Speed up the courts. Please.

[Butcher32]

whatever people said above is their opinion i beg to differ. Some of the best matches i have ever seen is in the present era. Nadal/Novak on clay in 2009, Nadal Verdasco, AO 2009..Federer Roddick wimbledon 2009..2005 rome Nadal Coria..2003 AO Ayanui Roddick, Safin Federer 2005 AO etc etc.

Now i am not saying there were no epics in the past.Hell yes, but i am talking from a pure shot making ability and spectacle point of view.Nadal Verdasco is the best MATCH i have ever watched probably.I cant think of a better match than that. I enjoyed rafter agassi matches for example or Sampras agassi matches for example..but times change.Think of cricket, now ODI matches are virtually a bowlers graveyard. Back in the 80s and even the early 90s, 200-250 is considered as a great total.Now a score of 225 means you are almost guaranteed to lose.We have seen some ridiculous totals on board recently. Does that mean cricket has gone one dimensional as well? maybe, but i dont hear people complaining about pitches on the cricket board.

And bomberrick, Korda? seriously? yeah his backhand was sublime when on, but he was an unforced error machine. Except that 1 good year he had, he was nothing more than a journeyman.The same can be said about Safin or Tsonga or Gonzo when they are on.Matches like Sampras Goran really put me to sleep back in those days.Agassi Chang was just simple one dimensional slugfest with both of them struggling to hit winners etc.Yeah you can make an argument that some courts like wimbledon needs some work..but to say todays tennis is not spectacular is really naive IMO.Courier nailed it the other day, he said "Whatever these guys are eating and drinking these days, i need some of those to get over my jetlag".

 

[bombermick]

Korda a journeyman? Flash and inconsistent, but great shotmaker? Yes. But, not a journeyman.

Tennis and technology has reached a stage, where the most talented guy, with the best all-court game cannot beat the baseline sluggers consistently. The courts don't give players enough and 30 shot rallies are commonplace.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Back in the 80s and even the early 90s, 200-250 is considered as a great total.Now a score of 225 means you are almost guaranteed to lose.We have seen some ridiculous totals on board recently. Does that mean cricket has gone one dimensional as well?

Cricket in its purest form (Test Cricket) fundamentally hasn't changed much over the course of a century.

You can't use hit and giggle cricket as a means of comparison.

 

[Dr Awkward]

I love watching the big 4, but it's got to the stage where skill is beaten by fitness, both physical and mental. We'll never see players like Rios and Korda, brilliant shot-makers, but who weren't rally merchants.

Federer is demonstrably more gifted than the other 3, but the scrambling abilities of the others, combined with slower courts mean he remains beatable. Tennis may never have been better, but there's much less variety.

Yes I agree with this, we are not seeing that variety anymore.

Plus my favourite players are not winning (Federer, Tsonga) must be due to the courts.

 

[Drummond]

I love watching the big 4, but it's got to the stage where skill is beaten by fitness, both physical and mental. We'll never see players like Rios and Korda, brilliant shot-makers, but who weren't rally merchants.

Federer is demonstrably more gifted than the other 3, but the scrambling abilities of the others, combined with slower courts mean he remains beatable. Tennis may never have been better, but there's much less variety.

Hilarious.

Maybe Federer should try these to attain scrambling abilities of the other 3 then? The scrambling ability of Djoko and Rafa is an incredible gift to, you know?

And he's more than just 'beatable' these days...

 

[Butcher32]

Korda a journeyman? Flash and inconsistent, but great shotmaker? Yes. But, not a journeyman.

Huh? the guy never even won a masters series, let alone grand slam (other than that A.O) and he is not a journeyman?? finished ONCE in the top 10 only in his entire career and he is not a journeyman? You can compare him to Nikolay Davydenko, who is another great shotmaker but again he is a journeyman too. Never threatened to do anything in slams.

Tennis and technology has reached a stage, where the most talented guy, with the best all-court game cannot beat the baseline sluggers consistently. The courts don't give players enough and 30 shot rallies are commonplace.

as i said above, things evolve.I remember in the mid 90s mcenroe was telling us how racquet technology helped these guys with 130 mph serve which they couldnt dream about.Borg went on to say that they were lucky Sampras wasnt in their era cause they couldnt dream about returning that serve.Yeah, keep blaming the technology, this has always been the case, just the past generations keep blaming the modern music as "s**t" and how their generation had the best music...this is nothing but "my d.ick is bigger than yours " argument.

 

[Butcher32]

Cricket in its purest form (Test Cricket) fundamentally hasn't changed much over the course of a century.

You can't use hit and giggle cricket as a means of comparison.

you can call it giggle cricket but cricket has evolved too.Yes you dont like it, fair enough but it has evolved otherwise it would have been dead. Test matches have very little commercial value, so it evolved into ODI and then T20.The whole argument about whats best and whats not, it depends on perspective which i will not discuss here.Same as tennis, original tennis was lawn tennis, on grass courts.So why play on other surfaces then? tennis evolved into hard, indoors and clay courts.Maybe according to you only grass courts count?

 

[Butcher32]

Hilarious.

Maybe Federer should try these to attain scrambling abilities of the other 3 then? The scrambling ability of Djoko and Rafa is an incredible gift to, you know?

And he's more than just 'beatable' these days...

no no, scrambling is not an ability you know? tennis matches are decided on who hits more winners from the baseline.This is the bigfooty rule.According to this rule, Agassi is a dud too. God bless the bigfooty experts

And he was ALWAYS beatable.But the hacks in his generation wasnt able to exploit that.He is just exposed now when faced with real challenge.Its not a coincidence that his decline came with the rise of Rafa/Novak.He was the same age as Rafa is now, when the so called "decline" started happening and rafa has a lot more wear and tear to his body than Roger.

 

[Caesar]

Gee you guys are clowns. Nobody is denigrating Nadal and Djokovic's style of play, just pointing out that it is not the be all and end all of tennis. Some people like defence and scrambling. Other people like shotmaking and risktaking. Most tennis fans, such as myself, like a mix of all types.

I know fanboys such as yourselves love the fact that every match, every slam, every surface suits your favourite players. It's just pretty one-dimensional and boring, that's all.

There is no incentive for anyone to play like Federer or Rios or Edberg or Rafter in the future, because the only thing that is going to win you any tournament of note is grinding and defence.

And he was ALWAYS beatable.But the hacks in his generation wasnt able to exploit that.He is just exposed now when faced with real challenge.Its not a coincidence that his decline came with the rise of Rafa/Novak.He was the same age as Rafa is now, when the so called "decline" started happening and rafa has a lot more wear and tear to his body than Roger.

Seriously, please take this s**t elsewhere. This forum has been so much better in the last 12 months without you splooshing all over every thread with your Nadtard rubbish.

 

[Butcher32]

why are you insulting me? cant defend your position, so yeah start insulting instead , so typical of you..." i cannot defend my position so lets bring him down".. this has always been your strategy, yeah unfortunately you are a mod now..so i will let it go through to the keeper.

You think its one dimensional and boring, fair dinkum, dont pretend you can speak for everyone out there? or everyone must agree with you in order to be credible? stop calling people fanboys when you cant win an argument.Federer has always been beatable, its just that there was no one to beat him back then. Oh well, i will wait for your usual name calling again.I am defending the present generation not Nadal.I appreciate Rafa and Novak equally, if you are not able to figure it out ,read it again and if still not ask me i will break it down for you

 

[Caesar]

What do you mean I can't defend my position? All I'm saying is that variety is good, and nobody can deny that the current era lacks variety in a big way.

At least in the 90s, if you didn't like defence and scrambling you could look forward to the end of the claycourt season. Same as if you didn't like S&V then you just avoided the grasscourt season. Then you had the hardcourt season where the defenders, the S&Vs and the shotmakers would all square off on roughly equal terms and you had a nice clash of styles.

Nowadays it's just the same thing at every tournament. I enjoy a good grindfest as much as the next man, but there's more to the game than that.

stop calling people fanboys when you cant win an argument.

I'm calling you a fanboy because you turn every thread into a Nadal wankfest.

 

[Butcher32]

What do you mean I can't defend my position? All I'm saying is that variety is good, and nobody can deny that the current era lacks variety in a big way.

At least in the 90s, if you didn't like defence and scrambling you could look forward to the end of the claycourt season. Same as if you didn't like S&V then you just avoided the grasscourt season. Then you had the hardcourt season where the defenders, the S&Vs and the shotmakers would all square off on roughly equal terms and you had a nice clash of styles.

Nowadays it's just the same thing at every tournament. I enjoy a good grindfest as much as the next man, but there's more to the game than that.

thats better, minus the name calling.So you can do it

Yeah well i dont deny that the variety is less.But would you like watching Sampras vs Goran matches? or Agassi vs Chang matches? serve and volleys been dead for a long time now.Rafter was an exception and was at his peak for 3-4 years only.Prior to that, it was only Sampras, ever since Becker retired. Serve and volley tennis has been dead for much longer than people think it was.You can say Krajicek maybe, yeah ok, but the quality serve and volleryers were dead by early 90s when the surface was still fast.So i dont get it why people are blaming the surface for this?

 

[Butcher32]

infact i cannot name a single top class serve and volleyer who turned pro in the 90s other than Pat Rafter and maybe you can include Greg Rusedski if you are really desperate. There were a few like Siemerinks and the henmans who are journeymen players but nothing of quality really.Fact is, from the 90s, serve and volley tennis started dying.Dont ask me why but it was not the surface.

 

[Caesar]

infact i cannot name a single top class serve and volleyer who turned pro in the 90s other than Pat Rafter and maybe you can include Greg Rusedski if you are really desperate. There were a few like Sieminks and the henmans who are journeymen players but nothing of quality really.Fact is, from the 90s, serve and volley tennis started dying.Dont ask me why but it was not the surface.

Oh come on. These are the sorts of comments that make people think you know absolutely nothing about tennis.

Take a look at the top 10 in 1998:

1. Sampras
2. Rios
3. Corretja
4. Rafter
5. Moya
6. Agassi
7. Henman
8. Kucera
9. Rusedski
10. Kraijeck

Moya and Corretja were claycourt grinders. Rios and Agassi were offensive baseliners. Sampras was an allcourter, and Kucera was a junkballer/counterpuncher. But Rafter, Rusedski, Henman and Kraijeck were all primarily S&V players.

Fact is, from the 90s, serve and volley tennis started dying.Dont ask me why but it was not the surface.

No it didn't. There was a decline from the 80s, but that was to be expected. In the 80s, 2 slams were played on grass and a third on a fast hardcourt. Combined with wooden racquets, the tour was heavily biased towards S&V. In the 90s, when the AO shifted to a slower hardcourt and racquet power made passing shots more potent, things evened up more.

That certainly doesn't mean S&V was dying. As you can see above, there were still plenty of very good S&V players. Furthermore, most quality players had the ability to S&V when it was a useful tactic. I would say at least 6 or 7 of those players had better volleys than anyone in the top 10 now except for Federer, and they regularly pulled them out on grass or fast hardcourts.

It wasn't until they killed the courts in the 2000s that players uniformly lost the ability to move more than 2 feet inside the baseline without looking like they had bricks tied to all four limbs.

 

[Butcher32]

ok but we are talking about serve and volley tennis i would have tought? ok conceded variety was better but as i said, Name 1 serve and volleyer who turned pro in the mid 90s who went on to make a name for himself? except Rafter and maybe Henman?

This article nails it.Its not only the surface, its other things as well..

Reasons for this include the gradual shift to slower courts, slower balls and the "improvement" in the technology used in the strings of modern-day rackets which generate a high amount of spin and speed off the ball.

Ironically, these changes were implemented to make the game more exciting and lengthen the rallies.

It was concluded that longer rallies and longer points boost television viewership. Capitalistic society had a new victim.

even if you have fast courts today, serve and volleyers would get killed.Rafter will get killed in todays tennis, he wouldnt be able to handle the spin.Federer is a very good volleyer too, but his volleying skills has certainly been on the decline ever since his famous wins at wimbledon.At the next if he shaky at best.

So stop blaming the courts, shall we go back to the old racquets too? Back in the 70s there was mostly serve and volley tennis and i tell ya that was not entertaining at all.This is a new generation in tennis, i am sure it will change 5 years from now.Just enjoy it while it lasts instead of bitching..thats all

 

[Butcher32]

I would also like to say, yeah the list you provided looks good but most of these guys peaked in the mid 90s.I mean to say, there were NONE who turned pro in the mid 90s, who took up tennis as a serve and volleyer and made a name for himself.Other than rafter and maybe henman.If you think otherwise, please provide the names on who you think they were? Krajicek turned pro in 89 btw, so did sampras.(before 89). They were nowhere near the same quality as it was in the 70s and 80s.How can you even compare, Rafter/henman/krajicek (assuming they all turned pro in the 90s) is the same as edberg, becker, mcenrore in the 80s? no even close.Serve and volley tennis was on its way down since mid 90s

 

[matt_897]

I think you have to look at one tournament to see what tennis fans want. 2010 Paris Indoors tournament, ask any fan and they will rave about it. Why? Because of the variety. The courts played very fast and allowed for serve and volley and net play to be used. That's even with the slower balls and modern-day strings used. But that's what tennis fans want, it's variety, I don't want to see an indoor hardcourt play like the French Open. I don't want to see a big Masters 1000 hardcourt tournament like Miami be regarded as purple clay. Courts are the biggest issue.

 

[Caesar]

We are talking about variety, of which S&V is a component.

I've said numerous times that S&V the way it was played in the 80s is dead, and that is due to a bunch of things. If you sped up the courts you would not have a whole bunch of Edbergs and McEnroes suddenly appear, sure.

Slowing down the courts however has killed any possibility of players with an alternative style competing. You say Rafter would still get killed. I disagree, personal opinion. One thing is certain fact though - a player with Rafter's style would have far more chance on a court where his approach shots penetrate further through the court, and his can-opener serve has more slide, and the ball sits up less to deprive his opponents of some of the benefits of / ability to produce such massive spin.

Even if you did not have S&V players who come to the net behind every ball, it would still be a useful tactic. It would force players to develop versatility that is currently completely lacking amongst the top guys.

I would also like to say, yeah the list you provided looks good but most of these guys peaked in the mid 90s.I mean to say, there were NONE who turned pro in the mid 90s, who took up tennis as a serve and volleyer and made a name for himself.Other than rafter and maybe henman.If you think otherwise, please provide the names on who you think they were? Krajicek turned pro in 89 btw, so did sampras.(before 89). They were nowhere near the same quality as it was in the 70s and 80s.How can you even compare, Rafter/henman/krajicek (assuming they all turned pro in the 90s) is the same as edberg, becker, mcenrore in the 80s? no even close.Serve and volley tennis was on its way down since mid 90s

It doesn't matter what aribitrary date they turned pro - although if you do really care about that, in that top 10 there were 3 S&Vs who turned pro in the 90s and only 2 from the late 80s.

The bottom line is that in the late 90s half of the top 10 was populated by players for whom S&V was a key part of their tactics. The fact that it's a decline from the late 80s, when the tennis circuit was a S&V paradise and 3 out of every 4 players used the tactic, is neither here nor there.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Pete Sampras is the best serve and volleyer of all time.

You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

McEnroe, Rafter, Becker, Edberg.... yes, all great serve and volleyers.

You can talk all day about who had the best "feel" or whose volleys looked the best. None of them had the results that Sampras did using serve and volley tennis. None of them. And it's not even close either.

 

[Caesar]

There are different kinds of serve/volley players. JMac, Edberg and Rafter won their points at the net. S&V was a method of tactical point construction and they almost always hit hit 2 or 3 volleys.

Guys like Becker and Sampras won their points with the serve. The volley was just a method of finishing off the point. Often they hit only one volley, and it was an easy one.

S&V purists generally prefer the former style, because it involves more tactical intelligence and better hands at the net.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

There are different kinds of serve/volley players. JMac, Edberg and Rafter won their points at the net. S&V was a method of tactical point construction and they almost always hit hit 2 or 3 volleys.

Guys like Becker and Sampras won their points with the serve. The volley was just a method of finishing off the point. Often they hit only one volley, and it was an easy one.

S&V purists generally prefer the former style, because it involves more tactical intelligence and better hands at the net.

I agree with this 100 per cent and I even alluded to it in an earlier post. For the pure art of SV, Edberg and Cash are the best SVs I've seen. If you want to see a match in which the SV was executed to perfection continuously under pressure, get a copy of the Cash v Lendl SF of the 88 AO. Cash was hitting volley winners from his shoe laces. McEnroe and Rafter were also great volleyers.

Whilst I am a Sampras fan, and whilst he was a good SV, I don't think he is in the same league as Cash Edberg, Rafter and McEnroe as far as pure SV is concerned. He often came in behind a big serve or approach shot. But he was still damn effective at the net.

 

[bombermick]

Sampras used intimidation as much as his volleys to win at the net. He didn't have the feel of Rafter or Edberg, but his extra-long arms made the court look small and forced his opponents into error.

Pete and Andre remains my fav rivalry, because of the radically opposing styles, and personalities. Djokovic and Nadal play a very similar game, with Novak winning because his weapons are bigger.

 

[Butcher32]

We are talking about variety, of which S&V is a component.

Is variety not present in todays game? Federer is an artist, while Nadal and his unique style of tennis which was seen before..over 3200 rotations per minute and his angles.Djokovic with consistency and brilliant shotmaking and then you have the likes of Berdych, sweetest timer and a shotmaker, Ferrer a grinder and then you have the likes of Raonic, Delpotro ,Karlovic, who are different players really.You cannot say, Raonic and Delpotro are the same player.They are still young give them time.Sure there is lesser variety than the 90s, undeniable, but if you take S&V out of it, i dont think you are missing much.Personal opinion.

Slowing down the courts however has killed any possibility of players with an alternative style competing. You say Rafter would still get killed. I disagree, personal opinion. One thing is certain fact though - a player with Rafter's style would have far more chance on a court where his approach shots penetrate further through the court, and his can-opener serve has more slide, and the ball sits up less to deprive his opponents of some of the benefits of / ability to produce such massive spin.

Rafter struggled against the likes of Agassi throughout his career.There werent too many good returners back the old days other than Agassi.Since Hewitts rise, Rafter struggled against him as well.I cannot imagine what will happen to Rafter against the likes of Djokovic who takes the ball on the rise? Or Murrays return? or Federer, who has probably the greatest passing shot in the history of sport? We will never know, but oh well..lets agree to disagree.

Even if you did not have S&V players who come to the net behind every ball, it would still be a useful tactic. It would force players to develop versatility that is currently completely lacking amongst the top guys.

I agree with that, but conditions are not suitable for serve and volley tennis. The reason no one approaches the net anymore cause no one wants to get passed.Nadal is a decent volleyer btw, so is Djokovic.Federer IMO is a B+ grade volleyer.So its not like they cannot volley at all.

The bottom line is that in the late 90s half of the top 10 was populated by players for whom S&V was a key part of their tactics. The fact that it's a decline from the late 80s, when the tennis circuit was a S&V paradise and 3 out of every 4 players used the tactic, is neither here nor there.

Sorry but it was only Sampras and Rafter and then B graders like henman and krajicek.. Then there were the likes of Chang, Agassi, Corretja, Moya, Enqvist, Rios, Kucera, who were pretty much similar players.But anyway thats how i see it..we dont have to agree

 

[Slippery Pete]

I
Sorry but it was only Sampras and Rafter and then B graders like henman and krajicek.. Then there were the likes of Chang, Agassi, Corretja, Moya, Enqvist, Rios, Kucera, who were pretty much similar players.But anyway thats how i see it..we dont have to agree

Nah, you're forgetting guys who could pop up on fast surfaces and blow anybody in the world away on their day. The 90s was full of those guys - Goran, Rusedski, Krajicek, Stich, Philippoussis etc...

Whilst the talent pool runs deeper these days, it's far more predictable. You execute correctly, you win. There's no surprises in the draw. Nobody is popping up from nowhere in the Round of 16 and blowing you off the court.

 

[Butcher32]

Nah, you're forgetting guys who could pop up on fast surfaces and blow anybody in the world away on their day. The 90s was full of those guys - Goran, Rusedski, Krajicek, Stich, Philippoussis etc...

Whilst the talent pool runs deeper these days, it's far more predictable. You execute correctly, you win. There's no surprises in the draw. Nobody is popping up from nowhere in the Round of 16 and blowing you off the court.

rusedski , poo, stich, goran blew guys away? fwiw, i cant remember a single match where that happened, yeah poos display against sampras at A.O was one off,but on very rare occassions they "blew" guys away.The ones you mentioned above are ordinary players and they only have 2 slams between them.

The top 4 has never been stronger in mens tennis, hence you see no one outside of top 20 beating these guys.This is indeed the golden era of tennis, love it or hate it, the top 4 has never been stronger.