okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Definitely. I'm entirely sick of most of the top 10.
Like I said to 90's Clay, the game needs to promote itself, not it's stars.
PROOF of Suface Homogenization and Other Issues
- Thread starter okdude1992
- Start date
Like I said to 90's Clay, the game needs to promote itself, not it's stars.
It was actually a little bit more than just the Ivanisevic/Sampras servefests. They were the final nail nail in the coffin for Wimbledon. It started when the top players began to miss Wimbledon. Lendl started it. Of course he changed his mind when he had won everything else, but it was a sign that Wimbledon was no longer top of the tree in terms of how players saw things. Then Kuerten came along and said 'thanks, but no thanks' to playing at Wimbledon and the orange lights started flashing. Then Ivanisevic and Sampras started the mutterings about servefests and the red lights were flashing that Wimbledon was in danger of losing public interest and becoming marginalised. I think all the tournaments saw that if even Wimbledon could start to lose relevance they had to make sure they moved to maintain public interest, which means big name entrants, big names lasting to the end, and matches long enough to generate excitement and TV interest.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
"2014
Overall attendance for the 2014 edition passes 700,000 for the seventh time in eight years, registering at 713,642."
http://2014.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/years.html
The companies can sell you anything.
That is not to say that the top stars don't have the power to drive the revenue and attendance up, they do, but to say that without them the sport is not going to provide is IMO a bit delusional.
RSH
Professional
Masters 1000:
- According to Penn, 4 of the 5 biggest tournaments in North America use Penn ATP World Tour tennis balls as the official ball. We can probably assume the 5 biggest are the U.S. Open, Cincinnati, Canada, Indian Wells, and Miami. The Coupe Rogers also states Penn as the official ball on their website, link here. I couldn't find statements affirming this on the websites for the other 3 masters, but they all do have Penn as a sponsor if it means anything.
- Dunlop states here that their balls are the official balls of the Monte-Carlo, Madrid, and Rome Masters 1000s-specifically the Dunlop Fort Clay Court Ball, link here. Again, I couldn't find any info on the tournament sites claiming an official ball, but all 3 are sponsored by Dunlop as well.
- The Shanghai-Rolex Masters states here on their official site that the official tournament ball is Srixon which is apparently a type of Dunlop ball. The Srixon tennis site also states themselves as being the supplier of the Shanghai-Rolex masters; I couldn't tell which specific ball they supplied the tournament, but here's a link to the website and its stock of balls; it is, however, all in Japanese so some type of translator might be useful.
- The Paris-Bercy masters states on their official website here that they used HEAD tennis balls. Penn is apparently a subsidiary of HEAD, so they could just be Penn balls repackaged.
- Wimbledon claims Slazenger as their official ball here (you're going to have to scroll down quite a bit). Slazenger's official site specifies the Tour Core as the specific ball, link here.
- Babolat claims to supply the official ball of Roland Garros called the French Open ball, link here.
- Wilson claims to supply both the U.S. Open and the Australian Open with the U.S. Open tennis ball and Australian Open tennis ball respectively. Link to U.S. Open ball and link to Australian Open ball.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
What you write is true, but what does this show?
That Lendl was a self serving ***** that had no respect for the game.
That Kuerten was under the impression that a part time job on the tour was good enough.
For one, I am happy that ATP made the top players play mandatory events, because we were heading in the direction of superstars with the power to bend the will of the tournament directors and not respect the sport, because they thought it serves THEM best.
We saw a glimpse of that with Djokovic and Nadal forcing tournament directors to let their buddies compete, because they thought that to be OK.
xFedal
Legend
But it isn't like Nole can't dominate when Fed and Nadal are playing good tennis look 2011 he went 10-1 against Fed and Nadal. Demolished strong comp. Did you know Novak has more points from 11-15 than Fed did at 04-08, Novak has reached a peak even Fed or Nadal never reached.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Good analysis and research. To offer a rebuttal to a few people here, they changed the surfaces and speeds for the fans and to draw more people to the sport. In short, it has been a major success. Look how much money is involved in tennis now and how much prize money. They didn't do it to create ATG's obviously. Tennis, like any sport, is about money and that is what they were ultimately after. To be honest, I used to be bored to tears when I watched Wimbledon in the early 90's. It was either ace, serve and volley, or three groundstroke rallies. It was BORING! I remember watching Wimbledon and the commentators would say "Oh wow a rare longer rally!". That's the main reason that I was drawn more to the women's game during this time because there were more rallies and it was interesting. You can't please everyone it seems. Some want the sport to be more dynamic and interesting and others want it to stay the same forever. Sports evolve and change, and I see nothing wrong with evolution.
Last edited:
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Tennis_Hands
Banned
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Thanks. IMO having superstar players might bring in some fans, but I think rivalries and contrasting matchups are what keep people invested. The Fedal rivalry was big for tennis, just like Agassi/Sampras and Mac/Borg.
But with homogenized conditions, I feel like these epic rivalries will go away. Fedal was great bc it's a left vs righty, grinder vs shotmaker... To me that will be an exception in this era, where Djokovic vs Murray will be more the norm. 2 very similar players, one being just a bit better, dominating the the other.
To me, really the main thing that makes tennis interesting and challenging is the variety of ways you can win/lose. I feel like that's getting forgotten. It has to do with coaching as well, but the conditions are a massive factor.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Do you know what SABR is and do you see why I bolded this part of your post?
SABR didn't exist in the 90's so no I don't see why you bolded it.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Do you mean without homogenized conditions, they will go away? Fedal is a product of homogenized conditions and benefited more than anyone. Make no mistake about that. This would never have happened in the 90's because Nadal would have found it almost impossible to handle a Sampras on Centre Court. If the conditions were resorted back, it will go back to the days of surface specialists dominating their preferred turf and most not really being a factor anywhere else. Unless you have phenom like Borg who can handle both extremes. I personally don't want to see Wimbledon go back to the days of old because I didn't particularly like the boring servefests. It's apples and oranges basically. Now you have a more physical sport with grueling battles whereas the old days was not as physical because the court and balls did most of the work. It's to each it's own but I prefer a more athletic sport.
Fiero425
Legend
This is why I HOLD back when people try to elevate Nadal to GOAT status! We all know Rafa would be struggling all over the place if he were playing in the 90's! Besides the court speed being up, the competition was more aggressive with S & V specialist like Edberg, Becker, Stich, along with Sampras! Nadal may have wound up a "no factor" in the grand scheme of things! He already struggles from year to year with consistency and trying to stay healthy! The losses would make him more sick though! Even at the height of Nadal's powers he NEVER defended a title off dirt! That's unprecedented for a player consider an ATG! ;-(
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I think Nadal is the clay GOAT but I couldn't see him as a big obstacle for Sampras at Wimbledon. He probably wouldn't be able to deal with Becker or Edberg either. I just think the court would be too fast and low for him with his type of swings and Sampras would just smother him. Wow I did not know that he never defended a title that wasn't on clay.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
It's funny that all of those who support the slowing down of the game point only to Wim during the 90's to bolster their argument. What about the other 3 slams ? If you look at the winners/finalists of the AO, USO, you will see plenty of S/V'ers AND baseliners winning it or making the finals. And the furthest Ivanisevic/Krajicek made was a SF at the USO. There were plenty of great, long rallies at the other 3 slams. Here's one such rally:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Most of the people talking like that never saw the tennis in the 90ies.
Here is part of the Becker-Edberg match, where at some point the commentator says "Boris Becker doesn't get anything for free" which signifies the completely different dynamic and way of playing on grass. Big hitters were also going for more, were risking more etc.
And here is Wimbledon displaying just the right amount of exchanges in 1995.
It was beautiful really.
Two more things, quite obvious from those videos:
1) Look at the grass and tell me which one is in better condition: the one in the later stages of the tournament then or the one in the later stages of the tournament now?
2) All white clothes: not really.
Not that those things are not known, but maybe it is good to point at them for those, who don't know
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Totally. Biggest modern myth I've seen on here is that only Nole and Rafa benefited from the homogenization. Federer dominated a homogenized tour primarily with his baseline play. Sure he is capable of great all court tennis, but during his prime he was mowing people down with his forehand, and only rarely coming foreward.
What I was trying to say was that Fedal rivalry will be an exception if the tour stays as it is. I don't see any future rivalries producing such an interesting clash of styles. Because there aren't any other styles on tour besides excellent baseliner. The most interesting current rivalry is Stan (ballbashing from the baseline, 1HBH) vs Novak (consistency from the baseline, 2HBH)
And I agree the game is more physical and athletic now, but I'd prefer a little bit of both. Some fast courts rewarding the quick point game. Some slow courts rewarding the grinders. And some medium courts for balance. Even if the tour was like that, we would still see the most complete players rise to the top.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Absolutely and I agree with you. The serve and volley died pretty much when Pete Sampras left and never returned after the transitional era. I think the homogenized conditions played a part in that as well. Everyone is a baseliner now and I would like to see more contrasts with S/V and baseliners, but the standard is to stand on that baseline and duke it out. S/V died in both men and women's tennis and I just don't know that even if they speed the courts up, that it would make a significant resurgence.
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Well that might be true. But seeing some upsets again and new faces winning from time to time would be a good consolation prize
It's funny in my whole tennis career, I'm a defensive baseliner/counterpuncher. Yet I like to see the other styles and skills
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well that might be true. But seeing some upsets again and new faces winning from time to time would be a good consolation prize
It's funny in my whole tennis career, I'm a defensive baseliner/counterpuncher. Yet I like to see the other styles and skills
You played professionally? Don't worry. You will get plenty of that once Federer/Nadal/Djokovic leave the game. They are just too good really and have smothered all other competitors out of the winning circle for years. When they leave, it will be another transitional era with lots of different Slam winners and it will be interesting to see who will become the dominant force. American men's tennis is pretty dead and not that great on the women's side. When Serena retires, they will be a non-factor which is going to be very strange. I think Australian tennis will make a big comeback with Kyrgios and Kokkinakis and I predicted a year ago that they will be future top 5 players. I think they both are very talented. I noticed some other young players also but it really is not as many great talents on the horizon as I'm used to seeing.
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
No way! Just a decent college player haha. I coach fulltime now.
AceSalvo
Legend
"2014
Overall attendance for the 2014 edition passes 700,000 for the seventh time in eight years, registering at 713,642."
http://2014.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/years.html
The companies can sell you anything.
That is not to say that the top stars don't have the power to drive the revenue and attendance up, they do, but to say that without them the sport is not going to provide is IMO a bit delusional.
nothing delusional about seeing an empty stand for the USO '14 final in spite of established NextGen players.. that was as good as an advertisement for whats to come...
I dont see the group of youngsters who is going to provide the kind of stability with the #'s you posted..
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Fiero425
Legend
Same here! ;-)
abmk
Bionic Poster
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
Wow, my whole perception has been shifted after reading this!!
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/23. CourtSpeed.PDF
It appears the vertical speed should be considered just as much as the horizontal speed of the court. So those posters claiming BOUNCE HEIGHT was so critical were indeed correct. That would explain why Wimbledon appears so much slower than in the past. The truer, higher bounce must allow players more time to set up for their shots. Particularly off a higher arcing topspin shot rather than a volley or slice.
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/23. CourtSpeed.PDF
It appears the vertical speed should be considered just as much as the horizontal speed of the court. So those posters claiming BOUNCE HEIGHT was so critical were indeed correct. That would explain why Wimbledon appears so much slower than in the past. The truer, higher bounce must allow players more time to set up for their shots. Particularly off a higher arcing topspin shot rather than a volley or slice.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
I have three words to add about things outside court surface to slow down the game:
"Extra Duty Felt"
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
Yes, Rod Cross is one of a few Gods. You dwell deep enough into the internet, and read enough of his/his peers work, and tennis becomes a different sport.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Empty stands can happen for a variety of reasons.
Besides, how precise is your "eyemeter"?
I would take the word of USTA on the matter of attendance.
