Slow Surfaces are helping the older generation?

R_Federer

Professional
It seems to me the slow surfaces of today are helping the older generation. I have no doubt if court speed was like the late 90s the next generation would have pushed through already.

I find it flabbergasting that the higher ups are not trying to save the sport by speeding up the courts. And by speeding up I don't mean marginal I mean drastically to get it to the late 1990s level. At the current level the sport is going to suffer big time.
 
Which of the younger do you think got a chance on faster courts?

What would happen is that Anderson type of players started to win slams.
 
So the slow surface works against everyone except the older players? That is like the wind only blows on side of the person who is losing. Injuries also hurt less when your up. Etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I want it to be dominated by the very best and Nole & Rafa are just that.

Are they? They were never the most talented players. Yes, they were always grinders who never gave up. But most talented? Both were great at making opponents hit one more extra shot. Did any of them have the best serve? The best backhand? The best forehand? Not really.
 
Are they? They were never the most talented players. Yes, they were always grinders who never gave up. But most talented? Both were great at making opponents hit one more extra shot. Did any of them have the best serve? The best backhand? The best forehand? Not really.
If you think Djokovic and Nadal are right up there in talent you're out of your mind. Perhaps quite as talented with a racket as Federer, but they're definitely the 3 most talented players in the open era. Physicality is talent as well, and it's not like Federer lost the genetic lottery there himself.
 
Are they? They were never the most talented players. Yes, they were always grinders who never gave up. But most talented? Both were great at making opponents hit one more extra shot. Did any of them have the best serve? The best backhand? The best forehand? Not really.

err while I definitely believe homogenization has a role to play in terms of the next gen never being able to break through and the big 3 still on top, this idea that fed is the only talented one is ridic.

not having a killer shot doesn't mean one isn't talented and if I'm not mistaken nadal's fh is often cited as one of the best and well Djokovic is solid on both wings and unfortunately for my fav is like a freaking wall sometimes
 
If you think Djokovic and Nadal are right up there in talent you're out of your mind. Perhaps quite as talented with a racket as Federer, but they're definitely the 3 most talented players in the open era. Physicality is talent as well, and it's not like Federer lost the genetic lottery there himself.

Okay physicality is a part of talent. Tell me what other talent they have? Best serve? Best backhand? Best forehand?
 
It seems to me the slow surfaces of today are helping the older generation. I have no doubt if court speed was like the late 90s the next generation would have pushed through already.

I find it flabbergasting that the higher ups are not trying to save the sport by speeding up the courts. And by speeding up I don't mean marginal I mean drastically to get it to the late 1990s level. At the current level the sport is going to suffer big time.

What you call slow surface I call pure class.

Anyways it's the same surface for everyone, one would argue that slow surface means more rallies and more fatigue and in my personal opinion I was able to run ten times more at my early 20s then at my 30s.
 
What I guess is that poly strings overemphasized baseline play and physicality in juniors, which put physical late bloomers with better racket skills at a disadvantage, resulting in some technically more talented players falling behind or not developing their skillset to the fullest.
 
Okay physicality is a part of talent. Tell me what other talent they have? Best serve? Best backhand? Best forehand?
Movement. Djokovic has the best defensive backhand of all time, especially of the double handers. Also one of the 2 best returners of all time. He's incredibly agile, and has the best shots on full stretch I've ever seen.

Nadal's forehand is right up there with Federer, and we can argue forever which is the best and people will never agree. Nadal at his peak was outrageously fast, as well as being strong enough to rip the ball from any position in the court, something typical grinders simply cannot do. Nadal is also a great volleyer, has pretty quick hands, and a very good slice as well.
 
Man, don't waste your time.
Nadal and Djoko don't have other things that are good besides being grinders?
Nadal doesn't have a good forehand? Doesn't have a good stop-volley? Doesn't have a good overhead?
Djoko doesn't have a good return? A GOOD BACKHAND?

You're talking against someone whose fanatism blinds him from watching tennis. Don't waste your time.
Wasting more time on TTW than Djoko does bouncing balls.
 
It seems to me the slow surfaces of today are helping the older generation. I have no doubt if court speed was like the late 90s the next generation would have pushed through already.

I find it flabbergasting that the higher ups are not trying to save the sport by speeding up the courts. And by speeding up I don't mean marginal I mean drastically to get it to the late 1990s level. At the current level the sport is going to suffer big time.
Didn't Rafa make the AO finals when it became the fastest it has in years in '17? Didn't he almost win? he also made the Shanghai final in '17 - one of the fastest courts available.

Didn't Novak regularly win WTF and compete well in Shanghai? Didn't he win WB & Cincy last year?

I don't know what "fast courts" there are left that these guys don't also compete will on.

If anyone is good on fast courts - these guys are still among the best.
 
Man, don't waste your time.
Nadal and Djoko don't have other things that are good besides being grinders?
Nadal doesn't have a good forehand? Doesn't have a good stop-volley? Doesn't have a good overhead?
Djoko doesn't have a good return? A GOOD BACKHAND?

You're talking against someone whose fanatism blinds him from watching tennis. Don't waste your time.

Good vs great. Big difference.

Good is Soderling, Anderson, Martin. Be happy with your good.
 
Lol slow surfaces help young guys more.
Fresher legs, more stamina and energy.

Faster surfaces helps experiences guys that have better shotmaking and experience to outplay opponents.
 
Are they? They were never the most talented players. Yes, they were always grinders who never gave up. But most talented? Both were great at making opponents hit one more extra shot. Did any of them have the best serve? The best backhand? The best forehand? Not really.

Nadal has one of the best FH of tennis history, a great backhand, a very good touch, an all-star smash, an incredible speed. Djokovic has probably the best BH of all time, a very good forehand, unbelievable drop shots, an insane speed and stamina. They are in the top 5 of the tennis history and for me they are on the podium with Federer.
 
Are they? They were never the most talented players. Yes, they were always grinders who never gave up. But most talented? Both were great at making opponents hit one more extra shot. Did any of them have the best serve? The best backhand? The best forehand? Not really.
Having the ability to make your opponent hit an extra shot is a talent in and of itself.
Furthermore, you don't need to have the best of a certain shot to be the best. You need to have a game that is good enough to beat whoever is across the net. Best shots does not equal best player. Maybe they don't have THE BEST forehand or backhand (although an argument can be made about Djoko's BH and Rafa's FH) but they are ONE OF the best at it and if that's what wins matches, then that too is a talent.
 
EXACTLY.
Arguably 2 of the greatest players the sport will EVER see for generations to come...nahh, Nigel, no real talent their in my eyes.
And I would understand it if the opinion were sincere and rational (even if mistaken) but it comes from fan blindness, not of a real analysis of their game.
 
If a player really had no great weapon at all, yet was still able to get into the best 5 ever of the sport, then I'd think his greatest weapon and talent would have been his brain. Which would IMHO be a great praise of his tennis talent - maybe even the greatest.
 
funny If I'm not mistaken baseliners had plenty of success in the 90s and there were people with a variety doing well depending on the surface.
Baseliners and serve volleyers did well. There was variety. We had Courier-Edberg finals, Sampras-Agassi, Becker-Lendl. Now we have ageing cookie cutters that have been dishing up the same, tired snack for 15 years or so.
 
Definitely, especially for the junior level. Slow courts at junior level encourage ball bashing for quick return and discourage genuine racquet skills (volleys, slices, taking the ball early, blocking..., all of them were the norm in the past).

If we suddenly increase court speed now, we may see a return of all-court players in the future, after this NextGen (1997-1999).

LOL!
Do you want this sport to be dominated by servebots?

Anyways, slower or not this is not why the younger generations havent been able to catch up.
I don't remember any servebots bar Rusedski reaching Slam finals or top 4 ranking. Even then, Rusedski's net game was probably better than over 90% of the current tour.

On the other hand, slow courts certainly kill off touch-based players like Henman or Rafter because their shots would have become sitters on slower surfaces.
 
New conspiratory theory: Nadal wins because the surface is slow.

If Federer wins, there are no complains about surfaces' speed. Only when Rafa wins there are complains about surfaces' speed. :unsure:
Plenty of complaints from Federer fans about the AO speed this year before Roger even lost a set.
 
And maybe know why young gen cannot keep up with oldies in slow courts? Actually they should be able to jump around and run and make tough retrievals than old gen stalwarts. They have so little mileage on their legs. So what's physically preventing them when they are actually physically fitter stronger? I fail to understand.

If 19 -20 year old Djokovic and Nadal could do better at younger age why not current next gen?
 
Surface does not mattter, it is always fast when Nadal loses early, medium fast when he loses in the final and slow if he wins.

USO 10, 13 and 17 was clay court disguised by deco-turf, other years was relatively fast and faster than the light in 2004-2008.

Even Roland Garros was fast like Wimbledon before the ATP decided to slow it down since 2005.

Many people said that Wimbledon 2008 was the slowest grass court ever in the tennis history. I guess they make it fast again in 2009 when Federer managed to hit 50 ace in that Final.
 
And maybe know why young gen cannot keep up with oldies in slow courts? Actually they should be able to jump around and run and make tough retrievals than old gen stalwarts. They have so little mileage on their legs. So what's physically preventing them when they are actually physically fitter stronger? I fail to understand.

If 19 -20 year old Djokovic and Nadal could do better at younger age why not current next gen?
Probably because type A athletes no longer take tennis, they switch to other sports like football or basketball for better earnings (earnings for low-ranked tennis players suck).
And none of those next-geners can be considered as type A athletes. A hypothetical 6ft1/6ft2 Nishikori could have been such an athlete.

Next, most often younger guys tend to lack a particular skill, or have a particular weak point. Faster courts allow them to mask such weaknesses, since they allow for netgame option. For example, Edberg has weak forehands/Sampras has weak backhand, let's rush to the net.
After all, guys like Djokovic or Nadal (strong off both wings and strong movements at a very young age) are very rare.

Besides, the physical advantages for young guys are no longer significant, with the rise of sport science and professionalism in the 21st century. Pete Sampras' professional mindset was not common back then (you can just compare Sampras and Becker to see that fact), now it is a norm. Besides, older top players have more prize money to invest in coaching, training, diet... and young players simply cannot afford to do so.
 
Are they? They were never the most talented players. Yes, they were always grinders who never gave up. But most talented? Both were great at making opponents hit one more extra shot. Did any of them have the best serve? The best backhand? The best forehand? Not really.

Nadal has one of the very best forehands on the tour and has done for a decade and the same for Djokovic' backhand.
 
Back
Top