Cressy and Matt Purcell are the exceptions.
Why would opelka and isner stay back? Shortening points has to be a bonus on those giant bodies.
Yeah, with Cressy and Purcell their only issue is that I guess they're decent players and not top players in terms of playing ability.
Because when I see them play and miss a volley or something, it's usually not because the shot was that great or anything. It's just that they miss volleys. If they played in the 80s or 90s they'd probably still be ranked around where they are today.
And yeah, with Isner and Opelka that has to be a case of that's just how they were taught to play. They're big guys, but they were taught to play a "little man's" game. They're 6'10" and 6'11" and serve huge, but the rest of the their game they play like they're 5'10" and 5'11".
Ivo Karlović was 6'11" and he served and volley. So he was obviously taught different.
On the
ATP Podcast back on December 10th, Ivan Ljubičić said "’The biggest difference is the serve. This is one shot which has deteriorated over the years and the reason for that is that people used to serve big and now I think that has changed completely and people are now just serving ok’." (He starts talking about it at the 5:15 mark, and the whole episode is fairly interesting.)
I of course agree with Ljubičić. Guys serve today, and if they get a short return then it's serve+1. Otherwise they just start the point.
It's a way to play, but eh....
And I guess the powers that be don't really want to go back to the Sampras and Ivanišević days. So we have what we have.
When I refer to better athlete, I think players of the past might have had better hands, volleys and possibly tactics.
But they were more likely to have clear weaknesses.
Todays, players although very similar in there game are faster, hit bigger more consistently and cover the court like never before.
My credit to current tennis is it is so big and fast that nuances of the oder game are harder to implement.
If you don't hit the ball deep or hard enough, the ball is put away.
Sitters of today were rally balls of the past. Yes this is all ground stroke based now and probably enhanced by technology, but I think it is also because they are fitter/faster athletes.
As a whole they might not be better athletes but faster athletes. If you gave guys in the 80's and 90's poly strings, there groundies would probably go up a level.
If you watch matches of the early 80's and 90's you'll see more variety, but the court coverage and player speed is definitely a different level.
Yeah, I look at it in the way that, today they may hit bigger and more consistently, and cover the court like never before, but that's because the courts are slower.
When the courts are slower you can do. Like on clay, you can hit bigger and more consistently, and cover the court really well... because it's slower.
On grass today you have nothing but baseline rallies. That's wild. But that's of course because they changed the grass mixture from 30% creeping red fescue and 70% ryegrass to 100% ryegrass.
Who’d have thought a seemingly subtle change in the composition of the All England Club's lawns in 2001 would have such a major impact?
www.tennis.com
Yet as appealing as serve-and-volley tennis can be—at least for a time —the truth was that at Wimbledon it hardly made for a viewer-friendly experience. Throughout the ‘90s, the power of the serve had often made men’s matches at Wimbledon a series of staccato-like moments. For all the drama of the ’01 Ivanisevic-Rafter “People’s Monday” final, the rallies were rarely compelling and hardly showed off the wide range of skills that had emerged in tennis over the Open Era.
Boo!!!
Anyway, any of us can play better on a slower court in terms hitting more consistently and covering the court well. I know I can. Because you have the time to do that. And if you go and play on a fast court, and your game isn't built for that, then you're not going to play as well.
Also, the string is a huge difference. I remember the first time I hit with poly I thought I would never miss a ball again.
It felt almost like night and day. I could swing out of my shoes and socks and the ball would still always drop in. I love poly. It made me a better player, I think.
And yeah, on average players may be a bit better from an athletic standpoint, but I don't think it's to a large degree. (This was talked about briefly in that ATP Podcast that I have linked above.). And I say that simply because human evolution doesn't work that fast.
And yeah, again, the court coverage may be better, but that's by design due to slowing down the courts. And you now have more rallies and no longer have "Sampras and Ivanišević" serving contests.
I do agree that you have to play different today. But I attribute that more to technology and slower court speed than to overall athletic improvement.
The game has changed, but it's kind of due more to outside factors than due to the players.
