L
Laurie
Guest
Article I've wriiten on my blog. Whether you agree or disagree, have a read. Read on....
http://burnstennis.blogspot.com/
http://burnstennis.blogspot.com/
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
There was plenty of variety in tennis at the FO in the wood racquet era.
L
Laurie
Guest
There was a lot of variety in the 1980s and 1990s but the media obsessed on one shot - the big serve. But now it's lead to the constant matchup of two grinders.
This year's US Open final was indeed a great one but it was essentially two grinders unable to hit through eachother and for a while I was worried the match might last 6 hours. Especially considering it was about 1.30am when it finished here in the UK even though it started 9pm. The first 3 games of the match I timed at about 29 minutes or something!!
This year's US Open final was indeed a great one but it was essentially two grinders unable to hit through eachother and for a while I was worried the match might last 6 hours. Especially considering it was about 1.30am when it finished here in the UK even though it started 9pm. The first 3 games of the match I timed at about 29 minutes or something!!
I think they should speed up the courts for a few tournaments. I love watching two grinders giving it everything, but I also love watching the one-two punch.
Hitting big serves and following it up with a crisp volley or big forehand can be extremely exciting and enjoyable.
Hitting big serves and following it up with a crisp volley or big forehand can be extremely exciting and enjoyable.
I dont know. u seem to be talking about the players in such a negative light. Do you have any idea how hard it is to reach this level? did you think that maybe this is how the game has evolved, and the players are playing the most efficient game to win matches? if the courts were faster...they would jsut be winning points on the serves and it would be back to people crying that its only a serve and forehand winner.
just sit down and enjoy the matches...or go watch some 4.0 league, there is plenty of hacking and chip shots there since that is what u seem to enjoy
just sit down and enjoy the matches...or go watch some 4.0 league, there is plenty of hacking and chip shots there since that is what u seem to enjoy
L
Laurie
Guest
I'm talking about variety, not chip and charge.
Variety is having the possibility of playing some long rallies or shorter points if they choose. The top of the game will be grinders for some time (Nadal and Djokovic) , I don't consider that variety, do you?
For instance, Djokovic hardly ever goes to the net no matter how short or long the match.
Variety is having the possibility of playing some long rallies or shorter points if they choose. The top of the game will be grinders for some time (Nadal and Djokovic) , I don't consider that variety, do you?
For instance, Djokovic hardly ever goes to the net no matter how short or long the match.
Novak would hit more winners if the court were faster. EVERYONE would.
A lower bounce would do a lot to encourage players to take the ball in the air or use slice shots. We don't even have this at Wimbledon anymore.
Current court setups favor topspin shots and extended rallies. This, more than surface composition, has led to the rash of injuries we call professional tennis these days, IMHO.
Current court setups favor topspin shots and extended rallies. This, more than surface composition, has led to the rash of injuries we call professional tennis these days, IMHO.
jaggy
Talk Tennis Guru
I do think this has to be addressed for the sake of the game
Wood is not slippery or soft. It quickly kills joints and bones.
I think he meant wood rackets....
PBODY99
Legend
for the health of the game.....
Due to cost I feel that wood is out of the question. The market forces on the equipment side will not allow it. While you could follow the golf model, which sets limits on the equipment that you use but controls the product by changing the layout of the course. Of what is likely to happen, what has happened, a change in the speed of the court is most likely. Faster courts would on the men's side should slightly cut down on injuries as the poiints should become shorter.
Frank Silbermann
Professional
I have a simpler, cheaper idea. Take a typical wood racket and compute the ration of front-back thickness around the strings to side-to-side width. Pass a rule saying that today's rackets must have a ratio at least as large.
That means if you want to use anything over 65 square inches, it has to be a wide-body. Anything over 85 square inches must be a super-widebody.
This will still make the game easier for beginners, but the wider beam will cause air resistance and miss-hits when one tries to hit with massive topspin. Without massive topspin we'll see more net play. Also, without the massive whipping up on the ball, lifting low balls over the net will require something approaching a correct eastern (or even continental) grip, which will predispose people towards throwing in a few lightly underspun shots as well.
Add another rule that you must keep one foot on the ground behind the service line until the ball is struck -- this will prevent big servers from boring us with constant aces.
That means if you want to use anything over 65 square inches, it has to be a wide-body. Anything over 85 square inches must be a super-widebody.
This will still make the game easier for beginners, but the wider beam will cause air resistance and miss-hits when one tries to hit with massive topspin. Without massive topspin we'll see more net play. Also, without the massive whipping up on the ball, lifting low balls over the net will require something approaching a correct eastern (or even continental) grip, which will predispose people towards throwing in a few lightly underspun shots as well.
Add another rule that you must keep one foot on the ground behind the service line until the ball is struck -- this will prevent big servers from boring us with constant aces.
I miss the variety as well.
I have a tendency to watch matches featuring players that are a little old school-ish and are more "all-court" type players, or at least aren't hesitant to come to net, i.e.: Stepanek, Fish, Blake. I also enjoy watching some of the players who are described as "unconventional", like Dolgopolov for instance.
I have a tendency to watch matches featuring players that are a little old school-ish and are more "all-court" type players, or at least aren't hesitant to come to net, i.e.: Stepanek, Fish, Blake. I also enjoy watching some of the players who are described as "unconventional", like Dolgopolov for instance.
TopFH
Hall of Fame
What a great post. Congratulations and hopes that this will happen.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
Very well written article, but I disagree on a few points.
As you mention, pre-internet, Wimbledon was one of the few tournaments broadcasted worldwide on network TV, and thus often the only tournament people saw. People complaining about all serve domination and dull tennis were right. Wimbledon did not have many clashes of styles, it had one overarching style: serve and volley. And with the move to graphite racquets, it became more of a server's domain and less of a volleyer's. Consider, after Jimmy Connors' 1982 win that until the grass was converted after the final in 2001, the only baseliner to win the tournament was Andre Agassi in 1992.
I respect old tennis and the players, but the primary flaw with the game in the past was the technology drastically limited the players' ability to defend out of position and run down shots. A strategically placed volley or lob in the past would mean the other player would give up on it, because he knew, with a wood racquet, he couldn't do anything with the ball anyway. Highlight reel shotmaking or defense was practically non-existent, and it would be devastating to the sport to take that away from the game today.
However, I do think there are a number of ways to limit injuries and bring back serve and volley tennis without extinguishing great defense or exciting rallies. But it will depend on the cooperation of tournaments, because remember each GS is independently run, and each organizer wants the top guys in the semis and finals to increase ratings and attendance. I think that is part and parcel of why the French Open has been sped up (Babolat balls, not watering the courts) at the same time other courts have been slowed.
I think some reasonable answers could be:
1. Mandate that all racquets be strung with natural gut only (this will satisfy attackers without taking too much away from defenders);
2. Adopt one ball for all tournaments and slams, no fast Babolat ball for RG, no slow Slazenger ball for Wimbledon;
3. Reduce the number of mandatory tournaments in the schedule to promote longevity. Other sports frequently have top players in their thirties--tennis players should not be on the decline at age 26;
4. Separate the mandatory tournaments. There should be no back to back Masters events (currently there are three separate pairs of back to back Masters). Players need time to recover not only for their own longevity, but for the sake of quality tennis and fans who often show up to follow a said player;
5. All indoor events should be played on a court with an independently verified speed score of 'fast', whether hardcourt, (unsanded) artificial grass or some other synthetic material if carpet is no longer viable.
Even implementing a couple of these ideas would promote a fair compromise between new and old school tennis, and between fan entertainment and player health and longevity.
if you want to bring more variety in the game all you have to do is ban that polyester string imo.. that said, i do think tennis is more exciting now then before and i like it. the world finals last year was on a fast court but i thought it was too fast, i liked watching matches from the gs tournaments better. federer might be complaining about the courts being too slow but thats only because is game would thrive more on faster ones
Rock Strongo
Legend
I honestly don't think that's a viable option as it would lead to massive costs. Not all players ranked outside the top 100 can afford that much gut over a year, but then it's only an idea and I can't start shunning it.
Speeding up the surfaces and keeping the poly strings would be a great idea, as spins can be neutralized rather easily (the ball will shoot forward rather than bounce up). I don't think it would change the way people play now, but it could be enough to draw out more variety.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
I think he meant wooden shoes...
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...8cWITqarKeniiAKz2v3SDA&ved=0CE8Q9QEwBQ&dur=20
I do sometimes wonder what tennis would have been like if it had restrictions similar to pro baseball
(wood bats only). It wood (pun intended) make direct comparisons of different generations easier.
In baseball, college players can use aluminum bats, but the pros have to use wood. It is quite a
reduction in power, etc.
Last edited:
6-2/6-4/6-0
Semi-Pro
I have rallied for equipment restrictions for a while. Tennis is the only elite sport in the world - absolutely the only one - where there are basically no controls on the equipment.
b. The frame of the racket shall not exceed 73.7 cm (29.0 inches) in overall length, including the handle. The frame of the racket shall not exceed 31.7 cm (12.5 inches) in overall width. The hitting surface shall not exceed 39.4 cm (15.5 inches) in overall length, and 29.2 cm (11.5 inches) in overall width.
I believe that there was also a weight restriction, but I couldn't find that. Otherwise you can't have 3D stringbeds, and can only have 1 set of cross strings.
Imagine auto racing where the only restrictions were the need for four wheels and a single steering wheel, where the car must fit inside a box measuring 3 meters x 7 metes x 2 meters. Granted tennis relies less on equipment than auto racing, but this is just an extreme to show how lacking tennis is in their equipment standards. More in-line with tennis; cycling, baseball, and speed skating all have more restrictive limit on equipment.
Just to put things in perspective, back in the wooden racket days you couldn't use different gauge strings even - all strings had to be the same thickness.
IF the ITF/ATP put more reasonable limitations on the head size and stiffness of the rackets and outlawed poly strings I think that we would see the speed of shots come down a bit, the amount of topspin would drop dramatically, and tennis would become a more well-rounded game again.
I'm not saying go back to wood. That's not practical. But you could limit racket stiffness to an RA of 50 or less for men and 65 or less for women. You could make 93 or 95 sq.in. the largest head size for men and 100 or 102 the largest for women. Such changes would put everyone (except serve and volleyers, which there are none are currently - about - zero) at an equal disadvantage from where they are at today.
Doing this would serve a multitude of goods for the sport - it would reduce wear and tear on the players by bringing down the pace and length of rallies, it would raise the necessary level of 'completeness' for a player's game and make the glaring holes that exist in many top players game more exploitable, and it would increase the variety in matches and make them more entertaining.
This would also remove the need to slow all the courts down in order to limit the omnipotence of the first serve (and really, players are just pumping up the speed that they can hit the first ball to compensate for the slower bounce anyway, so where a 130mph serve used to be incredible, now 120-130 is the normal first serve for a top pro). Plus it would make any given style of play more able to succeed based on execution.
Today, a great serve and volleyer would fair reasonably poorly against a solid baseliner because the equipment and surfaces so favor the baseliner. In my mind that is not what tennis should be doing - favoring across the board one style of play or another. I would be almost as upset if the only way to win was to serve and volley (though not quite as much).
Let's try to neutralize the sport as much as possible so that it is the player and the performance that makes the match, not the courts and equipment and a prescribed style of play.
I loved watch Mac and Borg battle it out with dramatically contrasting styles. That is part of what made tennis great all those years ago - really until fairly recently - that you could have such different match-ups and such different styles and see one player or another win based on executing their style better. Now all the Majors are won by the baseliner who makes fewer mistakes or can run down one more ball.
Massively-topspinning baseliner vs. occasionally-flat-hitting baseliner isn't the kind of stylistic match-up that is ever going to get me excited to watch like Aggasi/Sampras, Lendl/Edberg, McEnroe/Borg did...
b. The frame of the racket shall not exceed 73.7 cm (29.0 inches) in overall length, including the handle. The frame of the racket shall not exceed 31.7 cm (12.5 inches) in overall width. The hitting surface shall not exceed 39.4 cm (15.5 inches) in overall length, and 29.2 cm (11.5 inches) in overall width.
I believe that there was also a weight restriction, but I couldn't find that. Otherwise you can't have 3D stringbeds, and can only have 1 set of cross strings.
Imagine auto racing where the only restrictions were the need for four wheels and a single steering wheel, where the car must fit inside a box measuring 3 meters x 7 metes x 2 meters. Granted tennis relies less on equipment than auto racing, but this is just an extreme to show how lacking tennis is in their equipment standards. More in-line with tennis; cycling, baseball, and speed skating all have more restrictive limit on equipment.
Just to put things in perspective, back in the wooden racket days you couldn't use different gauge strings even - all strings had to be the same thickness.
IF the ITF/ATP put more reasonable limitations on the head size and stiffness of the rackets and outlawed poly strings I think that we would see the speed of shots come down a bit, the amount of topspin would drop dramatically, and tennis would become a more well-rounded game again.
I'm not saying go back to wood. That's not practical. But you could limit racket stiffness to an RA of 50 or less for men and 65 or less for women. You could make 93 or 95 sq.in. the largest head size for men and 100 or 102 the largest for women. Such changes would put everyone (except serve and volleyers, which there are none are currently - about - zero) at an equal disadvantage from where they are at today.
Doing this would serve a multitude of goods for the sport - it would reduce wear and tear on the players by bringing down the pace and length of rallies, it would raise the necessary level of 'completeness' for a player's game and make the glaring holes that exist in many top players game more exploitable, and it would increase the variety in matches and make them more entertaining.
This would also remove the need to slow all the courts down in order to limit the omnipotence of the first serve (and really, players are just pumping up the speed that they can hit the first ball to compensate for the slower bounce anyway, so where a 130mph serve used to be incredible, now 120-130 is the normal first serve for a top pro). Plus it would make any given style of play more able to succeed based on execution.
Today, a great serve and volleyer would fair reasonably poorly against a solid baseliner because the equipment and surfaces so favor the baseliner. In my mind that is not what tennis should be doing - favoring across the board one style of play or another. I would be almost as upset if the only way to win was to serve and volley (though not quite as much).
Let's try to neutralize the sport as much as possible so that it is the player and the performance that makes the match, not the courts and equipment and a prescribed style of play.
I loved watch Mac and Borg battle it out with dramatically contrasting styles. That is part of what made tennis great all those years ago - really until fairly recently - that you could have such different match-ups and such different styles and see one player or another win based on executing their style better. Now all the Majors are won by the baseliner who makes fewer mistakes or can run down one more ball.
Massively-topspinning baseliner vs. occasionally-flat-hitting baseliner isn't the kind of stylistic match-up that is ever going to get me excited to watch like Aggasi/Sampras, Lendl/Edberg, McEnroe/Borg did...
Last edited:
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
Like your thinking 6-2/6-4/6-0
I've been watching some clips from different decades (USO) with similar styles of tennis (baseliners), and I can't see any consistent indication of changes in court speed one way or another. The impressions I get always depends on who is playing. You can't make a comparison between a match featuring serve and volleyers and a match featuring baseliners. The s&v game will always look faster. Nor can you assume that the fact there were more serve&volleyers in the old days shows that courts have slowed down. You would be assuming your conclusion.
As a mental exercise of extremes to illustrate what I mean, imagine Wilander vs Wilander or Chang vs Chang on any USO court in any decade, and compare it with an imaginary Blake vs Blake, or Fed vs Fed (or, to go really all the way, Sampras vs Sampras).
I do think that maybe the USO this year played a bit slower with respect to previous years (player's impressions, as well as certain stats also suggest that). But if you use the final as a guide, you have to remember that anytime you put two of the best retrievers in the game against each other it is not going to look very fast.
The surface is supposed to have slowed down enormously since the 80s, but the Lendl-Wilander 87 final was 4 sets, one of the sets was 6-0, and it lasted a few minutes short of 5 hours, even though one of the players was not a retriever but the most agressive baseliner at the time.
As a mental exercise of extremes to illustrate what I mean, imagine Wilander vs Wilander or Chang vs Chang on any USO court in any decade, and compare it with an imaginary Blake vs Blake, or Fed vs Fed (or, to go really all the way, Sampras vs Sampras).
I do think that maybe the USO this year played a bit slower with respect to previous years (player's impressions, as well as certain stats also suggest that). But if you use the final as a guide, you have to remember that anytime you put two of the best retrievers in the game against each other it is not going to look very fast.
The surface is supposed to have slowed down enormously since the 80s, but the Lendl-Wilander 87 final was 4 sets, one of the sets was 6-0, and it lasted a few minutes short of 5 hours, even though one of the players was not a retriever but the most agressive baseliner at the time.
6-2/6-4/6-0
Semi-Pro
While I see your point BenHur, I think that there is a lot more going on than simply court speed when you compare between decades.
First, the difference in court speed is fractions of a second that watching on video won't necessarily pick up.
Second, there is a corresponding change in technology where balls are now hit harder, so if the speed of the point or speed from shot to shot seems similar you can attest to how much slower the court is because otherwise modern points would be much faster shot to shot.
Third, the efficacy of serve and volley tennis is a very good measure of how fast a court is. A great deal of the potency of S&V tennis is that it robs your opponent of time, and the slower the ball coming off the court, the more fractions of a second they have to set up a great passing shot.
Finally, at Wimbledon a couple years ago BBC did a comparison of Federer's serve from old grass to new grass. The serve landed in the same spot and was hit at the same speed. The new grass made the ball bounce distinctly higher and took about 8% off the speed after the bounce (IIRC).
There is no question that the courts are slower and so are the balls, ask anyone who has straddled the line in time where this change took place and played the tournaments, they all agree on this.
First, the difference in court speed is fractions of a second that watching on video won't necessarily pick up.
Second, there is a corresponding change in technology where balls are now hit harder, so if the speed of the point or speed from shot to shot seems similar you can attest to how much slower the court is because otherwise modern points would be much faster shot to shot.
Third, the efficacy of serve and volley tennis is a very good measure of how fast a court is. A great deal of the potency of S&V tennis is that it robs your opponent of time, and the slower the ball coming off the court, the more fractions of a second they have to set up a great passing shot.
Finally, at Wimbledon a couple years ago BBC did a comparison of Federer's serve from old grass to new grass. The serve landed in the same spot and was hit at the same speed. The new grass made the ball bounce distinctly higher and took about 8% off the speed after the bounce (IIRC).
There is no question that the courts are slower and so are the balls, ask anyone who has straddled the line in time where this change took place and played the tournaments, they all agree on this.
I get cramps
Semi-Pro
I thought that final was highly entertaining.
I recently watched again the 88 USO Final and both Mary Carillo and Tony Trabert thought that the 88 final was much more entertaining than the 87 F. Carillo said that the tennis that was played in the 87 Final was not the new york crowd liking; Carillo, specifically, said that the USO crowd "respects" that kind of tennis but doesn't enjoy it; she even went as far as to say that watching the 87 Final was like watching paint dry.
MotherMarjorie
Banned
Oh, Mother Marjorie remembers when the big servers were dominating (Sampras, et al) people just whined and whined the the courts needed to be slowed to bring "variety back to tennis."
In a knee-jerk reaction, they changed the balls at Wimbledon and slowed down most surfaces and now people want the courts returned to its original speed to bring "variety back to tennis."
All this whining sounds a lot like the ATP players who whined about their schedules with Fed Cup, yet, the ITF and ATP changed the schedules back in 2009 to what the players wanted. And now the players want it changed back pre 2009.
A lot of whining in tennis these days, from players and fans. Mother Marjorie is kinda sick of it. If knee-jerk personalities surrounding the sport would just leave the sport alone and let the racquets do the talking, we would have none of this incessant whining from players and fans.
Shut-up, people and just let the sport evolve naturally.
Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse
In a knee-jerk reaction, they changed the balls at Wimbledon and slowed down most surfaces and now people want the courts returned to its original speed to bring "variety back to tennis."
All this whining sounds a lot like the ATP players who whined about their schedules with Fed Cup, yet, the ITF and ATP changed the schedules back in 2009 to what the players wanted. And now the players want it changed back pre 2009.
A lot of whining in tennis these days, from players and fans. Mother Marjorie is kinda sick of it. If knee-jerk personalities surrounding the sport would just leave the sport alone and let the racquets do the talking, we would have none of this incessant whining from players and fans.
Shut-up, people and just let the sport evolve naturally.
Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse
6-2/6-4/6-0
Semi-Pro
Aside from being completely obtuse, I think you miss a key point MoMa - it's not about a single change making everything different and/or better. It's also not about knee-jerk reactions. Finally, it started well before Sampras...
We don't need to change the court surfaces to be all slower, we don't need to change them to all be faster. We need to look at the game and make comprehensive equipment changes that bring back the variety to the sport. Court surfaces are part of it, but that won't do much if poly strings are still allowed, and oversized rackets and stiff frames to a lesser extent.
Sure, there are always people who will discuss what would make the sport better - there should be. Otherwise let's just take up golf and wander around for five hours in funny-looking knickers. There's a difference between inquisitive dialogue and whining just as there is with participation and condescending apathy...
We don't need to change the court surfaces to be all slower, we don't need to change them to all be faster. We need to look at the game and make comprehensive equipment changes that bring back the variety to the sport. Court surfaces are part of it, but that won't do much if poly strings are still allowed, and oversized rackets and stiff frames to a lesser extent.
Sure, there are always people who will discuss what would make the sport better - there should be. Otherwise let's just take up golf and wander around for five hours in funny-looking knickers. There's a difference between inquisitive dialogue and whining just as there is with participation and condescending apathy...
Orion3
Semi-Pro
How about, just make the surface speeds noticeably different. Not all slow or fast, but some of either.
We will never and should never go back - it's progress. I for one, just would just be happy to see a bit more variety in players and importantly their playing styles. Every mail player nowadays is a 6ft plus baseliner....with a very few exceptions - Olivier Rochas!
We will never and should never go back - it's progress. I for one, just would just be happy to see a bit more variety in players and importantly their playing styles. Every mail player nowadays is a 6ft plus baseliner....with a very few exceptions - Olivier Rochas!
Restrictions on racquets are tempting, but at this point not very realistic.
As long as we are dreaming, I think simplest way to limit hitting power would be to limit racquet head size (say 75 sq in, ten more than the classic wood racquets) and maybe stiffness as well. There would be no need to make restrictions about strings or frame materials.
But even those simple changes would not be accepted today. They were not done at the beginning, and they couldn’t be done now. Lots of lawsuits, I suppose.
There is a very interesting article by Nadine Gelberg on how the modern racquets evolved and were introduced, and a comparison as to why the spaghetti strings were almost immediately banned, while the new racquets were not. It all comes down the fact that the new racquets were marketed first to recreational players starting in 1976, and only very gradually took hold of the professional game, while the spaghetti strings were introduced suddenly and directly at the professional level by Nastase in the match that broke Vilas winning streak and caused a big controversy.
Article starts on post #8 on this thread:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=158597
As long as we are dreaming, I think simplest way to limit hitting power would be to limit racquet head size (say 75 sq in, ten more than the classic wood racquets) and maybe stiffness as well. There would be no need to make restrictions about strings or frame materials.
But even those simple changes would not be accepted today. They were not done at the beginning, and they couldn’t be done now. Lots of lawsuits, I suppose.
There is a very interesting article by Nadine Gelberg on how the modern racquets evolved and were introduced, and a comparison as to why the spaghetti strings were almost immediately banned, while the new racquets were not. It all comes down the fact that the new racquets were marketed first to recreational players starting in 1976, and only very gradually took hold of the professional game, while the spaghetti strings were introduced suddenly and directly at the professional level by Nastase in the match that broke Vilas winning streak and caused a big controversy.
Article starts on post #8 on this thread:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=158597
It might be illegitimate to simply assume that preponderance of serve and volleyers strongly correlates with high court speed, but if one had good reason for thinking that there is such a connection then it's perfectly fine to say that there is one. One reason that could be thrown out there is the comparative success rates of baseliners on clay with serve and volleyers on clay, and baseliners on grass/hard/carpet with serve and volleyers on grass/hard/carpet. If we take it as a given that, in the open era, clay has been slower in general than grass, hard and carpet, then the success of baseliners on clay and the success of serve and volleyers on grass etc. gives us cause to think that slower surfaces favour baseliners and faster surfaces favour serve and volleyers, in general. It is clear then why one might think that the lack of serve and volleyers today is at least partly due to the conditions not favoring them, and the preponderance of baseliners is at least partly due to the conditions favoring them. This implies that courts today are slower, in general, than they were when serve-volley was a more common style on the pro circuit.
There aren't enough reasons to think that. The disappearance of the serve and volley game preceded the (supposed) slowdown of courts by at least a decade. And the trend away from s&v had begun already in the mid 80s. By the mid-90s, most of the top 20 players were baseliners.
I also disagree that being a baseliner was a big advantage on clay in earlier times. Just take a look at the guys who won the French from the late 50s until the time Borg arrived. I would not describe people like Hoad, Laver, Santana, Roche, Gimeno, Nastase, to name a few, as “baseliners”. Nor was being primarily a s&v player required to win on the fastest surfaces like Wimbledon, as Borg amply demonstrated.
The Big General Slowdown (which I consider in part mythical or at least wildly exaggerated) is supposed to have started in the early 00s, so I don't see how it can be given as the main cause, or even a minor cause, for the decline of something that was already practically gone.
The real causes must be elsewhere, probably a combination of equipment changes and tennis instruction.
Why do you consider it mythical when the players and tournaments all say the surfaces have slowed?
I didn’t say mythical, but “in part” mythical or “wildly exaggerated”. And I was referring mostly to popular opinions on these boards.
The danger of repeating over and over certain extravagant exaggerations, like “the four majors are now the same surface” is that they end up becoming official dogma.
Wimbledon did undergo surface changes in 2001. Specifically: making the undersurface more compact, and the grass 100% rye, instead of the previous 70% rye with 30% fescue. The main reason for this was durability, because the courts were becoming increasingly bare and uneven in the second week of play. You can and should read the details at the Wimbledon site:
http://www.wimbledon.com/news/media-centre/grass-courts
The result of the 2001 changes was a truer and slightly higher bounce. The height of the bounce is also affected by the fact that players use more topspin today. Low slice shots remain low, and if it’s a bit wet they skid. Still, to the extent the bounce is a bit higher as a consequence of the harder undersurface, it can be said that the courts have “slowed down”.
My point is that the slowdown cannot have been anywhere near as dramatic as depicted here, because if it were, it would have been reflected in certain stats, particularly the percentage of games won by servers vs. games won by returners. These ratios are highly sensitive to variations in court speed, not just because such variations affect the effectiveness of the serve itself, but also because they affect the subsequent shots where the server retains the initiative. The slower the court, the more chances the returner will have to erase the server’s initiative and bring the point to neutral. That’s why, year after year, players hold serve about 83-85% of the time (on average) at Wimbledon, but only 70-74 percent in Monte Carlo. Yet the ability of servers to hold serve hasn't changed there in recent years (it has gone slightly up in fact), and Wimbledon continues to be far and away the most server-friendly surface of the 4 majors.
All of that, coupled with my own observations of play, and with the statements given on the Wimbledon site where they specifically say there was never any deliberate intention to slow down the courts or suit them to any particular kind of game, makes me believe that, indeed, the Big Modern Slowdown and the “all surfaces are the same” kind of mantras are vast exaggerations, things that are widely believed because they are believed widely, by dint of repetition.
When it comes to the big slow down at the USO over the years, I am even less convinced (although I do think this year it played slower than last year, both by player's impression and stats).
The relevant paragraphs read as follows:
http://www.wimbledon.com/news/media-centre/grass-courts
• The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
• Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.
The Grass
• The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
• The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.
Speed of Courts
• There has been no intention either this year or in previous years to produce slower courts or ones suited for a particular type of game.
• The perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time as well as the weather before and during the event.
Bounce
• The amount a ball bounces is largely determined by the soil, not the grass. The soil must be hard and dry to allow 13 days of play without damage to the court sub-surface.
• To achieve the required surface of even consistency and hardness, the courts are rolled and covered to keep them dry and firm. Regular measurements are taken to monitor this.
• If the court is too soft, when the players run, jump and slide, the pimples on their shoes will damage the surface and increase the chance of an irregular bounce.
The Effects of Atmospheric Conditions
• Unlike other surfaces grass is a living plant in an outdoor environment when weather varies throughout the year. Weather conditions in the run up to The Championships will have some effect on the way the courts ultimately play.
• The atmosphere can also have an effect on the ball which will seem heavier and slower on a cold damp day and conversely lighter and faster on a warm dry day.
The Ball
• The last time the specification of the ball was changed was in 1995, which was a minimal alteration in compression.
• Balls are opened on court – the first set immediately before the match and thereafter just before each scheduled ball change.
Court Maintenance
• Court grass composed of 100% rye grass (chosen for its durability).
• 1 tonne of grass seed is used each year.
• Maximum of 3,000 gallons of water used during the Fortnight - weather permitting.
• All courts re-lined, rolled and mown daily during Championships.
• Court wear, surface hardness and ball rebound are all measured daily. In general, the men are tougher on the courts than the ladies.
• The Championships playing height of grass is 8mm.
• All courts renovated in September
http://www.wimbledon.com/news/media-centre/grass-courts
• The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
• Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.
The Grass
• The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
• The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.
Speed of Courts
• There has been no intention either this year or in previous years to produce slower courts or ones suited for a particular type of game.
• The perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time as well as the weather before and during the event.
Bounce
• The amount a ball bounces is largely determined by the soil, not the grass. The soil must be hard and dry to allow 13 days of play without damage to the court sub-surface.
• To achieve the required surface of even consistency and hardness, the courts are rolled and covered to keep them dry and firm. Regular measurements are taken to monitor this.
• If the court is too soft, when the players run, jump and slide, the pimples on their shoes will damage the surface and increase the chance of an irregular bounce.
The Effects of Atmospheric Conditions
• Unlike other surfaces grass is a living plant in an outdoor environment when weather varies throughout the year. Weather conditions in the run up to The Championships will have some effect on the way the courts ultimately play.
• The atmosphere can also have an effect on the ball which will seem heavier and slower on a cold damp day and conversely lighter and faster on a warm dry day.
The Ball
• The last time the specification of the ball was changed was in 1995, which was a minimal alteration in compression.
• Balls are opened on court – the first set immediately before the match and thereafter just before each scheduled ball change.
Court Maintenance
• Court grass composed of 100% rye grass (chosen for its durability).
• 1 tonne of grass seed is used each year.
• Maximum of 3,000 gallons of water used during the Fortnight - weather permitting.
• All courts re-lined, rolled and mown daily during Championships.
• Court wear, surface hardness and ball rebound are all measured daily. In general, the men are tougher on the courts than the ladies.
• The Championships playing height of grass is 8mm.
• All courts renovated in September
You make good points. I should have stated "conditions" have slowed because they have slowed the balls as well. The players and people in the game have reinforced this belief. This board is the place for wild exaggeration but some of it is tongue in cheek of course. I have no evidence of course but I do believe that if John Isner could take his current frame and setup back to 1995 he would hold a greater % of the time than he already does
RF20Lennon
Legend
It SHOULD be like this but isnt
Australia-medium pased decent bounce
Indian wells-fast pace- low bounce
Miami-slow paced a bit high bounced
Monte carlo-very slow paced pretty high bounce
Madrid-medium fast(compared to usual clay) decent bounce
Rome- same as monte carlo
FO-due to new babolat balls medium pace high bounce
WIMBY-VERY fast pace Very low bounce
Montreal/Toronto-medium pace decent bounce
Cincy-fast pace low bounce
USO-fast pace low bounce
Shanghai- pretty fast and very low bounce
Paris-EXTREMELY fast and decent bounce
WTF LONDON-slow paced Very Very low bounce
Australia-medium pased decent bounce
Indian wells-fast pace- low bounce
Miami-slow paced a bit high bounced
Monte carlo-very slow paced pretty high bounce
Madrid-medium fast(compared to usual clay) decent bounce
Rome- same as monte carlo
FO-due to new babolat balls medium pace high bounce
WIMBY-VERY fast pace Very low bounce
Montreal/Toronto-medium pace decent bounce
Cincy-fast pace low bounce
USO-fast pace low bounce
Shanghai- pretty fast and very low bounce
Paris-EXTREMELY fast and decent bounce
WTF LONDON-slow paced Very Very low bounce
6-2/6-4/6-0
Semi-Pro
I think that for a lot of reasons going back to wood is an impossible thing, but there is no reason that the ITF could not phase in head size and stiffness restrictions giving manufacturers time to adjust their 'pro' rackets. This was done in cycling where the UCI (governing body) instituted a number of restrictive guidelines for time-trial bicycles to effect their aerodynamic drag, they also instituted a minimum weight for a bicycle well after racers had been competing on bicycles of a lesser weight.
I'm not sure where the legal precedent would be to sue the ITF over putting racket restriction in place. As a governing body it is up to them to determine what is acceptable in their sport. So long as those rules do not run counter to the Olympic charter (possibly costing them their Olympic recognition), the WADA, and the established decisions of the Court for Arbitration in Sport then I don't see where they could be liable. Yes, some manufacturers may complain, and I'd be fairly certain that many players would complain, but that is usually the case when any rule is made for any reason.
The example about spaghetti strings and composite rackets is somewhat interesting, but the conclusion is illogical. Particularly since one technology (composite racket frames) was not already precluded by the rules of the sport, and one that was (stringbeds were required to be flat, which the spaghetti string pattern was not). I would imagine that this had a greater effect on the legality or illegality of the technology than where it was first adopted. With that logic, Poly strings would have been banned years ago (if only it were so).
I believe that the ITF is required to act in the best interest of the sport, and that by not doing so - whether in acting counter to that interest, or by not acting at all - they fail their mandate and responsibility. While racket restrictions may not be popular at the start I believe that they are in the best interest of a fair sport, that they will - ultimately - serve the sport much better than the lack of restrictions now, and that the variety and appeal of the game will be increased by implementing them.
After all, what's the excitement in watching a match if it's basically like every other match you've seen that year? And, let's face it, that's really what's been happening for a while...
Your preferred metric for court speed seems to be percentage of games held (and other stats like those concerning unreturned serves, etc.), and your reasoning seems to be that since these stats haven't changed much overall, neither has overall court speed. This could equally be charged with assuming the very conclusion to be established if you have no reason for assuming the relation between service games held and court speed other than the "fact" that court speed hasn't changed much, and, given the steadiness of % games held, the two must correlate. This neatly parallels your s&v example wherein a certain relationship between serve and volley and court speed was simply assumed because the hypothetical arguer took it for granted that court speed has decreased, and given the decrease in s&v, the two must correlate.
Now, I don't think you're actually reasoning in this circular manner. But neither is the person who invokes the presence/absence of serve and volleyers as a reason for thinking court speed has declined. You both have non-circular reasons for supposing there is a relationship between court speed and % games held/no. of serve and volleyers. As your articulated above, these reasons might be poor reasons (though I'm not sure I agree with you here), but they are at least potentially good reasons, i.e. not circular ones.
This is what I was trying to establish in my previous post by providing an example of what a non-circular reason for thinking s&v and court speed correlate might look like.
I am not disputing that if you have a better net game than baseline game, and you play against someone that has the opposite qualities, a faster court will be better for you.
I am saying that players play the game they learned. A natural steady baseliner like Borg or Lendl would probably have done very well on clay in the 60s against all the net rushers – but there were hardly any great steady baseliners in those days, and almost everyone played an all court game on every surface.
The emergence of the steady baseliner that is not easily tempted by net adventures, and his displacing of the all-court player, is a trend that seems to have started in the 80s, and continued uninterrupted through the next 2 decades.
The general consensus on the slowing down of surfaces is that it took place in the last decade, starting around 2001. So from a cause-effect point of view, it cannot be given as the main cause of a trend that was already almost complete.
The metrics that I use as a proxy for court speeds, namely percentage of service games/return games won, do show a pretty steady correlation in that different surfaces and tournaments usually stay in a certain percentage zone and keep a steady distance between each other, and the relation that emerges is of the same nature as the one we would expect: surfaces that are known or perceived to be faster do show higher holding percentages year after year. So it appears that the assumption that the correlation is indeed a causal relation is corroborated by those numbers. Therefore, if a radical change of surface speed is assumed in a certan tournament, but fails to show any effect on those numbers, then I think there are good grounds to be skeptical about the extent of the assumed change. Can it really be as radical as it is assumed and fail to show up in those numbers? I doubt it.
I'm not sure who you imagine yourself to be arguing against here but it certainly isn't me. My goal was to demonstrate that one needn't employ circular reasoning in using the absence of serve and volleyers as evidence that surfaces have slowed. You might think that, on analysis, the evidence turns out to not be particularly compelling but this has no bearing on the point I was making. You also seem to think that, on analysis, % of games held etc. is good evidence that court speeds haven't changed much overall in the last decade or so. That's fine. Again it has no bearing on the point I made that the metric of % games held could equally well be question begging as the metric of presence of serve and volleyers. It's just that you are obviously not reasoning in a question begging or circular way when you use this metric, much as the person who uses the serve and volley metric (probably) isn't reasoning in a question begging way in using this metric. This is contrary to your contention that such a person is assuming the conclusion they seek to prove. If you want to show your 'opponent' any charity, and not argue against straw men, you had better concede that one who says absence of s&v suggests a surface slowdown is not reasoning circularly, their evidence may be poor for other reasons (which you have alluded to), but it does not assume the conclusion they seek to establish.
Last edited:
I don’t disagree with you. The assumption is reasonable, meaning it is reasonable to assume that a drastic slowdown of surfaces would eventually lead to a reduction in the s&v game.
Now, if a reduction in the s&v game is observed, and it happens to precede any known slowdown, this does not render the previous assumption unreasonable, it just means that a slowdown is probably not a factor in this case, at least not in the initial stages of the trend away from s&v.
Anyway, I tend to view the emergence of the baseline game as largely the result of a gradual shift in the strategic understanding of the game. I have no proof for this, of course. I compare it in general lines with the evolution of chess. From the so called "romantic" period of the 19th century when players launched highly imaginative, fantastic (and often catastrophic) attacks, to the much more cautious positional game emphasizing an aversion to risk and gradual pressure. The net rusher relies on a sense of adventure, on the possibility of his opponent missing under pressure, sometimes on bluffing, just as the chess "romantic" adventurist relied on his opponent becoming confused by the complications. And it takes fortitude and indifference to ridicule to find yourself often looking like a fool when your opponent calls your bluff. Possibly what happened is that in both games the truth gradually emerged that a honing of defensive skills would often be sufficient to dismantle many of those attacks; that if there is a hole in your opponent’s combination you will detect it, keep your cool, and make his position crumble, and if there is an opening for the passing shot, you will make it.
I still think that the truly great net players of the past would create lots of problems for many if not most players today, but I also think that the ground game has improved a lot in general.
