Speed up the courts. Please.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The match tonight was absolutely epic of course, but I felt it was also kinda ridiculous at the same time. 6 hours (amazing considering it was a regulation 5 set scoreline) of absolutely brutal baseline rallies. When you combine the continuous slowing of the courts and use of heavier balls with players whose defence is in a different stratosphere to previous eras, this is what happens. The sport needs to head back in the direction of the 90s in terms of court conditions because attacking tennis isn't being rewarded enough IMO.

Watching Nadal should give you the perfect example of what I'm talking about. The balls that he was able to retrieve against Berdych, Federer and even Djokovic tonight is simply not right on a surface that's supposed to give you more reward for attacking. I can live with it on clay because that's what clay court tennis is all about.

Is it just me? How many people are enjoying the way tennis is played more than ever?

 

[Scootyb]

i ****ing loved Rafa hunting s**t down that should be impossible, just so courageous and epic, same with Djoko... no need to speed the courts up IMO

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

i ****ing loved Rafa hunting s**t down that should be impossible, just so courageous and epic, same with Djoko... no need to speed the courts up IMO

Well, if this is what the people want, this is what they should get. Just wondering how many share the same opinion as me.

 

[Keys]

I have only a passing interest in tennis so I am admittedly an uneducated watcher but if the courts and balls used in the Australian open result in the type of tennis I've watched in the two semifinals and final then leave things alone

Each game was outstanding and was somehow better than the one that came before

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Wimbledon I agree, nothing wrong with the AO courts, in fact they were quicker than 2 years ago.

 

[Butcher32]

Anyone who didnt enjoy A.O has no interest in tennis.

 

[gaelictiogar]

The match tonight was absolutely epic of course, but I felt it was also kinda ridiculous at the same time. 6 hours (amazing considering it was a regulation 5 set scoreline) of absolutely brutal baseline rallies. When you combine the continuous slowing of the courts and use of heavier balls with players whose defence is in a different stratosphere to previous eras, this is what happens. The sport needs to head back in the direction of the 90s in terms of court conditions because attacking tennis isn't being rewarded enough IMO.

Watching Nadal should give you the perfect example of what I'm talking about. The balls that he was able to retrieve against Berdych, Federer and even Djokovic tonight is simply not right on a surface that's supposed to give you more reward for attacking. I can live with it on clay because that's what clay court tennis is all about.

Is it just me? How many people are enjoying the way tennis is played more than ever?

I couldn't agree more. The final is being lauded but it was Like watching a speeded up womens game of interminable attrition.

There has to be a premium for the attacker. In the slam season is the role of Roland Garros to provide an outlet for the attritional plodder. hard court tennis should be about the rapier not the broadsword.

Alternatively reduce them to 3 setters.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Completely agree with the OP.

 

[bombermick]

Wimbledon should be sped up to rewarded more attacking players, including serve-volleyers. I'm happy to leave the hard courts as they are.

 

[Dr Awkward]

I agree with the OP. Whilst I admire Nadal I don't like watching him sit 8m behind the baseline and grind his opponents to death. At some point, some reward for attacking tennis should be given.

Really hoping the grass is quick at Wimbledon before Fed retires.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Wimbledon should be sped up to rewarded more attacking players, including serve-volleyers. I'm happy to leave the hard courts as they are.

Anyone who didnt enjoy A.O has no interest in tennis.

On the contrary, I would say anybody who thinks last night, and the Djokovic-Murray semi-final - were good spectacles, is not a tennis purist, or only started watching the sport in about 2004.

Epic and incredible, yes. A ball striking extravaganza - yes. A display of supremely mentally and physically tough athletes? Absolutely.

A great spectacle? You've got to be kidding me.

Groundstrokes and serves that should be clean winners - or at least a set up for an easy put away volley - coming back over the net for 6 hours: that's not the spirit of hardcourt tennis. Not in my book.

 

[bombermick]

On the contrary, I would say anybody who thinks last night, and the Djokovic-Murray semi-final - were good spectacles, is not a tennis purist, or only started watching the sport in about 2004.

Epic and incredible, yes. A ball striking extravaganza - yes. A display of supremely mentally and physically tough athletes? Absolutely.

A great spectacle? You've got to be kidding me.

Groundstrokes and serves that should be clean winners - or at least a set up for an easy put away volley - coming back over the net for 6 hours: that's not the spirit of hardcourt tennis. Not in my book.

But no-one wants a return to a Stich v Goran acefest. that's much worse. There needs to be a happy medium, and grass particulary should reward attacking players like Federer.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

I think Hewitt made an interesting comment in commentary, it was something about the courts not actually giving you anything. Someone else may remember exactly what he said. I don't think its necessarily an issue if they're slow, at the end of the day RG clay courts are slow, but they are conducive to spin etc, wheras it sounds like AO courts are just plain s**t.

Oh and if all the courts were fast I don't see why that would be any better either.

 

[Slippery Pete]

But no-one wants a return to a Stich v Goran acefest. that's much worse. There needs to be a happy medium, and grass particulary should reward attacking players like Federer.

I think it's an indictment on how bad this situation is that we consider Federer an "attacking" player.

When was the last time Federer serve and volleyed as a staple tactic at Wimbledon?

This is what he said in 2010.

“I obviously came here in the year when I played Sampras, let’s say, I was serve and volleying 80% of the first serve, 50% on the second serve. I remember once speaking to Wayne Ferreira who I was playing doubles with that year actually. He said he used to serve and volley always first serve, 50% of the second serve. And towards the end of his career at Wimbledon, he used to serve and volley 50% of his first serve and not anymore on his second serve. You wonder, how in the world has that happened? Have we become such incredible return players or can we not volley anymore or is it just a combination of slower balls, slower courts? I think it’s definitely a bit of a combination of many things. If I look back, I think we definitely had many more great volley players in the game back then. When you do have that, you are forced to move in, as well, because you don’t want to hit passing shots against a great volleyer over and over again. But because we don’t have that as much anymore, everybody’s content staying at the baseline”

“unfortunately, they’ve slowed down everything, indoors, grass. Everything has become so slow, I think that is a bit of a pity.”

http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/2011/05/313/

 

[amer]

On the contrary, I would say anybody who thinks last night, and the Djokovic-Murray semi-final - were good spectacles, is not a tennis purist, or only started watching the sport in about 2004.

Epic and incredible, yes. A ball striking extravaganza - yes. A display of supremely mentally and physically tough athletes? Absolutely.

A great spectacle? You've got to be kidding me.

Groundstrokes and serves that should be clean winners - or at least a set up for an easy put away volley - coming back over the net for 6 hours: that's not the spirit of hardcourt tennis. Not in my book.

Completely agree. What we witnessed last night was not tennis. That was a six hour bludgeon, and the way the game is tending, I don't think we should be comparing the records of today's players to those of years gone by. Agassi completing the career slam is something far more versatile, unlikely and brilliant than Novak closing in on it now. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence.

There's no grace in the game anymore, and the surfaces are to blame for this.

We're seeing blokes like Nadal dominate vastly richer shot makers in Federer on every surface, because "every surface" doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of variety. And honestly, Novak threatening a career slam? Rewind 15 years and he's not a career slam's ********. As much as the game is demanding more of players physically today, it's demanding very little in terms of having a rounded, developed game.

 

[Furn]

On the contrary, I would say anybody who thinks last night, and the Djokovic-Murray semi-final - were good spectacles, is not a tennis purist, or only started watching the sport in about 2004.

Epic and incredible, yes. A ball striking extravaganza - yes. A display of supremely mentally and physically tough athletes? Absolutely.

A great spectacle? You've got to be kidding me.

Groundstrokes and serves that should be clean winners - or at least a set up for an easy put away volley - coming back over the net for 6 hours: that's not the spirit of hardcourt tennis. Not in my book.

The occasional 5 hr groundstroke slugfest is fine. Lendl-Chang 89 for example was epic. But when its every game at every slam from basically the quarters onwards it gets old. Even wimbledon is a groundstrokers tourny now.

Not sure what can be done about it. Making the courts faster would help but it wont bring volleyers back into the game, which is what to needs tp happen.

Maybe change the balls and strings so there's less topspin and bounce even then it will take a generational change. kids dont learn to serve and volley more than just the basics.

Its all about topspin groundstrokes and digging trenches from the back of the court.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

I would like to see things return to the way they once were.

Grass, being quick with a low bounce which favours the serve volleyer.

Clay, being slow with a high bounce which favours the baseliner.

Hardcourt, being a true speed with a true bounce which favours neither, the neutral surface.

This way, you will see all styles of tennis being played throughout the year. The way it is now, it's just another FO.

In the 90s when W and the AO surfaces were much quicker, everyone complained that blokes like Becker, Sampras and Ivanisevic were killing tennis with their booming serves....ace ace ace game. Now the opposite is happening. Surely they can find a happy medium.

 

[bombermick]

I would like to see things return to the way they once were.

Grass, being quick with a low bounce which favours the serve volleyer.

Clay, being slow with a high bounce which favours the baseliner.

Hardcourt, being a true speed with a true bounce which favours neither, the neutral surface.

This way, you will see all styles of tennis being played throughout the year. The way it is now, it's just another FO.

In the 90s when W and the AO surfaces were much quicker, everyone complained that blokes like Becker, Sampras and Ivanisevic were killing tennis with their booming serves....ace ace ace game. Now the opposite is happening. Surely they can find a happy medium.

I'd be happy with that, although the role of today's racquets and strings is at least as big in making the serve-vollyer obsolete.

The all-court player is almost extinct, which is too bad. Federer is the only one in the top bunch and his odds of winning another slam lengthen each slam.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Murray is pretty"all court" as well though, outstanding at the net IMO

 

[bombermick]

Murray is pretty"all court" as well though, outstanding at the net IMO

He doesn't have net skills even approaching Fed IMO. Fed's a better net player than Sampras ever was.

 

[Furn]

Federor is as good as anyone these days, Murray is up there too, Current players look better than they are because they only go in if everything is in their favour. Totally different to chipping and charging 1st chance you get or going in on the 2nd serve.

When you watch those masters games, guys like Cash and Mcenroe are still better volleyers than anyone now.

Sure its not coming back very hard but they just look technically better and so much more natural.

The ways things are now you could be the best serve volleyer of all time and not be top 20 because its too easy for the baseliners.

 

[bombermick]

Watch highlights of Federer v Sampras at the tail end of Pete's career and look at how good Fed's volleys are. Not quite at Rafter's level, let alone Edberg, but easily world class.

 

[Butcher32]

LoL so you guys like to think the nadal djokovic US open final last year or AO US open final was not as good as Sampras vs Pioline final at wimbledon? or Agassi vs Martin USO??? jesus f christ. Keep whinging then lol.How many Epic AO finals did we have in the 90s??? thats right ...none.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Fed's a better net player than Sampras ever was.

That's completely wrong.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Not quite at Rafter's level, let alone Edberg, but easily world class.

Wait, those two were better volleyers than Sampras??

Now you're really getting silly.