Who will benefit most when the courts are sped back up?

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
Right now? Obviously it's Djokovic. His return lands on opponents feet before they know what happens. Since he stands on the baseline, his direction changes will be too much for most of his opponents who have already tailored their games to adapt the current condion.
They screwed Djokovic pretty badly with the constant slowing down of the courts, that's for sure. ;)
 

SonnyT

New User
Fast surface benefits the fastest servers the most. Because on a fast surface, if the serve misses by a few inches, it's still a service winner. On a slower surface, those got returned and even punished.

So fast surface benefits the players most reliant on their first serves. That's why in a by-gone age, Wimbledon crowned big-serving Stich, Krajicek and Goran, who couldn't a sniff anywhere else. And Becker won half of his Slam victories there!
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
There are only two true serve and volleyers left on tour, and then only on grass or indoors: Feli and Mischa Zverev. There are zero serve and volleyers coming up in the international juniors or in Next Gen, Gen Z, Y or anything else. So the courts won't be sped up because no player under 30 has the slightest clue how to return serve, move or even play decent ball on a fast court. When Wimbledon grass plays like a clay court (according to NADAL!) then fast courts are as obsolete as record players.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Fast surface benefits the fastest servers the most. Because on a fast surface, if the serve misses by a few inches, it's still a service winner. On a slower surface, those got returned and even punished.

So fast surface benefits the players most reliant on their first serves. That's why in a by-gone age, Wimbledon crowned big-serving Stich, Krajicek and Goran, who couldn't a sniff anywhere else. And Becker won half of his Slam victories there!
Even Goran didn't completely rely on service winners, but the other 3 far from it. What the fans of baseline bots always fail to realise is that not only did those guys have strong serves, but they all had very strong net games. Stich, Becker and Krajicek were beautiful volleyers and unlike virtually every player on tour today could handle low and mid court balls too.

The problem is that if you slow the courts and increase the bounce, any goose with an oversized racquet strung with poly can make it near on impossible to attack the net as everything is waist high and begging to be hit. That's fine on clay, but not everywhere .. and particularly not Wimbledon.

I'm not one of the ones who think it ever be fixed though. It needs both courts and equipment changes and I don't see either happening. Same old, same old .. boring baseline bots.

RIP this kind of tennis:


 

SonnyT

New User
I didn't say Stich, Krajicek and Goran were bad players. I'm saying, though they were great serve and volleyers, they were so one dimensional, they couldn't win on any other Slam surface, even USO and AO.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I didn't say Stich, Krajicek and Goran were bad players. I'm saying, though they were great serve and volleyers, they were so one dimensional, they couldn't win on any other Slam surface, even USO and AO.
During Michael Stich's short career, he win 4 titles on grass, 4 and hard court, 3 on clay and 7 on carpet.

Krajicek was 3 grass, 7 hard, 1 clay and 6 carpet.


Goran was 2 grass, 3 hard, 3 clay and 14 carpet.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
St
I didn't say Stich, Krajicek and Goran were bad players. I'm saying, though they were great serve and volleyers, they were so one dimensional, they couldn't win on any other Slam surface, even USO and AO.
Stick and Goran did OK on clay.
Stick made US and FO Final???
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Let's talk real talk: the only reason the courts are still so slow is the Djokodal slam race. Tennis is already circling the drain, so once that's over, they will have to speed up the courts again to avoid the horror of countless goffin vs. medvedev grand slam finals.

Lighter balls, faster courts, probably abbreviated scoring, et. Who wins the most? Rublev? Kyrgios? Thiem?
Back to reality this is been underway for the last couple years and ATP/ITF covering up the data on just how much they've sped up the courts. Tennis is changing court speeds like normal people change underwear. This thread is a joke without data supporting alleged slowing. So many Federer sycophants populating the powers that be it just boggles the mind.
 
Back to reality this is been underway for the last couple years and ATP/ITF covering up the data on just how much they've sped up the courts. Tennis is changing court speeds like normal people change underwear. This thread is a joke without data supporting alleged slowing. So many Federer sycophants populating the powers that be it just boggles the mind.
Please also point out to @Booger that speeding up the courts will not help younger players to break through sooner.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
People are always talking about the courts like that is the only part of the equation regarding conditions. It's the balls people that may play an even bigger role. They are playing with slower and heavier balls than they did years which helped slow down the game. This helps some players and hurts others. RG 2011 is a prime example. Gave them light balls and Isner actually pushed Rafa to 5 on clay, and it totally changed the dynamic of that tournament. Basically all the Slams are playing with slower balls these days.
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
People are always talking about the courts like that is the only part of the equation regarding conditions. It's the balls people that may play an even bigger role. They are playing with slower and heavier balls than they did years which helped slow down the game. This helps some players and hurts others. RG 2011 is a prime example. Gave them light balls and Isner actually pushed Rafa to 5 on clay, and it totally changed the dynamic of that tournament. Basically all the Slams are playing with slower balls these days.
Isner beating prime Nadal would have caused many millions in lost revenue. Disaster averted.
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
I would rather laugh at someone who calls Baseball, American Football and Ice Hockey "Major Sports" but dismisses Tennis as such.
Are you being serious? There is a public park right across from the tennis center that I went to today. There were at least 200 kids playing flag football, ages 8-10. A lot of them had clearly been playing for multiple years already. Dozens of parents and kids coaches walking around, all there to develop young talent.

Across the street at the tennis courts (17 of them), I saw exactly 2 juniors playing. Both children of immigrants, by no concidence. That's it. Football has literally 100x the talent pool of tennis.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Are you being serious? There is a public park right across from the tennis center that I went to today. There were at least 200 kids playing flag football, ages 8-10. A lot of them had clearly been playing for multiple years already. Dozens of parents and kids coaches walking around, all there to develop young talent.

Across the street at the tennis courts (17 of them), I saw exactly 2 juniors playing. Both children of immigrants, by no concidence. That's it. Football has literally 100x the talent pool of tennis.
In the USA this should be true, but nowhere else. The only really international sport out of the 4 major US leagues is Basketball. American Football and Baseball are almost not international at all, while Ice Hockey has about 6 big nations (Canada, USA, Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland).

Globally tennis is much bigger than all of American Football, Baseball and Ice Hockey.
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
In the USA this should be true, but nowhere else. The only really international sport out of the 4 major US leagues is Basketball. American Football and Baseball are almost not international at all, while Ice Hockey has about 6 big nations (Canada, USA, Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland).

Globally tennis is much bigger than all of American Football, Baseball and Ice Hockey.
America has the largest athletic talent pool in the world, BY FAR, hence why most of the world's best athletes are in the NBA/NFL. And globally the talent pool for tennis has dwindled to nothing. Next gen is irrefutable proof of that. Bunch of pampered children who can't beat old men.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Tsitsipas, FAA, Shapo and Medvedev. Forget the old guys. On really fast surfaces, younger and hence more powerful and athletic players can beat the old guys. These 4 guys hit big, taking chances and can be very aggressive on fast courts. Shapo is probably the most aggressive player on tour along with Fed now. Another reason why they need to speed up the courts so ATP can maintain star power when Big 3 are gone.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Tsitsipas, FAA, Shapo and Medvedev. Forget the old guys. On really fast surfaces, younger and hence more powerful and athletic players can beat the old guys. These 4 guys hit big, taking chances and can be very aggressive on fast courts. Shapo is probably the most aggressive player on tour along with Fed now. Another reason why they need to speed up the courts so ATP can maintain star power when Big 3 are gone.
Despite his height and ability to hit flat, Medvedev doesn't have a good attacking game. To a lesser extent, FAA is the same. Highlight reel groundstrokes and the ability to attack and come forward are not the same thing.
 

GabeT

Legend
yes, just want tennis fans want, make servers more powerful and decrease rallies!

lol, I do wonder about TTW’s sanity sometimes
 

GabeT

Legend
The thing with that claim is that it's most assertion. The thing with general rules is that they are not always applicable. And it's my sense that tennis has for the most part been much more high profile in the era of slow courts than in the one of fast courts that preceded it (which I also loved). It was routine in the 1990s for both fans and pundits to complain that the serve-dominated tennis seen above all at Wimbledon was boring. I can trace this back at least as far as 1991, when Arthur Ashe wrote an op-ed calling the men's semi-finals at Wimbledon boring. While some posters find long rallies boring, I don't think that the general sense of the tennis-watching public or the sports-watching public with an interest in tennis has been that the play of recent times has been boring.
Just watch any tennis match and how fans applaud a good long rally.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Despite his height and ability to hit flat, Medvedev doesn't have a good attacking game. To a lesser extent, FAA is the same. Highlight reel groundstrokes and the ability to attack and come forward are not the same thing.
In modern tennis, attacking tennis has slightly different look compared to classical period. Even if you don't come to the net and put away volley, you are an aggressive attacking player if you hit hard for winners. Meddy goes for winners a lot of times, I think. I included Medvedev and FAA not because they always attack but they very often come up with early timed aggressive shots which will be effective on fast courts.
 
Top