On hard courts and on grass there is no real tennis !!!

#1
I think we all agree that tennis needs a great change. New rackets and strings killed tennis on grass and on hard courts. There are average players who only can serve 240km/h and play volleys and who are or were in top 20 ATP. Cilic, Isner, Raonic, Anderson, Querey....Now real tennis is played only on clay courts. In US and in Australia there is a great crisis. For 15 years there was no great player from these countries. We cant be surprised because they play on had courts so they can only serve and play volleys. They play primitive tennis without topspin forehand and backhand. When the best players fight with 2 meters high great servers random breakes decide who wins. Something must be done to save tennis. Maybe only one serve should be allowed. Maybe on fast surfaces they should play using different balls slowing the game. What do you think ?
 
#3
I think you need to find something to do in life, tennis is obviously not enough, since you obviously have nothing better to do in life than troll this forum and open ridicilous thread after ridicilous thread and keep repeating the same thing in said thread for weeks.
Probably you play serve and volley. You dont want to save tennis. Please if you have nothing wise to say dont try to offend anybody. It is a primitive method used by primitive people. I still believe that you are a decent person.
 
#4
GD that’s just silly even by your standards. Seriously are you suggesting that the only tennis worth playing is on clay and that somehow fantastic serve and volley players are devaluing the sport? The serve is the hardest shot to master given the myriad components and volleys require incredible reactions and timing, not to mention flawless technique. Btw Cilic and Anderson have excellent all court games.

The sport is richer for multiple surfaces and playing styles as I’ve said before. Some all time classic matches put players of opposite styles against each other on surprising surfaces. Take Agassi vs Ivanisevic at Wimbledon where Agassi won his first slam on his least favourite surface. Unpredictable, unmissable and unforgettable. How would you classify that? Hard courts are the most popular surface on the Tour. So many classic matches.

Clay is a great surface and there have been some fabulous matches past and present. Soderling beating Nadal at the French is a classic. It’s my personal preference as well but just because hard and grass courts are not as suited to my game as clay it doesn’t mean they are somehow inferior. Nor does it mean that all players that excel on the surfaces that I am not as strong on are in any way technically deficient. You need to open your mind and perhaps go and watch some tournament at a high level on the surfaces you have criticised. You may just learn to appreciate the abilities of the players proficient on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#5
GD that’s just silly even by your standards. Seriously are you suggesting that the only tennis worth playing is on clay and that somehow fantastic serve and volley players are devaluing the sport? The serve is the hardest shot to master given the myriad components and volleys require incredible reactions and timing, not to mention flawless technique. Btw Cilic and Anderson have excellent all court games.

The sport is richer for multiple surfaces and playing styles as I’ve said before. Some all time classic matches put players of opposite styles against each other on surprising surfaces. Take Agassi vs Ivanisevic at Wimbledon where Agassi won his first slam on his least favourite surface. Unpredictable, unmissable and unforgettable. How would you classify that? Hard courts are the most popular surface on the Tour. So many classic matches.

Clay is a great surface and there have been some fabulous matches past and present. Soderling beating Nadal at the French is a classic. It’s my personal preference as well but just because hard and grass courts are not as suited to my game as clay it doesn’t mean they are somehow inferior. Nor does it mean that all players that excel on the surfaces that I am not as strong on are in any way technically deficient. You need to open your mind and perhaps go and watch some tournament at a high level on the surfaces you have criticised. You may just learn to appreciate the abilities of the players proficient on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2 meters high monster doesnt even need any rotation when he serves. It has nothing in common with tennis. Soderling beat Nadal because Nadal was injured.
 
#6
2 meters high monster doesnt even need any rotation when he serves. It has nothing in common with tennis. Soderling beat Nadal because Nadal was injured.
Yes it does - you are incorrect. I did not state why Soderling won only that it was a classic match - I’m guessing most people would agree with me. In your world Nadal wins every ATP tournament. Oh hang on, unless he comes up against a fired up Dominic Thiem with his modern forehand and goat jumping.

GD - have you ever visited Earth?????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#7
Yes it does - you are incorrect. I did not state why Soderling won only that it was a classic match - I’m guessing most people would agree with me. In your world Nadal wins every ATP tournament. Oh hang on, unless he comes up against a fired up Dominic Thiem with his modern forehand and goat jumping.

GD - have you ever visited Earth?????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you think that Thiem wins because he jumps higher than Nadal ?
 
#10
Discussion about changes is nothing strange. 10 years ago it was discussed in the world of tennis. They slowed down surfaces at US Open and at Australian Open. Unfortunately changes in rackets and strings were faster so some adjustments should be made.
I can accept that you might think that changes are needed. But it’s ridiculous to dismiss all surfaces apart from Clay and their exponents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#13
They beat their opponents fair and square. You just don’t like the methods they use and their skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes. They won their matches. But they won because rules allowed them to win without playing forehand and backhand at least on average level. Changes have been introduced in football regulations and many times in tennis. I rememeber the worst tennis match ever between Sampras and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. Organizers after this match were forced to slow down the grass. Now clay court players have some chances at Wimbledon but not great.
 
#14
Yes. They won their matches. But they won because rules allowed them to win without playing forehand and backhand at least on average level. Changes have been introduced in football regulations and many times in tennis. I rememeber the worst tennis match ever between Sampras and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. Organizers after this match were forced to slow down the grass. Now clay court players have some chances at Wimbledon but not great.
The two most important shots in tennis are serve and return. Groundstrokes follow those first two shots. Why do you consider groundstrokes more important? I would put it to you that the players you criticised Raonic, Isner, Querey, Anderson have figured it out. Your personal preference for long groundstrokes rallies defines you and your game. You have a moderate serve and rely on your groundstrokes and physicality to win matches. You have told us you do it well. I can understand why you think this is the best way to play tennis albeit it is based upon limited experience. I’ll repeat my mantra from your other threads - open your mind to new concepts and you’ll develop as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#15
The two most important shots in tennis are serve and return. Groundstrokes follow those first two shots. Why do you consider groundstrokes more important? I would put it to you that the players you criticised Raonic, Isner, Querey, Anderson have figured it out. Your personal preference for long groundstrokes rallies defines you and your game. You have a moderate serve and rely on your groundstrokes and physicality to win matches. You have told us you do it well. I can understand why you think this is the best way to play tennis albeit it is based upon limited experience. I’ll repeat my mantra from your other threads - open your mind to new concepts and you’ll develop as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Matches on fast surfaces look like practice of serves and volleys. It is just boring. In times of Borg, Connors and McEnroe even at Wimbledon there was some tennis. Nobody could serve 240km/h. Now it is too fast. At the end of their careers Isner and Anderson are again high in the ranking. Do they play better than before ? No. Now they have just much better rackets. Rules must be adjusted to changes in equipment. I dont watch Wimbledon and watch only last matches at US Open and Australian Open because it is boring. I know many people who do the same.
 
#16
Matches on fast surfaces look like practice of serves and volleys. It is just boring. In times of Borg, Connors and McEnroe even at Wimbledon there was some tennis. Nobody could serve 240km/h. Now it is too fast. At the end of their careers Isner and Anderson are again high in the ranking. Do they play better than before ? No. Now they have just much better rackets. Rules must be adjusted to changes in equipment. I dont watch Wimbledon and watch only last matches at US Open and Australian Open because it is boring. I know many people who do the same.
There are some match ups that are dominated by short rallies and that isn’t great to watch for some people. But there are so many more matches that aren’t. Equally there are some people who find the endless baseline slugging on clay equally dull. It’s whatever floats your boat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#17
The two most important shots in tennis are serve and return. Groundstrokes follow those first two shots. Why do you consider groundstrokes more important?
GD doesn't have a very good serve, so is derogatory towards others that do and towards surfaces that favor good serving...

If GD were taller and had a better serve and more penetrating groundstrokes, he likely wouldn't be such an advocate of clay courts :)
 
#18
Matches on fast surfaces look like practice of serves and volleys. It is just boring. In times of Borg, Connors and McEnroe even at Wimbledon there was some tennis. Nobody could serve 240km/h. Now it is too fast. At the end of their careers Isner and Anderson are again high in the ranking. Do they play better than before ? No. Now they have just much better rackets. Rules must be adjusted to changes in equipment. I dont watch Wimbledon and watch only last matches at US Open and Australian Open because it is boring. I know many people who do the same.
Have you actually studied Anderson’s groundstrokes and volleys? They are really very much improved. And of all people you would appreciate his physicality. The fact you find it boring is just personal preference. My mum finds watching the premier league boring but like you she’s in the minority and biased.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#19
GD doesn't have a very good serve, so is derogatory towards others that do and towards surfaces that favor good serving...

If GD were taller and had a better serve and more penetrating groundstrokes, he likely wouldn't be such an advocate of clay courts :)
My serve is really good but I dont use all my strength when I do it. It would be justified only if I went to the net after serve. I want to play tennis and not "serve and volley".
 
#20
My serve is really good but I dont use all my strength when I do it. It would be justified only if I went to the net after serve. I want to play tennis and not "serve and volley".
Just watching highlights of the young guns final between Tsitsipas and De Minaur and you are so wrong about many many things. Great match - watch it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#21
Just watching highlights of the young guns final between Tsitsipas and De Minaur and you are so wrong about many many things. Great match - watch it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I watched it now. Tsitsipas hits forehand from open stance and he uses only his hand. The rest of his body is inactive. It is one of the greatest errors of modern technique.
 
#25
How you manage to play tennis with such weak eyes?
Most of his forehands are from open stance. His chest is parallel to the net and he uses only his right hand. On these photos he is inside the court. He was forced to move forward.
I dont understand what problem you have with my comment. Do you want to say that he should hit the ball with closed stance ?
 
#26
The great tennis boom began in the late 1970's The game was mostly played with wood rackets then with some small-headed metal rackets. It was seen as a country-club sport, but it was also a very inexpensive sport, so someone from any socio-economic group could pick up a racket and play (and even become one of the greats). However, you had to work at the game to be good at it. It was a point of pride to be able to be even half-way decent at tennis. Tennis was also a driver in fashion and in social-rights.

Serve and volley was the predominant style of play, but there was a lot of variety in the game. Clay courts were much slower than now, grass courts were much faster, we had indoor carpet and all sorts of variation in the speed of hard courts.
Guillermo Vilas could win the Australian Open on grass. John McEnroe could get the the French Open final (and should have won) on clay.
Even tennis balls varied a lot.
Yes the players like consistency, but it is bad for the game.

We should go back and require only wood rackets be used. The racket manufacturers won't like that so, if their lobby is too strong, require that no racket be more than 75 sq in in head size. They banned 32" long rackets, they can ban larger-headed rackets.
Also, they should regulate strings, or sooner or later they will develop the technology to get around the rules. Golf regulates clubs and balls, tennis should do this also.

Let's have another tennis boom with lots of real serve and volley players and real clay-court grinders.
 
#27
Most of his forehands are from open stance. His chest is parallel to the net and he uses only his right hand. On these photos he is inside the court. He was forced to move forward.
I dont understand what problem you have with my comment. Do you want to say that he should hit the ball with closed stance ?
That was just the first fh I picked from match higlights. As any decent player, Tsitsipas hits forehands from variety of stances. Actually, feet position is determined by situation, while using of body to power shots is evident from legs pushing off the ground and torso rotating from 90 deg to facing the target direction. Even for hardest balls he uses his body, unlike some hacks using 2 arms instead.


I suggest that you visit a doctor.
 
#28
That was just the first fh I picked from match higlights. As any decent player, Tsitsipas hits forehands from variety of stances. Actually, feet position is determined by situation, while using of body to power shots is evident from legs pushing off the ground and torso rotating from 90 deg to facing the target direction. Even for hardest balls he uses his body, unlike some hacks using 2 arms instead.
Once more in your pictures he is running. This time parellel to the side line. We cant be surprised that his chest is perpendicular to the base line. If you watch video most his forehands are hit from open stance and he uses only his arm. Before the stroke his chest faces the net. This technique workes to average level. That is why young players using modern technique cant beat old players.
 
Last edited:
#30
Once more in your pictures he is running. This time parellel to the side line. We cant be surprised that his chest is perpendicular to the base line. If you watch video most his forehands are hit from open stance and he uses only his arm. Before the stroke his chest is faces the net. This technique workes to average level. That is why young players using modern technique cant beat old players.
20 years old and no15 in the world with over $2m in earnings for the year. Wish I was that average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#33
It only proves that there is a great crisis in tennis.
The only thing it proves is that Stephano is ranked the fifteenth best player in the world with a large bank account. That’s before his Twenty first birthday.

The only genuine crisis in tennis is on this forum GD and it’s driven by your repetitive cynical opinions that are quite openly based upon your personal taste, physical limitations and technical preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#34
The only thing it proves is that Stephano is ranked the fifteenth best player in the world with a large bank account. That’s before his Twenty first birthday.

The only genuine crisis in tennis is on this forum GD and it’s driven by your repetitive cynical opinions that are quite openly based upon your personal taste, physical limitations and technical preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tsitsipas won only one tournament and it was indoor so it was not real tennis.
This year he lost 27 matches. He is just an average player. I dont understand why we talk about him.
 
#38
Once more in your pictures he is running. This time parellel to the side line. We cant be surprised that his chest is perpendicular to the base line. If you watch video most his forehands are hit from open stance and he uses only his arm. Before the stroke his chest faces the net. This technique workes to average level. That is why young players using modern technique cant beat old players.
You know, the main issue with your forum activity is trying to discuss pro players with poor understanding of both technics and tactics. And what you talk here about Tsitsipas is just a usual case of being unable to see what you don’t know, even when it’s put right into your eyes. Nothing special.
 
#41
If you don't like tennis on either the original surface or the most common one, I suggest you find a sport you do like.
In Europe most tournaments are on clay. Wimbledon is just a kind of museum. The best players are from Europe. They win also on hard courts and on grass. In US and in Australia there are a lot of hard courts but there is nobody who can win any major tournament on that surface for 15 years. There are a lot of great couches in US but nobody knows why they are great because we cant see any good player trained by them.
 
#42
In Europe most tournaments are on clay. Wimbledon is just a kind of museum. The best players are from Europe. They win also on hard courts and on grass. In US and in Australia there are a lot of hard courts but there is nobody who can win any major tournament on that surface for 15 years. There are a lot of great couches in US but nobody knows why they are great because we cant see any good player trained by them.
You should train the first good US tennis player.

Post his results to prove your points.

:cool:
 
#43
You should train the first good US tennis player.

Post his results to prove your points.

:cool:
We can only discuss what is the reason of this great crisis in professional tennis in US. Since Roddick not even one great tennis player. Only 2 meters high servers(Rodick was not that high but his tennnis was based on serve too). US players cant play several balls in a row. Hard courts killed tennis in US. It is obvious.
 
#44
We can only discuss what is the reason of this great crisis in professional tennis in US. Since Roddick not even one great tennis player. Only 2 meters high servers(Rodick was not that high but his tennnis was based on serve too). US players cant play several balls in a row. Hard courts killed tennis in US. It is obvious.
This might come as a shock to you, but not everyone likes molasses grinder "tennis".

It also seems to me that Europe's great hope, Alexander Zverev, isn't that short. Neither is clay-loving South America's best player, Juan Martin del Potro.
 
#46
This might come as a shock to you, but not everyone likes molasses grinder "tennis".

It also seems to me that Europe's great hope, Alexander Zverev, isn't that short. Neither is clay-loving South America's best player, Juan Martin del Potro.
Zverev and del Porto`s tennis is not based on serve. They are universal players. They are at the net only when they have to. I dont think that Zverev will be the next winner of many grand slams.
 
Top