The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
They ruined Wimby 2018 and then promptly proceeded to sod off.
Where did all the Servbots go?
- Thread starter Robert F
- Start date
You are right that slower courts help. But I don't think that is the only effect. It is that these guys as a whole group are generally faster and more explosive.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.
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.
Looking back: how a switch to 100 percent ryegrass brought Wimbledon in line with contemporary tennis | Tennis.com
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
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.
Top 100 of today is much closer in skill than top 100 of the 90s. They all have speed and good ground strokes.
So it is probably a combo of slower courts with faster athletes, if they didn't slow the courts, we might see more winners?
Wimby being the clearest example as that the GOAT wins wimby from the baseline almost exclusively.
In regards to serve, most these guys can get it up....to 130 plus. But I think Ljbucic is right in that they don't pitch anymore. It's typically a big first serve either T or wide, then a 2nd serve kicker to the BH. The better servers pitch--mix up spots, spins and speed routinely so you never know what is coming. There are guys on tour who mix it up, but I think as a group they are not as varied.
I'll add that maybe it isn't where did the Servbots go...maybe I should have changed it to where did specialization in tennis go?
As I mentioned earlier, earlier generations had more variety but also clear weaknesses. You could get deep in a tournament on one big strength--big serve, big forehand, great hand or great speed. Didn't necessarily need all of them. Seems it is hard to make top 20 with just one weapon. The rest of your game has to be pretty solid too.
So maybe slow couts and tech has gotten rid of all the specialists--servbots, serve and volleyers, etc.
Sipho
Rookie
Well, I wouldn't call serve and volley a speciality. That was the style of play that nearly all of the best tennis players from Jack Kramer (of the Wilson Jack Kramer Staff racquet fame) in the 1940s up until Pete Sampras played.
And then suddenly a real switch. Because the dominate style of play today and what wins today... the guys who used to play like that always used to lose to guys who served and volleyed. Then suddenly, in a span of a few years, it all changed.
And I will add, all of these great serve and volley players from Jack Kramer on up had complete games. None of these guys were one-trick ponies. No great champion is.
But yep, they slowed down the courts because I guess baseline rallies are more compelling to the television viewing audience than serve and volley tennis.
And they probably do have a point there. Sampras was the better the player than Agassi, but Agassi was more popular. And Sampras' game could be kind of boring if you wanted to see a lot of baseline rallies.
In regard to combo of slower courts with faster athletes, if they didn't slow the courts, we might see more winners?
Yes. Of course. But of course then we'd be back to where they were before they slowed the courts down, and I don't think they want to go back to the 90s. Because the players and the technology of 30 years ago was pretty much killing the game in terms of baseline rallies. That's why they slowed it down.
I know John McEnroe used to go on about how they should switch back to wood racquets. Maybe that's not such a bad idea.
I imagine the racquet manufactures wouldn't go for it though. They do it in baseball though. The pros are only allowed to play with wood bats and everyone else plays with aluminum.
In terms of skill today in regard to ground strokes. It's not like people didn't know how to hit ground strokes and now they suddenly do. No, it's just that the strings over the last 20 years or so allow you to put more spin on the ball to keep it in. That's all that is.
And anyone can see that for themselves. Take two identical racquets. String one with poly and one with synthetic gut (if they still make those kind of strings). Hit your normal stroke. And the one with poly is going to put more spin on the ball. And you can swing harder and be more "explosive" because you're putting more spin on the ball. So that's all that is.
Players who played with wood racquets didn't swing as hard and weren't as explosive as players who played with graphite.
Players who played with the Wilson Jack Kramer Staff wood racquet couldn't swing as hard and weren't as explosive as players who played with the Wilson Pro Staff graphite racquet.
They could maybe serve almost as hard, but their groundstrokes would be flying all over the place.
So were the players who played with the Wilson Pro Staff better athletes than the players who played with the Wilson Jack Kramer Staff? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a little, it's hard to say.
Same thing today. Are players who play with poly strings better athletes than players who played with gut? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a little, it's hard to say. You can swing harder and be more explosive with poly though. So there is that. But you can hit with more power with gut.
In term of serving, you can serve pretty big with a wood racquet. And players with a big serve will serve big across any generation. Players with big serves in 2024 would have big serves in 1954. And players with big serves in 1954 would have big serves in 2024.
And I guess a "servebot" is more of a modern thing. Because those are just tall guys who don't move that well. I wonder, without the racquet and string technology, would they have been able to play in the past? Because once the serve (occasionally) came back, then what are they going to do with a wood racquet? Because you're not going to be blasting many forehand and backhand winners with a wood racquet.
Anyway, now I'm rambling...
Grafil Injection
Legend
I think it was after the Stich, Krajjcek, Rusedski, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Philippousis, Rafter Servbot eras that in the mid 2000s Wimbledon switched to a slightly thicker grass seed mix that they allowed to grow 1mm longer to slow the courts down. But that proved to be insufficient against the Next-Gen of Servbots, so then about 5 years after that the ATP increased the weight of balls across all tournaments by 2g (to 56-59 from 54-57).
The equipment has definitely helped. But the progression of the athlete in tennis has grown dramatically too.
Sport in general was almost a niche thing to do as a profession in a serious way probably until the 1960s. So competition pre 1960s would be at a lower level since it drew from a very small pool in the population.
As sports became more popular and supportive of a career financially the pool of available athletes increased.
I'd argue tennis still lagged behind other sports due to how technique driven it was and also it's upper crust ties.
I'd also argue women's tennis even lagged more due to the cultural restrictions and sexism regarding women in sport.
So in the 60's 70's tennis competition is improving, but still not meeting it's full potential due to still drawing from a small pool of people.
As it exploded in popularity in the 70's the pool and money grew, so competition took a big step.
In addition, sport tech was improving with weight training, fitness training, eventually nutrition and recovery sources that have gotten slightly better decade after decade.
Add to that with stronger athletes and better equpiment technique has changed drastically. Things that were more risky in the 1960s have become staples to the game--look at groundstrokes, swinging volleys, open stance. Yes these things have been around but now have been maximized. No emphasis on the closed stance.
Tennis academy training is not only hours of hitting anymore. Much more sports performance oriented.
So from a physical standpoint I would say most of the top ATP/WTA are better athletes than those before them.
Sport in general was almost a niche thing to do as a profession in a serious way probably until the 1960s. So competition pre 1960s would be at a lower level since it drew from a very small pool in the population.
As sports became more popular and supportive of a career financially the pool of available athletes increased.
I'd argue tennis still lagged behind other sports due to how technique driven it was and also it's upper crust ties.
I'd also argue women's tennis even lagged more due to the cultural restrictions and sexism regarding women in sport.
So in the 60's 70's tennis competition is improving, but still not meeting it's full potential due to still drawing from a small pool of people.
As it exploded in popularity in the 70's the pool and money grew, so competition took a big step.
In addition, sport tech was improving with weight training, fitness training, eventually nutrition and recovery sources that have gotten slightly better decade after decade.
Add to that with stronger athletes and better equpiment technique has changed drastically. Things that were more risky in the 1960s have become staples to the game--look at groundstrokes, swinging volleys, open stance. Yes these things have been around but now have been maximized. No emphasis on the closed stance.
Tennis academy training is not only hours of hitting anymore. Much more sports performance oriented.
So from a physical standpoint I would say most of the top ATP/WTA are better athletes than those before them.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
You can’t be a specialist with a big serve and +1 FH anymore because EVERYONE in the top 50 has a big serve and a big FH. It seems like all the young guys irrespective of their height dial up 130mph on their 1st serve and can kick the ball up to head height on the 2nd serve. So, you need a decent BH and return also to make it to the top.
A
ALCARAZWON
Guest
Kyrgios has probably played his last match.
That boy makes Raonic look strong....
That boy makes Raonic look strong....
tennisandtennis
Semi-Pro
Raonic played a very high level of tennis for a time. He’s an underappreciated player in an era of forgettable playstyles.
