excel on grass in those days, they would likely need to play very differently, unless there was hot and dry weather. These days, the contrast from clay to grass is mostly about attitude, i.e. clay rewards patience and endurance, grass rewards aggressive and instinctive play, but a more general baseline rally style is the way things are in the poly era. For the moneymen, the modern conditions mean a predictability with the players who will reach the latter stages, and easier to market, a contrast to the late 1990s in particular when men's tennis was often criticized for not having many engaging rivalries. I remember even Borg around 1999 criticizing the lack of rivalries in men's tennis, and Lendl around that same time saying that he preferred watching women's tennis as they had more engaging rallies and rivalries.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
In order to help you expand your mind more consider these points:
#1 Roddick refused to focus on S&V even though he had the most consistently powerful service game in the history of tennis, all during the time people claim the courts were “fast” and before the balls had ever changed.
His service game was effective enough he made finals at Wim in 2004, 2005, and 2009, winning USO in 2003. A powerful service game isn’t going to help you with a slow surface as we see how incredibly poorly the S&V crew performed on clay.
He didn’t S&V because there was no advantage for him in doing so.
#2 Andre Agassi, possibly the godfather of the baseline game which was a new style to tennis, wins Wim in 1992 (against Goran Ivanišević)!!!, and USO in 1994 and 1999 even though the courts were supposedly insanely fast all while playing a baseline game and NO poly string.
Andrea didn’t switch to poly string until 2002.
#3 Lleyton Hewitt, the apex of “pusher” style tennis wins Wim in 2002, and USO in 2001 when the courts were supposedly fast.
Alcaraz clearly demonstrates that any style is still possible when used intelligently, even Federer demonstrated this.
The reason we don’t see S&V is 100% because the players choose not to do it.
#1 Roddick refused to focus on S&V even though he had the most consistently powerful service game in the history of tennis, all during the time people claim the courts were “fast” and before the balls had ever changed.
His service game was effective enough he made finals at Wim in 2004, 2005, and 2009, winning USO in 2003. A powerful service game isn’t going to help you with a slow surface as we see how incredibly poorly the S&V crew performed on clay.
He didn’t S&V because there was no advantage for him in doing so.
#2 Andre Agassi, possibly the godfather of the baseline game which was a new style to tennis, wins Wim in 1992 (against Goran Ivanišević)!!!, and USO in 1994 and 1999 even though the courts were supposedly insanely fast all while playing a baseline game and NO poly string.
Andrea didn’t switch to poly string until 2002.
#3 Lleyton Hewitt, the apex of “pusher” style tennis wins Wim in 2002, and USO in 2001 when the courts were supposedly fast.
Alcaraz clearly demonstrates that any style is still possible when used intelligently, even Federer demonstrated this.
The reason we don’t see S&V is 100% because the players choose not to do it.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Not a good example to adduce because Roddick had a uniquely bad transition/net game. Out of the hundreds of players on TA’s sample he had the second lowest net winning %. Remove the matches against Federer and it’s still one of the lowest.
Even relative to his era, he was terrible up at net. Slow transition step, bad forward movement, cheated too much to a side, dubious volleying, poor awareness = bad net game for any era, not merely fleeced by the one he was in. And poly was already in vogue in the early part of his career.
(In case anyone misunderstands let me make it clear that I do believe SnV as a dominant style on faster surfaces was on its way out even before poly, but poly absolutely accelerated this development and Roddick not choosing to do a thing he was likely innately bad at doesn’t lead us anywhere fruitful.)
Even relative to his contemporaries he posted poor figures at the net (despite, as you helpfully point out, a huge serve and forehand).
Saying Roddick “chose” to eschew netplay is sort of correct in the same way that saying Shaq “chose” to not take 3’s would be. He didn’t have the skills to be great or even good at the net. Era and mindset wouldn’t change that.
Winning from the baseline on grass was absolutely a deviation from the norm at the time; what point do you think you’re proving by citing that? Sampras won 7 of the next 8 Wimbledons by SnV’ing, only getting broken 4 times in 7 finals.
Yeah, the greatest ballstriker ever won some slams and yeah, you could win from the baseline even in the period of time that had the most style variety…if you couldn’t, it would run counter to the idea of it having the most style variety, no?
#3 Lleyton Hewitt, the apex of “pusher” style tennis wins Wim in 2002, and USO in 2001 when the courts were supposedly fast.
Alcaraz clearly demonstrates that any style is still possible when used intelligently, even Federer demonstrated this.
The reason we don’t see S&V is 100% because the players choose not to do it.
It’s not 100% anything. It’s a multivariate subject.
If you don’t think massively changing conditions at least incentivized the tour to max out baselining I’m not sure what to tell you here.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Fast courts or not winning from the baseline was ALWAYS possible even WITHOUT poly against the best S&V in the history of the world, the reason that we didn’t see more baseline game is because that style of play was still new and the pool of available baseline players was incredibly small.
Again, we still see variety when the players make the choice to use variety AT THE PROPITIATE TIMES.
Federer changed his game to be more well rounded and leaning towards baseline game while he was young and the courts were still supposedly “fast”.
We see the same phenomena with Alcaraz’s all court game being utilized on all surface. Arguably less so on the surfaces that are supposedly the fastest.
Big service games still remain highly effective to the point that some players like Roddick live off of it almost exclusively.
Again, we still see variety when the players make the choice to use variety AT THE PROPITIATE TIMES.
Federer changed his game to be more well rounded and leaning towards baseline game while he was young and the courts were still supposedly “fast”.
We see the same phenomena with Alcaraz’s all court game being utilized on all surface. Arguably less so on the surfaces that are supposedly the fastest.
Big service games still remain highly effective to the point that some players like Roddick live off of it almost exclusively.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
I don't think anyone in this thread denied it was possible, least of all myself.
What do you think my position is? Can you characterize/describe it?
It's not 100% any one thing, and it's wrong-headed to believe it is.
It's better to quote-respond to specific things specific people are saying. I don't think I disagree with any of the things you said in this paragraph lol. Disagree mightily with other things you derived/extrapolated from them, but I can't be assed to rebut stuff I mostly already believe in.
Last edited:
Similar threads
