The match that changed Tennis..

[Laurie]

I think it has, some people will say for the better, some people will say for the worse. But either way, this match changed the direction of modern tennis due to the reaction of the various tennis authorities. The match I refer to is the 1994 Wimbledon final.

Read on.....

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-match-that-changed-tennis_10.html#!/2012/12/the-match-that-changed-tennis_10.html

 

[Mustard]

What a complete dud of a final that was. Ivanisevic was brilliant in his straight sets semi final win over Becker, and it was an entertaining grass-court match. Sampras was likewise in his 4-set semi final win over Martin, avenging his loss from the Queen's Club final a few weeks earlier. However, the final was absolutely dreadful, a match of dominant serving for 2 sets and Goran tanking the third set.

 

[smoledman]

That was the first time people started talking about how boring modern tennis had become and the need to do something about it.

 

[mattennis]

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).

Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.

For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

 

[hersito]

That was the first time people started talking about how boring modern tennis had become and the need to do something about it.

It wasn't at all the first time, it was the drop that spilled the glass, it was being talk already how boring s&v is, and how tv ratings of tennis and people palying tennis (and all the business around it was dropping, racquets sold, etc) were dropping all over the world even in the USA (but not as much of course than in the rest of the world because of sampras and agassi)

 

[kiki]

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).



Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.

For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

I agree.In the 80´s and 70´s, you had the same with a lot more of touch and all round players.It was funnier than the 90´s although, compared to today, the Sampras ,Edberg, Agassi and Becker era is just a dream.

 

[Mustard]

The other Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches, i.e. the ones from 1992, 1995 and 1998, were entertaining grass-court matches. 1994 was not.

The 1994 Wimbledon final desperately needed Goran to win 1 of the first 2 sets to make it interesting, but he didn't, unlike in their 1992, 1995 and 1998 Wimbledon matches, where Goran did win at least 1 of the first 2 sets. Goran then made sure that the third set of the 1994 Wimbledon final was the worst set of the match, as he threw it away in despair.

 

[Mustard]

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

People were saying things like that in the 1990s. "Oh, I hate how much power there now is in tennis. We will never know how they could have done with wood. Now the players with more power win, instead of the most talented etc."

 

[mattennis]

People were saying things like that in the 1990s. "Oh, I hate how much power there now is in tennis. We will never know how they could have done with wood. Now the players with more power win, instead of the most talented etc."

I know, the transition from wood to graphite changed completely the game and raised the very same question (What would have happened had they stayed using wood racquets?), but at least during the 80s and 90s you had variety still.

By the way, I still watch A LOT of tennis matches from the wood era (mainly from the 70s, a decade of tennis I love so much), and I enjoy it tremendously.

I would understand the change to slow conditions had all the tournaments been like Wimbledon, but the thing is that in the 90s more than 90% of the matches were baseline battles already.

It was only Wimbledon and some indoor carpet (not all by the way) where you could see extremely short points (and not all the players, because Bruguera-Muster for example or players like that would have long rallyes even on grass or indoor carpet).

I think people were so unfair to Goran. He had THAT serve, what do you want? Of course he would use it to his advantage.

It was a skill, he was a serve genius, and people talked about it as if it was a bad thing or something that had not any merit.

When Goran defeated Edberg in the 1996 USO QF people in the stands were booing everytime Goran hit an ace (which was all the time as you would know) and Goran got angry probably thinking "do you all think it is so easy to do it? to hit an ace every time I am down break point? I can do it because I am THAT good at that, the best for that matter".

Some people seem to think it is okay to have a great forehand, or a great backhand, or a great volley, or a great return of serve, or a great speed.....but at the same time they seem to not a value at all what an absolutely great serve Goran had, they even talked about Goran as if his serve was some kind of cheating.

Well, I loved Goran and I think he never got the respect he deserved as a great tennis player he was.

 

[rufus_smith]

The 2001 Goran Ivan. versus Patrick Rafter was terrific to watch and was all serve and volley on both sides. So I'm not sure how much was really changed from 1994.

 

[Mustard]

Well, I loved Goran and I think he never got the respect he deserved as a great tennis player he was.

Goran was my second favourite of the 1990s behind Muster. His rallying ability, and his ability to play well on all surfaces, was underrated by many people. This is a man who reached the finals of Rome and Hamburg, and won Stuttgart. He is also the only man who managed to beat Muster on clay in Davis Cup singles.

My original point was that the 1994 Wimbledon final was still a very bad match to watch. I think it was a case of all the negatives happening at once. Nobody expected many long rallies in a Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon match, but in this match, there were far less than what was normal, even for them. There was no drama in terms of how the match went as Sampras was the slight favourite, had won the first 2 sets which contained dominant serving while Sampras held his nerve better (as most people expected) and then picked off a tanking Goran in the third set for the victory. It was just a bad spectacle.

The other Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches had drama in them. There were a lot of twists and turns in the matches. In their 1992 Wimbledon semi final, we had Goran coming from a set down to beat Sampras in 4 sets, serving 36 aces, and not facing a break point in the entire match. It was brilliant grass-court tennis. Their 1995 Wimbledon semi final saw Ivanisevic constantly threaten to upset Sampras in the match, yet he couldn't win the biggest points and eventually lost in 5 sets. Their 1998 Wimbledon final was full of drama, with Goran looking in control and having set points to go 2 sets up. It then turned into a 5-set battle which Sampras won again. There was drama in these matches, unlike in the 1994 Wimbledon final.

The 2001 Goran Ivan. versus Patrick Rafter was terrific to watch and was all serve and volley on both sides. So I'm not sure how much was really changed from 1994.

In 1995, they softened the balls at Wimbledon to limit some of the power in the serves. It wasn't hugely noticeable. 2002 Wimbledon was the big shock in terms of how much conditions had changed in just 1 year, because Henman was complaining about the courts being very slow, serve and volleyers were struggling, and baseliners like Nalbandian, Malisse, Lapentti and Sa, were getting deep into the tournament.

 

[roundiesee]

What a complete dud of a final that was. Ivanisevic was brilliant in his straight sets semi final win over Becker, and it was an entertaining grass-court match. Sampras was likewise in his 4-set semi final win over Martin, avenging his loss from the Queen's Club final a few weeks earlier. However, the final was absolutely dreadful, a match of dominant serving for 2 sets and Goran tanking the third set.

Not if you were a Sampras fan! I remember this match well, and whilst it was true that the points were short, both men were playing a brand of attacking tennis very rarely seen nowadays, I was rooting for Pete all the way and was delighted he won in straights (though the first 2 sets were very close). I felt bad for Goran though; fortunately he was able to win Wimbledon a few years later.

 

[Bartelby]

The racquets got more powerful, so they lowered the speed of the court and the court played smaller.

The players got more powerful and they hit with more spin, and the court played even more small.

And so the points got longer and the net became an object in the distance.

 

[Bartelby]

The deuce rule worked when the points were short but its currently leading to a number of 8 minute plus games, which are admittedly quite interesting.

 

[Laurie]

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).

Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

I found the arguments about big serving killing tennis similar to fast bowlers ruining it for batsmen in cricket. In cricket they changed the rules to encourage more run making like not allowed to bowl more than one bouncer per over, limits to short balls etc. At the end of the day, acquiring such a specialised skill is seen as intimidation in the eys of certain sections of the media and fans.

In each instance, something was seen as needed to be done. An interesting psychology, I thought top level sport was about winning with the skills you've aquired but of course it is possible for the authorities to move the goalposts if they think money is at stake.

 

[Feather]

It wouldn't be boring if you are a fan of either player. I know it's subjective but for me it's certainly more entertaining than watching a Rafa - Djokovic six hour long rallies in AO final

 

[5555]

No. Laver-Rosewall at 1972 WCT Final is the match that changed tennis

 

[The-Champ]

No. Laver-Rosewall at 1972 WCT Final is the match that changed tennis

Is this an opinion or a fact?

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, the serve came to dominate Wimbledon, or grass in general, and now the baseline topspin forehand is the dominant shot across all surfaces.

Its a better game, but things are still somewhat unbalanced. The solution is a faster ball on clay and a faster hardcourt elswhere, but there are no takers.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).

Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.

For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

great post !

the trend, unfortunately, seems to be that some players start to take for granted that all the courts should play similarly... :|
something should be done before it's too late.

 

[Goosehead]

That was the first time people started talking about how boring modern tennis had become and the need to do something about it.

people were complaining about the serve dominant wimbledon in the 1980s..players like becker and that massive slobodan bloke, with bigger serves and with new raquets meant more powerful serves than before.

 

[mattennis]

I found the arguments about big serving killing tennis similar to fast bowlers ruining it for batsmen in cricket. In cricket they changed the rules to encourage more run making like not allowed to bowl more than one bouncer per over, limits to short balls etc. At the end of the day, acquiring such a specialised skill is seen as intimidation in the eys of certain sections of the media and fans.

In each instance, something was seen as needed to be done. An interesting psychology, I thought top level sport was about winning with the skills you've aquired but of course it is possible for the authorities to move the goalposts if they think money is at stake.

Yes.

By the way, I think exactly the same of what happened in 2011 Roland Garros.

Clay court is supposed to be the slowest conditions in tennis. If you change the type of ball (as they did in 2011 Roland Garros, a way faster type of ball) you are changing the essence of what clay court condition is supposed to be.

Even though I liked it more (I loved 2011 Roland Garros, I think it was more entertaining tennis, at least for me), I still think it was unfair, because I loved the totally different conditions in tennis as it always existed.

So I understand that for many people Wimbledon in the 00s may be more entertaining than Wimbledon in the 90s, just like for me 2011 Roland Garros was more entertaining, but I think it is unfair to change the conditions all the time depending on what they think the majority of people would prefer.

Then "what is tennis?". Tennis is nothing, it does not exist. If everytime a player (or some players) become so good at what tennis was in their years, but their style becomes "less appealing" to the majority of people and then the conditions are changed, what is the sense of all this?

Imagine a new player develops a style consisting of hitting super-mega-top-spin shots (much more than what Nadal does today), clearing the net by 8 meters or more, and landing so deep just inside the baseline, and he is THAT good at that that he never loses on clay.

Well, props to him, he found a way to be better than anyone on clay. But many people would not like that tennis style, so the powers that be would change the conditions, using faster balls or whatever (just like they change the grass court conditions and balls used there).

But does it makes sense? Is tennis just a business and tennis skills is something not worthing (so it does not matter the tennis skills, what matters is some tennis skills that could be appealing for people to pay to watch tennis).

Is tennis then like a beauty contest?, so that the players whose tennis skills are thought to be beautiful (or better said, are thought to be more appealing to the public so more people would pay to watch it) have an edge because the powers that be will make conditions to suit them?

Then how can you say X player from today was "better" than Y player from yerteryear when tennis conditions are changing all the time to suit some players and penalize others?

Tennis as a fixed concept (or sport) does not exist, period.

 

[mattennis]

people were complaining about the serve dominant wimbledon in the 1980s..players like becker and that massive slobodan bloke, with bigger serves and with new raquets meant more powerful serves than before.

Yes, SOME people were complaining even in 1985 Wimbledon saying that Kevin Curren and Boris Becker with their monster serves (aided by the "new" graphite racquets) were killing tennis.

As you know, there will always be people complaining about something.

 

[mattennis]

On the other hand, there was SOME people complaining everytime Arancha Sanchez-Vicario won RG (and she won it like three times or something) saying she JUST was good legs and moonballing retrieving.

 

[pc1]

I know, the transition from wood to graphite changed completely the game and raised the very same question (What would have happened had they stayed using wood racquets?), but at least during the 80s and 90s you had variety still.

By the way, I still watch A LOT of tennis matches from the wood era (mainly from the 70s, a decade of tennis I love so much), and I enjoy it tremendously.

I would understand the change to slow conditions had all the tournaments been like Wimbledon, but the thing is that in the 90s more than 90% of the matches were baseline battles already.

It was only Wimbledon and some indoor carpet (not all by the way) where you could see extremely short points (and not all the players, because Bruguera-Muster for example or players like that would have long rallyes even on grass or indoor carpet).

I think people were so unfair to Goran. He had THAT serve, what do you want? Of course he would use it to his advantage.

It was a skill, he was a serve genius, and people talked about it as if it was a bad thing or something that had not any merit.

When Goran defeated Edberg in the 1996 USO QF people in the stands were booing everytime Goran hit an ace (which was all the time as you would know) and Goran got angry probably thinking "do you all think it is so easy to do it? to hit an ace every time I am down break point? I can do it because I am THAT good at that, the best for that matter".

Some people seem to think it is okay to have a great forehand, or a great backhand, or a great volley, or a great return of serve, or a great speed.....but at the same time they seem to not a value at all what an absolutely great serve Goran had, they even talked about Goran as if his serve was some kind of cheating.

Well, I loved Goran and I think he never got the respect he deserved as a great tennis player he was.

Big fan of Goran also. He definitely worn his emotions on his sleeve.

Here's a more enjoyable Goran match. The last game of the 2001 Wimbledon. It's a thrill a second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hECNfj5G_s

 

[Frankc]

pc1,
Thanks for reminding us - I revisited and laughed and cried... whatta moment for tennis...

 

[Goosehead]

Yes, SOME people were complaining even in 1985 Wimbledon saying that Kevin Curren and Boris Becker with their monster serves (aided by the "new" graphite racquets) were killing tennis.

As you know, there will always be people complaining about something.

how could i forget to mention Kevin Curren his mid 80s serve was thermonuclear..just ask Mcenroe :twisted:

 

[Paul Murphy]

Terrible match, just so boring.
But administrators have gone much too far in making surfaces too slow and similar.
A good court surface is one which gives a baseliner or a serve/volleyer an equal chance to win.
The best type of tennis is what we saw in the 1980s when a great baseliner like Lendl faced a superb S/V exponent in McEnroe.
We saw both types of tennis played at a high level with the better man on the day winning.
Much more interesting than the baseline slugfests we've got now.

 

[5555]

Is this an opinion or a fact?

Opinion. Unlike you, I know what is the difference between an opinion and a fact.

 

[stingstang]

Terrible match, just so boring.
But administrators have gone much too far in making surfaces too slow and similar.
A good court surface is one which gives a baseliner or a serve/volleyer an equal chance to win.
The best type of tennis is what we saw in the 1980s when a great baseliner like Lendl faced a superb S/V exponent in McEnroe.
We saw both types of tennis played at a high level with the better man on the day winning.
Much more interesting than the baseline slugfests we've got now.

Yup, good post.

Tennis is popular right now because there are legends at the top of the game, once they are gone tennis will suddenly seem really dull. Fed doesn't have long to retire, nadals not going to have a long career. What will be left of tennis in 2 or 3 years? Ratings will drop off and they will start messing around with the surfaces, equipment etc again to make it more interesting.

I bet what we watch now will seem just as old fashioned in 15 years time.

 

[Clay lover]

Yes.

By the way, I think exactly the same of what happened in 2011 Roland Garros.

Clay court is supposed to be the slowest conditions in tennis. If you change the type of ball (as they did in 2011 Roland Garros, a way faster type of ball) you are changing the essence of what clay court condition is supposed to be.

Even though I liked it more (I loved 2011 Roland Garros, I think it was more entertaining tennis, at least for me), I still think it was unfair, because I loved the totally different conditions in tennis as it always existed.

So I understand that for many people Wimbledon in the 00s may be more entertaining than Wimbledon in the 90s, just like for me 2011 Roland Garros was more entertaining, but I think it is unfair to change the conditions all the time depending on what they think the majority of people would prefer.

Then "what is tennis?". Tennis is nothing, it does not exist. If everytime a player (or some players) become so good at what tennis was in their years, but their style becomes "less appealing" to the majority of people and then the conditions are changed, what is the sense of all this?

Imagine a new player develops a style consisting of hitting super-mega-top-spin shots (much more than what Nadal does today), clearing the net by 8 meters or more, and landing so deep just inside the baseline, and he is THAT good at that that he never loses on clay.

Well, props to him, he found a way to be better than anyone on clay. But many people would not like that tennis style, so the powers that be would change the conditions, using faster balls or whatever (just like they change the grass court conditions and balls used there).

But does it makes sense? Is tennis just a business and tennis skills is something not worthing (so it does not matter the tennis skills, what matters is some tennis skills that could be appealing for people to pay to watch tennis).

Is tennis then like a beauty contest?, so that the players whose tennis skills are thought to be beautiful (or better said, are thought to be more appealing to the public so more people would pay to watch it) have an edge because the powers that be will make conditions to suit them?

Then how can you say X player from today was "better" than Y player from yerteryear when tennis conditions are changing all the time to suit some players and penalize others?

Tennis as a fixed concept (or sport) does not exist, period.

GREAT POST. TW philosoraptor here.

 

[SLD76]

The deuce rule worked when the points were short but its currently leading to a number of 8 minute plus games, which are admittedly quite interesting.

fair point.

good job.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Variety rulz..deal with it.

ok...who was complaining when rios was beating rusedski at indian wells?

again...many have posted many times about this.

going to wimbledon in the 90's and complaining about lack of rallies..

IS LIKE GOING TO RG AND COMPLAINING TOO MANY RALLIES.

if you hate it so much...catch the train and watch in paris.

and maybe we should not get started on TV ratings for the 81 finals in paris and london..hmmm?

every tennis tournamnet had it's special character....wimbledon needed to it's
accet it's position just like every other tournamant in the world did...it didnt.....and now we have a unifrom tour...

the REAL changes happened in september 2001..when the ATP decided to slow down all durfaces and reduce the indoor season.....many players like todd martin complained at the time and there was no democratic process.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

The OP needs to point out..that 1995 was an EPIC year in tennis IMHO

ys..the same conditions and similar time to 1994.

who was complaining when the US open men's semis of 95 dre vs BB, PS vs JC
were being played? gee ..must have been such a boring tournament?

 

[Bobby Jr]

When you look back at Wimbledon in 1992 you see a player who played in a manner effectively unsuited to grass by most experts estimations beat a player with a game perfectly suited to grass - it makes me wonder what planet the authorities are on when they make changes like they did at this year's French Open. Changing the FO balls back to slow ones after such a fantastically entertaining 2011 tournament seems totally opposite logic to what has been used elsewhere in slowing courts. Either they make changes to improve the spectacle or they make them to please the players. It seems for too long they've made them to please fans of slower conditions, but never fans of faster conditions - and then chose whichever argument appears to justify the changes.

FWIW, those balls in 2011 were only quick when new. They slowed down at a pretty steep rate once in use.

I would prefer it if the European clay court tournaments didn't all play so similar. If players don't like it they should learn to adapt quicker/better - something which has traditionally been one of the essential traits of tennis. Players who excel in hard courts have to change between much broader playing characteristics across various hard courts - often week to week - but the clay court guys scream blue murder the second the balls or courts are not exactly what they expected. Tough **** I say.

 

[Towser83]

Yes.

By the way, I think exactly the same of what happened in 2011 Roland Garros.

Clay court is supposed to be the slowest conditions in tennis. If you change the type of ball (as they did in 2011 Roland Garros, a way faster type of ball) you are changing the essence of what clay court condition is supposed to be.

Even though I liked it more (I loved 2011 Roland Garros, I think it was more entertaining tennis, at least for me), I still think it was unfair, because I loved the totally different conditions in tennis as it always existed.

So I understand that for many people Wimbledon in the 00s may be more entertaining than Wimbledon in the 90s, just like for me 2011 Roland Garros was more entertaining, but I think it is unfair to change the conditions all the time depending on what they think the majority of people would prefer.

Then "what is tennis?". Tennis is nothing, it does not exist. If everytime a player (or some players) become so good at what tennis was in their years, but their style becomes "less appealing" to the majority of people and then the conditions are changed, what is the sense of all this?

Imagine a new player develops a style consisting of hitting super-mega-top-spin shots (much more than what Nadal does today), clearing the net by 8 meters or more, and landing so deep just inside the baseline, and he is THAT good at that that he never loses on clay.

Well, props to him, he found a way to be better than anyone on clay. But many people would not like that tennis style, so the powers that be would change the conditions, using faster balls or whatever (just like they change the grass court conditions and balls used there).

But does it makes sense? Is tennis just a business and tennis skills is something not worthing (so it does not matter the tennis skills, what matters is some tennis skills that could be appealing for people to pay to watch tennis).

Is tennis then like a beauty contest?, so that the players whose tennis skills are thought to be beautiful (or better said, are thought to be more appealing to the public so more people would pay to watch it) have an edge because the powers that be will make conditions to suit them?

Then how can you say X player from today was "better" than Y player from yerteryear when tennis conditions are changing all the time to suit some players and penalize others?

Tennis as a fixed concept (or sport) does not exist, period.

Far too much sense in this post! You will be outlawed if you carry on with this :lol:

Big fan of Goran also. He definitely worn his emotions on his sleeve.

Here's a more enjoyable Goran match. The last game of the 2001 Wimbledon. It's a thrill a second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hECNfj5G_s

Favourite slam final ever. It was beautiful, a hollywood script played out in reality. I had tears in my eyes.

 

[smoledman]

It seems for too long they've made them to please fans of slower conditions, but never fans of faster conditions - and then chose whichever argument appears to justify the changes.

FWIW, those balls in 2011 were only quick when new. They slowed down at a pretty steep rate once in use.

I would prefer it if the European clay court tournaments didn't all play so similar. If players don't like it they should learn to adapt quicker/better - something which has traditionally been one of the essential traits of tennis. Players who excel in hard courts have to change between much broader playing characteristics across various hard courts - often week to week - but the clay court guys scream blue murder the second the balls or courts are not exactly what they expected. Tough **** I say.

It seems that there are more fans of the slower conditions then the faster.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

It seems that there are more fans of the slower conditions then the faster.

debatable...and subjective...the posts by bobby jr and the other epic one about changing conditions pretty much sum up the state of tennis.

in other sports ...the equipment/conditions never change..it's up to the player to adapt.

in tennis...change has become so normal..that players complain if changes don't suit them LOL

 

[The-Champ]

Opinion. Unlike you, I know what is the difference between an opinion and a fact.

No you don't! you believe tennis commentators are infallible

 

[Feather]

Yes.

By the way, I think exactly the same of what happened in 2011 Roland Garros.

Clay court is supposed to be the slowest conditions in tennis. If you change the type of ball (as they did in 2011 Roland Garros, a way faster type of ball) you are changing the essence of what clay court condition is supposed to be.

Even though I liked it more (I loved 2011 Roland Garros, I think it was more entertaining tennis, at least for me), I still think it was unfair, because I loved the totally different conditions in tennis as it always existed.

So I understand that for many people Wimbledon in the 00s may be more entertaining than Wimbledon in the 90s, just like for me 2011 Roland Garros was more entertaining, but I think it is unfair to change the conditions all the time depending on what they think the majority of people would prefer.

Then "what is tennis?". Tennis is nothing, it does not exist. If everytime a player (or some players) become so good at what tennis was in their years, but their style becomes "less appealing" to the majority of people and then the conditions are changed, what is the sense of all this?

Imagine a new player develops a style consisting of hitting super-mega-top-spin shots (much more than what Nadal does today), clearing the net by 8 meters or more, and landing so deep just inside the baseline, and he is THAT good at that that he never loses on clay.

Well, props to him, he found a way to be better than anyone on clay. But many people would not like that tennis style, so the powers that be would change the conditions, using faster balls or whatever (just like they change the grass court conditions and balls used there).

But does it makes sense? Is tennis just a business and tennis skills is something not worthing (so it does not matter the tennis skills, what matters is some tennis skills that could be appealing for people to pay to watch tennis).

Is tennis then like a beauty contest?, so that the players whose tennis skills are thought to be beautiful (or better said, are thought to be more appealing to the public so more people would pay to watch it) have an edge because the powers that be will make conditions to suit them?

Then how can you say X player from today was "better" than Y player from yerteryear when tennis conditions are changing all the time to suit some players and penalize others?

Tennis as a fixed concept (or sport) does not exist, period.

Very well said ! All are pure speculations only.

Lovely post

 

[Laurie]

The OP needs to point out..that 1995 was an EPIC year in tennis IMHO

ys..the same conditions and similar time to 1994.

who was complaining when the US open men's semis of 95 dre vs BB, PS vs JC
were being played? gee ..must have been such a boring tournament?

Indeed you make a very good point, there are lots of examples. What about the epic Wimbledon tournament in 2001 for both men and women. Or all of those classic 5 set attacker v baseliner battles at Wimbledon during that era. Despite that the autorities were determined to continue to make changes and there was no turning back.

I wonder what ex players think of it all? Don't get to hear their opinions on court conditions too often. Richard Krajicek did contribute to my article back in February about indoor surfaces although he had his Director of the Rotterdam tournament hat on. His views were interesting.

 

[5555]

you believe tennis commentators are infallible

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[helloworld]

Points with less than 4 rallies = 185
Points with 4 or more rallies = 1

 

[mattennis]

This was a fast indoor court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsVHv43uFRg

Today there isn't anything remotely similar to that speed.

This was not as fast as the previous example, but you can see that in 2005 there was still one or two indoor tournaments (like this one) with fast conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejM4as-HJOM

Again, today there isn't anything remotely similar to this court condition either.


I would love to see todays top players playing on those fast conditions SOMETIMES.

 

[adil1972]

nice article... quality of article is quite high

 

[5555]

you believe tennis commentators are infallible

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[kidbourbon]

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon.

I don't.

1. I understand your argument that the surfaces shouldn't be uniform. But to imply that they are uniform is silly. Clay and grass aren't the same thing. So I agree with your point there,but I think you're overstating the reality of teh matter.

2. Tennis as it was played in the 1994 Wimby final, in my humble opinion, is a vastly inferior product to the tennis of today. Back in the day, a player could win -- or advance deep in the draw -- Wimby based on their serve alone. Why would anybody argue that that's a positive for the game of tennis? That sucks for tennis.

I think the game of tennis is much more enjoyable to watch when the importance of the serve is de-emphasized. Mark Phillipoussis, imho, has absolutely no business ever making it to the final of a grand slam. When that happens, it just makes the sport look stupid. It's the equivalent of replacing the game fo golf with a long drive competition.

This is why I love thiis era. The serve is still important, but you gotta be able play tennis. You gotta be able to move around the court. You've gotta have all kiinds of game, and not merely a shot that you toss to yourself to hit.

 

[kidbourbon]

I think it has, some people will say for the better, some people will say for the worse. But either way, this match changed the direction of modern tennis due to the reaction of the various tennis authorities. The match I refer to is the 1994 Wimbledon final.

Read on.....

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-match-that-changed-tennis_10.html#!/2012/12/the-match-that-changed-tennis_10.html

Excellent article, btw.

 

[kidbourbon]

I found the arguments about big serving killing tennis similar to fast bowlers ruining it for batsmen in cricket. In cricket they changed the rules to encourage more run making like not allowed to bowl more than one bouncer per over, limits to short balls etc. At the end of the day, acquiring such a specialised skill is seen as intimidation in the eys of certain sections of the media and fans.

In each instance, something was seen as needed to be done. An interesting psychology, I thought top level sport was about winning with the skills you've aquired but of course it is possible for the authorities to move the goalposts if they think money is at stake.

I thiink you're trying to sound profound here, but you fail miserably.

In the late 1960s in baseball, pitchers were completely dominating hitters. Nobody could get a hit. 1968 was the worst year ever, and so major league baseball decided something needed to be done. What had been happening wass there was no regulations on the height of the pitcher's mound; pitchers ealized that a higher mound gave them a great advantage, and so mounds started to become really hiigh.

The major league recognized (a) that games with no scoring are bad for fans, and also that (b) there is supposed to be that goes into winning a baseball game than simply being able to throw a hard fastball. What about hitting? What about baserunning? What about fielding? Well all of those were irrelevant because nobody could get a hit.

So baseball put restrictions on the height of the pitchers mound. In some cases this brought existing pitcher's mounds down 10 inches. This made it much easier for batters, which allowed the skill of hitting a baseball to again e demonstrated, which allowed the skill of fielding a baseball to be demonstrated, and which allowed the skill fo runnign the bases to be demonstrated. And the games nwo all of a sudden had scoring.

With that one simple rule change, baseball become a better, more fan friendly prodcut that wasn't simply domonated by a guy who came out of the womb with a golden arm.

In tennis, racquet technology advanced early. And string technology didn't catch up until 20 years later. String technology has of course helped service returners. The power of the racquets helped servers. And so because of technological advances out of anybody's control, guys who could do one thing and one thing alone were able to becomem elite tennis pllayers.

Nobody realized that string technology was on its way. If they had known that, then there probably wouldn't have been any measures takent to slow down the courts. And I submit that the slowing down of the tennis courts is highly highly highly exagerrated and the increase in longer rallies is more due to string technology which allows for more serve returns to be put into play, whch means that more rallies are started.

Tennis si better as a rsult. The goold ole days of 1994 actually sucked.

 

[madmanfool]

Richard Krajicek did contribute to my article back in February about indoor surfaces although he had his Director of the Rotterdam tournament hat on. His views were interesting.

Can you share this?