Tennis was, is, and always will be Tennis.

[nadalfan2013]

Yeah, you heard that right!!!

So many people keep bringing up things like the courts speed being slowed down compared to the past, and even putting down players because of this...

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolve, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.

 

[zagor]

So deep man.


P.S. Laver would be an all-time tennis great in any era he'd grew up in.

 

[Easy Rider]

It is not about best eras. Tennis evolve, yes, Im just concerned about direction

 

[SoBad]

Yeah, you heard that right!!!

So many people keep bringing up things like the courts speed being slowed down compared to the past, and even putting down players because of this...

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolve, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.

Are you saying that the 2003-2007 era was “real tennis” too?

 

[nadalfan2013]

So deep man.


P.S. Laver would be an all-time tennis great in any era he'd grew up in.

Players his height can't dominate in 2015. No way. The sport is too physical and tennis players are much taller than him. Sure he might win a couple of slams but not dominate.

Are you saying that the 2003-2007 era was “real tennis” too?

2003-2007 is not an "era", it's just a weak transitional period between the end of the Sampras/Agassi period and the beginning of the Nadal/Djokovic period. But I'm talking about tennis in terms of sport, rules, conditions, not about the level of competition and players. You're in the wrong thread mate...

 

[SoBad]

Players his height can't dominate in 2015. No way. The sport is too physical and tennis players are much taller than him. Sure he might win a couple of slams but not dominate.



2003-2007 is not an "era", it's just a weak transitional period between the end of the Sampras/Agassi period and the beginning of the Nadal/Djokovic period. But I'm talking about tennis in terms of sport, rules, conditions, not about the level of competition and players. You're in the wrong thread mate...

Oh okay, just wanted to clarify and make sure we’re on the same page. No need to argue the semantics.

 

[Chanwan]

Players his height can't dominate in 2015. No way. The sport is too physical and tennis players are much taller than him. Sure he might win a couple of slams but not dominate.



2003-2007 is not an "era", it's just a weak transitional period between the end of the Sampras/Agassi period and the beginning of the Nadal/Djokovic period. But I'm talking about tennis in terms of sport, rules, conditions, not about the level of competition and players. You're in the wrong thread mate...

I see we've got a new member with original views! Much impressed. Welcome

Ferrer is an inch taller than Laver and to paraphrase McEnroe 'Laver has more talent in his little finger than Ferrer has in his entire body'.
Laver would do quite alright, but he could certainly struggle to win double digits being 5'8 (1.73) (however, you would also expect him to be 3 inches or so taller had he been born into this era. That's the way human height has gone: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4841.0Chapter22011)

And lol on 2003-2007... you've got a good sense of humor, you should do well here

 

[Krish872007]

I see we've got a new member with original views! Much impressed. Welcome

Ferrer is an inch taller than Laver and to paraphrase McEnroe 'Laver has more talent in his little finger than Ferrer has in his entire body'.
Laver would do quite alright, but he could certainly struggle to win double digits being 5'8 (1.73) (however, you would also expect him to be 3 inches or so taller had he been born into this era. That's the way human height has gone: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4841.0Chapter22011)

And lol on 2003-2007... you've got a good sense of humor, you should do well here

Is the first sentence sarcasm?

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Laver would do quite alright, but he could certainly struggle to win double digits being 5'8 (1.73) (however, you would also expect him to be 3 inches or so taller had he been born into this era. That's the way human height has gone: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4841.0Chapter22011)

This is a good point. 5'8 Laver couldn't compete with Fed/Rafa/Djoker. But 5'11 Laver could.

 

[nadalfan2013]

I see we've got a new member with original views! Much impressed. Welcome

Ferrer is an inch taller than Laver and to paraphrase McEnroe 'Laver has more talent in his little finger than Ferrer has in his entire body'.
Laver would do quite alright, but he could certainly struggle to win double digits being 5'8 (1.73) (however, you would also expect him to be 3 inches or so taller had he been born into this era. That's the way human height has gone: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4841.0Chapter22011)

And lol on 2003-2007... you've got a good sense of humor, you should do well here

Fair enough... I guess Laver was, is, and always will be Laver too.

Yeah 2003-2007 is not real tennis except at the French Open

 

[Krish872007]

Tennis is indeed tennis - favourites come and go, which is when dedication to the sport, rather than to any individual, is tested along with the natural evolution of the sport.

 

[Chanwan]

This is a good point. 5'8 Laver couldn't compete with Fed/Rafa/Djoker. But 5'11 Laver could.

5'8 Laver would probably struggle, but let's not rule it out entirely. The guy won against tall guys in his own time. 5'11 or 6'0 Laver would def. stand his ground against anyone though - given the same equipment, training etc.

Is the first sentence sarcasm?

Nah, you know me

 

[bjsnider]

Laver would get destroyed today. He's 77 years old.

 

[rossi46]

Yeah, you heard that right!!!

So many people keep bringing up things like the courts speed being slowed down compared to the past, and even putting down players because of this...

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolve, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.

Sorry I don't buy the technology part, the courts were slowed down before the poly strings and so called powerful racquets reared their heads. Culprits such as Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Philippoussis etc. all used natural gut strings and very flexible old graphite racquets.

But the 80s and 90s were far more superior than the current era. There was variety, contrasting styles. The No 1. ranked player(s) in the world could do almost everything on the court.

 

[Aretium]

Are you a nadal fan?

 

[nadalfan2013]

Sorry I don't buy the technology part, the courts were slowed down before the poly strings and so called powerful racquets reared their heads. Culprits such as Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Philippoussis etc. all used natural gut strings and very flexible old graphite racquets.

But the 80s and 90s were far more superior than the current era. There was variety, contrasting styles. The No 1. ranked player(s) in the world could do almost everything on the court.

Nadal can do anything on the court. Offense, defense, mix it up, slice, topspin, power, slow down the game, drop shot, volleys, smash, can hit serve hard or not, passing shots, winners from everywhere in the court, etc. what more do you want? I mean I understand that Djokovic's volleys and smash are very average, and that Federer relies mostly on his serve, but Nadal has a complete game.

 

[Chanwan]

Nadal can do anything on the court. Offense, defense, mix it up, slice, topspin, power, slow down the game, drop shot, volleys, smash, can hit serve hard or not, passing shots, winners from everywhere in the court, etc. what more do you want? I mean I understand that Djokovic's volleys and smash are very average, and that Federer relies mostly on his serve, but Nadal has a complete game.

you crack me up! favorite new poster in a looooong time

 

[SoBad]

Fair enough... I guess Laver was, is, and always will be Laver too.

Yeah 2003-2007 is not real tennis except at the French Open

Is it real tennis when the likes of Baghdatis are all over slam finals? Those types couldn’t even run, except when in a rush to get another six-pack of beer from the store.

 

[rossi46]

Nadal can do anything on the court. Offense, defense, mix it up, slice, topspin, power, slow down the game, drop shot, volleys, smash, can hit serve hard or not, passing shots, winners from everywhere in the court, etc. what more do you want? I mean I understand that Djokovic's volleys and smash are very average, and that Federer relies mostly on his serve, but Nadal has a complete game.

I was targeting Novak, probably the worst "dominant" number 1 the sport has ever seen. Nadal can indeed volley, just wish he would do more of it on his terms though. Murray has great hands and should utilise that strength more often.

 

[pame]

I see we've got a new member with original views! Much impressed. Welcome

Ferrer is an inch taller than Laver and to paraphrase McEnroe 'Laver has more talent in his little finger than Ferrer has in his entire body'.
Laver would do quite alright, but he could certainly struggle to win double digits being 5'8 (1.73) (however, you would also expect him to be 3 inches or so taller had he been born into this era. That's the way human height has gone: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4841.0Chapter22011)

And lol on 2003-2007... you've got a good sense of humor, you should do well here

Lawdy lawdy - a newly banned MTF reject suddenly appears on TT

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

How do you really know? I remember we were watching the 96 AO semi between Agassi and Chang on ESPN and got so bored by the defensive baseline tennis that we switched to Becker v/s Woodforde which was being shown by the govt broadcaster and hence the feed was terrible (a problem aggravated by the speed with which both players took the net). We still loved it. And looking back, it's a luxury we do not have today. That's what tennis is missing now. It has over-corrected and in trying to kill the ace monster, has lost the diversity that enriched the game and made room for specialists and generalists alike. Now if hard court players slip on grass, it's a problem with the stupid grass and not their lack of appropriate footwork for grass.

 

[rossi46]

How do you really know? I remember we were watching the 96 AO semi between Agassi and Chang on ESPN and got so bored by the defensive baseline tennis that we switched to Becker v/s Woodforde which was being shown by the govt broadcaster and hence the feed was terrible (a problem aggravated by the speed with which both players took the net). We still loved it. And looking back, it's a luxury we do not have today. That's what tennis is missing now. It has over-corrected and in trying to kill the ace monster, has lost the diversity that enriched the game and made room for specialists and generalists alike. Now if hard court players slip on grass, it's a problem with the stupid grass and not their lack of appropriate footwork for grass.

Super post, very well put. Makes too much sense so get ready to be shot down by the hordes of ignorance plagued people on these boards who think that tennis started when Federer came on the scene or Nadal or the current brigade with Mr Complete player Djokovic.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Couldn't care less. I have lived through the 90s and heck I also love the Big Four. But I love tennis rather than just one or two players and I don't like what I see.

 

[Tennisanity]

I wonder how Laver would do using PEDs and more interestingly, how he would cope and the effect on his game after introduction of a biological passport.

 

[ultradr]

Yeah, you heard that right!!!

So many people keep bringing up things like the courts speed being slowed down compared to the past, and even putting down players because of this...

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolve, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.

Tennis evolves I agree. But this "Power baseline" (that emerged around 2003-2004, emergence of Federer/Nadal era) has been too much sway from traditional tennis.

 

[mattennis]

Yeah, you heard that right!!!

So many people keep bringing up things like the courts speed being slowed down compared to the past, and even putting down players because of this...

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

.

Yeah, because everybody knows that in the 90s there were only aces and serve-and-volley:

What an amazing battle it was...one of the many these two legends had during the 90s. Agassi was just better than anybody (bar Sampras) and the way he constructed the points, his killer lasser-like groundstrokes...was a thing of beauty....., and Chang was always there, trying everything, waiting for any lapse of concentration in Agassi, fighting to the death....what thriller final games of the match!!!

The 90s had everything, amazing power-baseline battles in Agassi, Courier, Chang....all-court game in Sampras, Becker, Stich.....pure attacking net-rushers in Edberg, Rafter.....people like Bruguera and Muster killing the ball with heavy top-spin power shots....magicians in Rios and Arazi....someone like Kuerten too......power-everything Philippoussis, Krajicek, Ivanisevic.....flat-hitting power baseliners in Enqvist, Korda, Kucera....

You could watch dozens of different type of matches, styles, conditions....just very different players with different styles, skills and talents.

I have just watched again the above match (one of the classic Agassi-Chang battles) and still find it much more thrilling and engaging than 99.9% of current tennis matches.


Look, another "only aces and serve-and-volley match with only short points" from the 90s:

 

[mattennis]

Another classic "only aces and only serve-and-volley with only short points" match from the 90s:

 

[vanioMan]

You have, and will always be, a troll.

 

[BreakPoint]

Nadal can do anything on the court. Offense, defense, mix it up, slice, topspin, power, slow down the game, drop shot, volleys, smash, can hit serve hard or not, passing shots, winners from everywhere in the court, etc. what more do you want? I mean I understand that Djokovic's volleys and smash are very average, and that Federer relies mostly on his serve, but Nadal has a complete game.

If Nadal has such a "complete game", how did Nishikori spank him off of the court?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

OP,

tennis will be tennis will be tennis will be tennis will be tennis will be tennis will be tennis .............

 

[nadalfan2013]

If Nadal has such a "complete game", how did Nishikori spank him off of the court?

Wow, he beat him for the 1st time in 8 meetings... Congratulations. Rafa wasn't playing near his best. You know, having a complete game doesn't mean that you can't have off days, or a bad season after injury/surgery. Grow up.

 

[nadalfan2013]

You have, and will always be, a troll.

If you think tennis was tennis in the past, but that it is not tennis anymore and will not always be tennis, then you should watch another sport. Otherwise stop making excuses about the sport like court speed, change of rules, etc. cause the sport will always evolve and adapt. Live with it.

 

[nadalfan2013]

I'm glad that Michael Chang plays long points, as if I was saying that every single freaking match became full of quick points and aces. I was obviously saying that in general the game had become too powerful and quick, and the decision to slow down the surface helped. Even a 5 year old kid understood what I ment.

 

[LETitBE]

I see we've got a new member with original views! Much impressed. Welcome

Ferrer is an inch taller than Laver and to paraphrase McEnroe 'Laver has more talent in his little finger than Ferrer has in his entire body'.
Laver would do quite alright, but he could certainly struggle to win double digits being 5'8 (1.73) (however, you would also expect him to be 3 inches or so taller had he been born into this era. That's the way human height has gone: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4841.0Chapter22011)

And lol on 2003-2007... you've got a good sense of humor, you should do well here

Laver wouldnt be 5' 8" in this day and age,growing up on a diet of McDonalds and KFC these days would have him at a about 6' and 82kg.When Laver was a kid no one could afford things like protien!

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Laver would get destroyed today. He's 77 years old.

But according to some around here he would still beat Serena Williams.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I'm glad that Michael Chang plays long points, as if I was saying that every single freaking match became full of quick points and aces. I was obviously saying that in general the game had become too powerful and quick, and the decision to slow down the surface helped. Even a 5 year old kid understood what I ment.

Perhaps ONLY a 5 year old kid can understand...because those of us who watched tennis in the 90s disagree. Aussie Open, IW, Miami played slow even back then and used to have lots of rallies. USO too had rallies in spite of the fast surface. Wimbledon became a victim of Sampras's relentless dominance. It began to get predictable. 0-40 and Sampras would fire 5 aces and get out of jail. But they should have probably just waited for him to retire rather than tinkering with the surface. Slowing down Wimbledon may not have killed serve and volley if strings hadn't got better. They did and when a new generation of hard court players exploited this improvement in technology, they wrote the epitaph of S&V.

 

[mattennis]

More "only aces and serve-and-volley only" tennis from the 90s:

(Rios the magician)


Yes, even on very fast indoor carpet too:

 

[mattennis]

And that great myth that the US OPEN was so fast during the 90s that only aces and serve-and-volley was possible:

Even Sampras used to have A LOT of baseline rallies in the "fast" hard courts of the US OPEN:

And look at how aggresive Chang return position is, he tried just about everything, even return and volley on some Pete's second serves (Pete used to stay back and rally from the backcourt on his second serve).

 

[mattennis]

And yes, there were also SOME very fast indoor carpet tournaments (not all indoor carpet tournaments were that fast, but at least 3 or 4 tournament were really fast).

Milan indoor was famous for being one of the fastest indoor carpet tournaments, and even there, most of the points were fast baseline rallyes (and yes, there were a quite high amount of aces and service winners on this extremely fast court).

On this court, a young Federer used to serve and volley on some first serves, but 90% of the points of the match were NOT serve-and-volley points (and we are talking about, possibly, the fastest conditions back then, of course today there is nothing even remotely similar in court speed/balls), just fast points, fast baseline rallyes the majority of them, some net approaches, very aggresive shots all the time.

The lower bounce and fast conditions of this court benefited a different set of skills (not only cannon-servers like Rosset, Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis or Krajicek, also flat hitters baseliners like Sanguinetti, Julian Boutter, Nicolas Escude, Petr Korda, Thomas Enqvist and some other baseliners were at their best on these extreme fast conditions).

 

[Russeljones]

Yeah, you heard that right!!!

So many people keep bringing up things like the courts speed being slowed down compared to the past, and even putting down players because of this...

Well guess what!!! There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolve, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.

A celebration of ignorance. Bask in the approval of your fellow post-2000 tennis lovers.

 

[TennisCJC]

You are welcome to your opinion but my opinion is the sport has gone too far the other way and the game is now too slow. Clay is and always was slow. Grass is much slower and bounces higher. Indoor courts are generally much slower. And, outdoor courts with the exception of Shanghai, Dubai and Cincy are much slower. Polyester strings help the returner and baseline player control the ball with spin. Add all this up and attacking tennis is almost extinct. I don't think we want to go back to the days of service shoot outs but I would like to see a small shift back toward attacking tennis. Simply look at Shanghai, Dubai and Cincy and make more tournaments play like those events. I think Wimbledon is fine as it is because grass is still relatively fast and rewards attacking tennis.

 

[mbm0912]

So deep man.


P.S. Laver would be an all-time tennis great in any era he'd grew up in.

So deep man.


P.S. Laver would be an all-time tennis great in any era he'd grew up in.

Absolutely false. How many 5'7 guys do you see dominating today?

 

[mbm0912]

I have a really hard time calling this "Great Tennis"

Here's some decent tennis..

 

[ZiggyStardust]

I have a really hard time calling this "Great Tennis"

Here's some decent tennis..

That second point would have been just as good if it was 8 strokes long. Novak bashes away, and Rafa makes some great gets. Then they slog down the middle while grunting needlessly for what seems to be forever, until Rafa coughs up a short half volley that sits up for Nole to bash down the line.
Both of these players have played some absolutely great points, but this should come nowhere near the top of either player's list. I find the general quality of Nadalovic to be a tad overrated as well.
Best point in tennis history? They've got to be kidding me.

 

[mbm0912]

That second point would have been just as good if it was 8 strokes long. Novak bashes away, and Rafa makes some great gets. Then they slog down the middle while grunting needlessly for what seems to be forever, until Rafa coughs up a short half volley that sits up for Nole to bash down the line.
Both of these players have played some absolutely great points, but this should come nowhere near the top of either player's list. I find the general quality of Nadalovic to be a tad overrated as well.
Best point in tennis history? They've got to be kidding me.

Agreed. Definitely not the best by any means.

 

[mbm0912]

That second point would have been just as good if it was 8 strokes long. Novak bashes away, and Rafa makes some great gets. Then they slog down the middle while grunting needlessly for what seems to be forever, until Rafa coughs up a short half volley that sits up for Nole to bash down the line.
Both of these players have played some absolutely great points, but this should come nowhere near the top of either player's list. I find the general quality of Nadalovic to be a tad overrated as well.
Best point in tennis history? They've got to be kidding me.