Sampras and Becker on Federer vs. a top serve & volleyer...

[fastdunn]

Why should they? That's not their responsibility. It's up to individuals how they decide to play.

Exact opposite way they influenced to kill S&Ver's careers.

Quicker surfaces, lighter balls, more indoor tournaments, etc...

 

[AAAA]

The conditions were changed because the serving shoot outs bored the majority of the audience. In short the dominance of the big servers made the commercial product of ATP tennis unpalatable for the majority audience so serve and volleyers were responsible for their own demise.

 

[Eviscerator]

The conditions were changed because the serving shoot outs bored the majority of the audience. In short the dominance of the big servers made the commercial product of ATP tennis unpalatable for the majority audience so serve and volleyers were responsible for their own demise.

S&Vers were around long before the advent of the huge servers, so they were not responsible for their own demise as you put it. Probably the two things that helped destroy fast court tennis is the rule change that allowed you to hit the serve while in the air, and more powerful racquets.

 

[AAAA]

S&Vers were around long before the advent of the huge servers, so they were not responsible for their own demise as you put it. Probably the two things that helped destroy fast court tennis is the rule change that allowed you to hit the serve while in the air, and more powerful racquets.

They were responsible because their style of play developed into something the majority audience didn't want to watch. The rule change about being able to jump on serve was in place way before the 90s but the courts remained fast until the late 90s. So as I said the so serve and volleyers were responsible for their own demise. You mention the powerful racquets, funny how the majority audience wasn't bored with the baseliners equiped with powerful racquets but they were bored with the serve and volleyers using the same equipment. Hence serve and volleyers were responsible for their own demise, on both and all counts.

 

[fastdunn]

Things in real life is combination of manny parameters.

It's true that extinction of S&Vers were part of game's evolution process
but it would be foolish to ignore conditions like court surfaces and tennis
balls used.

 

[fastdunn]

They were responsible because their style of play developed into something the majority audience didn't want to watch. The rule change about being able to jump on serve was in place way before the 90s but the courts remained fast until the late 90s. So as I said the so serve and volleyers were responsible for their own demise. You mention the powerful racquets, funny how the majority audience wasn't bored with the baseliners equiped with powerful racquets but they were bored with the serve and volleyers using the same equipment. Hence serve and volleyers were responsible for their own demise, on both and all counts.

Majority of audience can relate better to the baseline tennis they actually play.
And some audiences who never plays just wants longer points whenever
they tune in for tennis all year long. Wimbledon increasingly estranged from
general public. Wimbledon finally succumbed to tennis outside Wimbledon.
That's the story.

When big servers were doiminating in 90's, Mary Carrillo argued new racquet
actually benefits baseliners more and predicted the game will eventually
evolve to baseline tennis. Simply because racquet manufacturers caters
more for general public who plays baseline tennis.

Tennis used to be a marketting tool for very very narrow and focused group of audiences.
To me, ATP seems to be attempting to make it as a marketing tool for wider
range of general public with series of changes and experiments like league formats.
IMHO, ATP has succeeded it brilliantly. Great rivalries at slams. I think we will see
more familiar players at all slams and all year long.