Numero Uno
Semi-Pro
Its because racquets are getting better and players are able to strike the ball with much greater power. If the courts remained fast the points would be too short,most points would end after serve maybe one more shot.
The reason why courts are slower this days!!
- Thread starter Numero Uno
- Start date
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Love it. Excellent analysis.
Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong. There's been a fair amount of research done to show that serve speed isn't all that different between wood racquets and newer racquets. The primary difference is that players have gotten taller and stronger and there was a concern that servebots would make tennis boring as improvements in serve were ahead of improvements in the return game. The other difference is polyester string. Spin is a much bigger part of the modern game. Of course, faster courts minimize the impact of spin. Courts are WAY too slow and until recently have almost eliminated stylistic differences in play and made tennis pretty boring in a completely different way. Glad to see that surfaces are just starting to have some more variety in speed again and that volleying is starting to reappear.
I feel the slowing down of tennis surfaces has to do more in making the game easier for the amateurs.
Prople who played tennis before 2006, would remember the slickness and skid of the ball whilst it penetrated the courts. A mojor reason amateurs struggle with the basic strokes is the lack of hand eye co-ordination and fast muscle twitch to co-ordinate their strokes and handle variances in ball speed,height and spin.
Th slowing down of surfaces effectively ensures a more true bounce, with more uniform height and pace, which allows for the ball to sit up more.
This coupled with the raquet technology focused on imparting spin with poly strings and a larger raquet head size is driven to ensure that the ball stays in court and the amateur player feels less aware of his own limitations.
Prople who played tennis before 2006, would remember the slickness and skid of the ball whilst it penetrated the courts. A mojor reason amateurs struggle with the basic strokes is the lack of hand eye co-ordination and fast muscle twitch to co-ordinate their strokes and handle variances in ball speed,height and spin.
Th slowing down of surfaces effectively ensures a more true bounce, with more uniform height and pace, which allows for the ball to sit up more.
This coupled with the raquet technology focused on imparting spin with poly strings and a larger raquet head size is driven to ensure that the ball stays in court and the amateur player feels less aware of his own limitations.
Many and possibly most hard courts are too slow in my not so humble opinion. Cincinatti, Shanghai and Dubai are faster hard courts and I thought the tennis in those tournaments was very entertaining. Wimbledon is fast enough and still rewards the slice BH and attacking the net so I would leave it alone. USO could speed up a little.
Indian Wells, Maimi, WTF at the London O2, Aussie Open, Aussie warm-up tourneys as well as other US and Canadian hard court tournaments are a bit too slow. WTF has been way too slow for last couple of years as going to the net looks like suicide as players are regularly passed even on good approach shots.
Poly strings and modern rackets have shifted the advantage to the baseliner and away from the attacking player. Poly strings make return of serve, passing shots and baseline topspin easier. It has gotten to the point where it is very difficult to attack the net at most tournaments which wasn't the case 10 years ago. I think the goal for hard courts should be to play similarly to Dubai court speed which allows for attacking tennis but still allows baseliners to do well.
The 6 hour Aussie Open final between Nadal and Djokovic a few years ago had great moments but if tennis lets racket, string and court technology make this type of match the norm; tennis will die. TV will not be interested in showing 5 to 6 hour matches. The lack of variety becomes a bit monotonous when there is very little net play or S&V. And, both players become so fatigued that it turns into a war of attrition instead of war of brilliant shot making.
Indian Wells, Maimi, WTF at the London O2, Aussie Open, Aussie warm-up tourneys as well as other US and Canadian hard court tournaments are a bit too slow. WTF has been way too slow for last couple of years as going to the net looks like suicide as players are regularly passed even on good approach shots.
Poly strings and modern rackets have shifted the advantage to the baseliner and away from the attacking player. Poly strings make return of serve, passing shots and baseline topspin easier. It has gotten to the point where it is very difficult to attack the net at most tournaments which wasn't the case 10 years ago. I think the goal for hard courts should be to play similarly to Dubai court speed which allows for attacking tennis but still allows baseliners to do well.
The 6 hour Aussie Open final between Nadal and Djokovic a few years ago had great moments but if tennis lets racket, string and court technology make this type of match the norm; tennis will die. TV will not be interested in showing 5 to 6 hour matches. The lack of variety becomes a bit monotonous when there is very little net play or S&V. And, both players become so fatigued that it turns into a war of attrition instead of war of brilliant shot making.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
It's quite funny because big servers and players playing with a lot of aggression usually excel on slower courts, take Wawrinka, Isner, Querrey as prime examples.
ThirdEye
Semi-Pro
In Wawrinka's case it's because he needs some additional time to prepare his shots, in the case of Isner and Querrey it's because they're both tall and slower than the average 185cm player, so they benefit from a slower court. They can serve fast enough even on the slowest of the courts.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
They still have better results on slower courts. We can go name by name if you like and I guarantee that the vast majority of big servers/aggressive players achieved more on slower courts.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
If the USO played as it did in the 80's and 90's, no way would Fed have lost those two semis to Djoker. It would have been a straight-sets demolition. Lendl said when he was coaching Muzz that the USO nowadays plays as slow as red clay. When the interviewer asked if he was exaggerating, Ivan said, "No. And I should know."
The USO used to be fast, now it's torturously slow. Nadal winning it 2 times eloquently proves how damn slow it has become.
Plexicushion is the normal hardcourt.
The softer it is the less injuries the players should have.
If they make the surface smooth it will bounce lower,if they make the top surface with more friction / less smooth it will bounce higher.
I have played in a hardcourt that had tiny lines all over the top surface and it played freaky slow.
Also played on a hardcourt that was dead smooth and the speed was super fast.
The softer it is the less injuries the players should have.
If they make the surface smooth it will bounce lower,if they make the top surface with more friction / less smooth it will bounce higher.
I have played in a hardcourt that had tiny lines all over the top surface and it played freaky slow.
Also played on a hardcourt that was dead smooth and the speed was super fast.
I have yet to see a study that shows that fast hard courts cause more injuries than clay. Because the points are over quicker, less wear and tear on the body. Clay courts are much harder on the body, sprained ankles, knees. Just look at what has happened to Nadal. If he had played a normal hard court style instead of a clay court style on the fast hard courts, he would not have these injury problems.
Yet most players have the same racquet throughout their career. Tournament organizers just thought people wanted to see long rallies. You still had long rallies before but if a player was aggressive they were rewarded for it. Which to me led to be more styles of play on atp tour compared to now.
Zoolander
Hall of Fame
nguyentuanson16792
Semi-Pro
stringertom
Bionic Poster
I'll guarantee you this...had Federer been British, Wimby grass would be just as fast as it was at the start of his career.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
End result: Nadal has 15 Slams, and 25-10
Numero Uno
Semi-Pro
You should understand that the game has to evolve,they cant keep the same surface for 100 years,new materials are being discovered for the courts as well as for the racquets.. US open courts are not slow,they are well balanced between grass and slow hard. BTW Roger won it 5 times in a row,you cant expect him to win 15 US opens..
torpantennis
Legend
The reason for "slower" courts: Poly strings give more topspin! Ball skids through less after the bounce with the excessive topspin.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Is Pete Sampras a prime example? Cos he did great on those slow courts
Pete Sampras didn't play in the mid 00's and 10's.
Sooo true..
Alien
Hall of Fame
unrelated. As it should be known by now, the slowing of W grass was a consequence of changing the mix of kind of grass in order to make it more resistant to heavier and bigger players. Otherwise the quarterfinals would be played on fast earth.
I know it doesnt fit the paranoid idea that some evil powers want to make the game slow, but it is the truth if you care to dig in.
Certainly much more spin but not sure about the "pace" (or power?) of the ball.
For example, the serves of current ATP tour are definitely slower than those of 90's.
Ironically, it is after Wimbledon slowed their surfaces(2001-2003), when Federer finally had become great.
Wimbledon's grass court remained pretty much same since then.
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
Is this sarcasm? Because OP has "liked" it. Lol.
I thought it was slowed down partially as a means of attracting more TV revenue.
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
What is it with today's "rookies"? It's like they picked up the remote, switched the tv on yesterday, caught one good tennis match and suddenly became experts. Now they want to come here and share with us their half-baked theories.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
That match made people respect tennis as a sport of athletic ability. Not just who hits the corner over and over. More people outside the sport think that kind of tennis is cool. And I think it's a good change. Otherwise these 6'9" guys would be ruling the top 10.
As for the speed change for amateurs, public courts are quite a bit faster than ATP courts. Like a lot quicker. It's completely incorrect to think that amateur courts are slow.
The courts don't change that much year to year, the balls however have changed quite a bit. Even from a consumers standpoint, balls seem to be different than they were 5 years ago. Balls that are firmer have more power, balls that are softer have less pace but a bit more spin, the felt differences too change ball speed, and the hardness determines bounce.
It's funny to me how much people over look ball differences. A lot of people (a good number I'm sure on this board too) play with flat balls. They may not be dead, but they're lightened up from less felt, and don't have the bounce or power that they did of a fresh can. Yet on the pro tour, guys are super sensitive to the balls. They can give players an advantage, or make certain things harder for them. It's not economically feasible to always have fresh balls, but it makes a huge difference. Beyond that most of you TT'ers would be complaining if your opponent had fresh balls and could hit the ball 80mph on a whim (and keep it in... some youtube videos of you guys clocking shots comes to mind about your high mph shots), on a fast court. A lot of you guys have never even broken a ball by hitting it that hard. Not that you need to, it's just, the game is so much faster at the pro level it's necessary for all these things to be happening for tennis to have rallies.
You look at it as the game is too slow, but completely discount just how fast and how good these guys are. The game isn't too slow, it's just on a level you can't comprehend by watching youtube and tv broadcasts all the time.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
You don't really expect me to answer that, do you?
Similar threads
