Pat Cash "Slow courts are ruining the game"...
felangey
the players and people invovled in the sport that things have gone way too
far. He was saying that when Fed goes the game is really going to feel his
loss sorely as there isn't really anyone else doing anything
interesting.....no variety.
Getting to like Cash of late! :)
Scott
Memo to Pat: The players are using snowshoes and high-tech strings
with names like "RPM Max." Its the racquets and strings that are at
fault.
bob
the beauty of tennis is variety of shots, variety of styles, variety
of personalities, contrast of styles of top 3 players.
all of that is lacking today, IMO, much of it due to court meddling.
bob
reilloc
Probably everybody in the record books since, say, '79, ought to have
not an asterisk but a footnote corresponding to his name and the event
won, to note the things like special, improved equipment, tournament
organizers changing surfaces, sanctioning bodies changing rules and how
much money was at stake. The one that still amazes me the most is
Wimbledon, where they changed the grass to make it slower than clay,
apparently.
That makes Wimbledon not Wimbledon to me.
LNC
Shakes
I thought modern tennis is "great", a much improved game as compared to
the kids like Sampras, Agassi etc., and people like myself who were
whining about the lack of variety were being called old guys who refuse
to come out of the past ? Oh, wait, Cash is an old guy too. :-)
bob
watching 2 baseliners slug it out makes it unlike Wimbledon, but it's
still the best we've got by far.
bob
felangey
> the kids like Sampras, Agassi etc., and people like myself who were
> whining about the lack of variety were being called old guys who refuse to
> come out of the past ? Oh, wait, Cash is an old guy too. :-)
I have never shown any affinity at all for the systematic slowing down of
nearly all surfaces on the tour. Also, I harbour no special affinity for
much of the tennis being played and that is thriving on slower surfaces. As
far as 'improved' is concerned, that is a matter of opinion. It might not
feature the variety of the past. What can't be reasonably denied is that it
supercedes and eclipses the tennis of yore in terms of power, athleticism
and potential for success in the current court conditions.....by quite some
way.
Rodjk #613
It is different for us old timers who grew up with the 'follow any
decent shot to the net' philosophy.
Nowadays, that will get you killed...
But it is tough watching pro's hit deep, powerful shots into the
corner while standing a meter inside the baseline and then backing up.
But the results show for themselves...coming in too much is suicidal
these days.
There are two big differences; the size and strength of the athletes
these days and the equipment.
You cannot do anything about the size/strength issue, and as for the
equipment, that cat is out of the bag.
Rodjk #613
topspin
I think it is about one thing - the equipment.
If players had really developed into the supermen compared with times
past, as some claim. they would have been good enough to come in on
deep approaches. But they don't. They have been driven back to the
baseline.
The players are physically pretty much the same, it is the technology
that has prevailed and driven them to where they play now.
It is even more pronounced on the women's side than the men's.
Scott
what's really sad is that USO fans don't seem to realize today's game
sucks compared to late 1960s-early 1980s tennis.
Last night they were cheering every ace hit by John Isner and chanting
U-S-A!! All that matters to them is that their country is
represented.
Whisper
I also agree without Fed the game wouldn't be worth watching at all.
That's pretty sad when Fed rates a 10 on the tennis entertainment scale
today, but a 6 by historical standards.
Whisper
Yep. They probably should force the pros to go back to wood on a trial
basis, say 5 years & see if there's any improvement. Imo there has to
be. With wood all of a sudden a lot of different styles will become
effective again & the fans would be engaged on an intellectual level.
At the moment it's like watching a marathon. You can go away for an
hour & miss nothing.
Whisper
Correct. As I said Wimbledon is pretty much anchoring the whole tour.
Whisper
I disagree. If what you say is true people would be glued to the tv.
Instead nobody is even switching on. Seen it all before.
Whisper
It's time to hunt down & kill the cat before it kills off the goose.
drew
>
> I think it is about one thing - the equipment.
>
> If players had really developed into the supermen compared with times
> past, as some claim. they would have been good enough to come in on
> deep approaches. But they don't. They have been driven back to the
> baseline.
Do you expect human evolution to match the pace of technological
development?
drew
> Yep. They probably should force the pros to go back to wood on a trial
> basis, say 5 years & see if there's any improvement.
Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Composite has been around
since before most
of these guys were born. Now you're going to make them play with
wood? And how are
you going to police the nature of the wood? You can be sure somebody
will be able to make
something out of 'wood' that plays pretty close to composite.
Not realistic, not at all.
kaennorsing
Fed would rate a 10 in every era. I know it's hard, but imagine what
his game would be like in a more variety-friendly era... Off the
charts-entertaining and probably even more effective.
kaennorsing
I disagree, but only about the terminology; Instead of equipment I
blame it on the ATP policy. Equipment is part of it, but there could
be plenty of variety with the current equipment. Sure, dynamics would
be slightly different because of the added spin, power and control.
However, the effort to create a balanced playing field for all styles
is the main problem.
The effort to slow down court-conditions (including balls), to make it
more baseliner-friendly, in combination with a failure to regulate
ever more powerful (topspin and baseline friendly) racquets is what's
completely destroyed the balance. That's what has destroyed the
variety of styles, especially the disappearance of serve-volley
players.
Patrick Kehoe
I actually never thought the Pete vs. Andre matches were all that
interesting to watch... their last match was good... overall 1990s
tennis was fine... Wimbledon in the 1990s was certainly not as good as
now... there was NEVER a match as good as the 2007 or 2008 or 2009
finals in the entire decade...
P
Patrick Kehoe
They should mix the speeds more...
P
Patrick Kehoe
OH! COME ON... tennis in the late 1960s and 1970s and even the 1980s
was in SLOW MOTION compared to now...
P
Patrick Kehoe
Put Fed in 1980 and he'd be a 20 on a 1 to 10 scale entertainment
wise...
:))
P
SliceAndDice
+1. OTOH, imagine Nadal trying to win on the fast, slick Wimbledon
grass of the 90s.
Patrick Kehoe
My god 30 or 40 years ago his game would eat them alive...
P
Patrick Kehoe
The athletes ARE better and ALL players and coaches stress this,
define this, PROCLAIM this, explain and repeat this!!!!!!!
AND YET, I think you are correct, the technology has definately
changed the technical aspects of the game, no question...
P
Jason Catlin
But then why were people glued to the TV to watch Agassi? He's a
household name among sports fans
and could pack the seats and was great for ratings. Yet how is his
game so different from the top guys today?
Whisper
> On Sep 1, 9:18 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep. They probably should force the pros to go back to wood on a trial
>
> Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Composite has been around
> since before most
> of these guys were born. Now you're going to make them play with
> wood? And how are
> you going to police the nature of the wood? You can be sure somebody
> will be able to make
> something out of 'wood' that plays pretty close to composite.
>
> Not realistic, not at all.
Start it in 10 years to give everyone to time to switch over. Something
has to be done. As much as I like Rafa as a person I only watch if he's
playing Fed. Take Fed out & I doubt too many will be watching tennis.
We can't avoid the dark years coming up, but can limit it by announcing
equipment change in 2020. If nothing happen 'evolution' will have
killed off tennis.
jdeluise
On 1-Sep-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> Start it in 10 years to give everyone to time to switch over. Something
> has to be done. As much as I like Rafa as a person I only watch if he's
> playing Fed.
Shakes will be shocked to hear this. He was so certain you actually watched
Rafa play at the USO last year :)
Jason Catlin
Maybe you're right and that's the solution to make tennis a really top-
tier international sport on a par with basketball or rugby (I rather
doubt that's even possible). It would be strange though to have the
quality of a sport's equipment just dramatically plummet from one year
to the next. Is there any precedent for that?
TT
Hahaha
Shakes
I am. :-)
Shakes
I think the correct analysis is that the BOTTOM crop has improved
significantly, esp. if you compare players outside the top-10 from
before the mid-80's. The dominant players are however very close
athletically, give and take a few aspects.
Like I said, it's hard to compare given the changes in the surfaces,
equipment, and the playing styles. Forget what the coaches say. They
ALWAYS say that. Better to rely on your own eyes. I've seen players
live numerous times since 1996 - Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Safin,
Hewitt, Fed, Nadal. And I can say that they are all very close at their
peaks.
bob
it hasn't plummeted, but stayed consistent: major league baseball
still plays with wood bats although little league, etc., can use
synthetics.
bob
bob
popular people will always help, but we still had some contrast of
game then. contrast died off much more recently.
bob
bob
even if mac made him bawl?
bob
Jason Catlin
Right, so to have a sport's equipment go up and up and up and then
plummet in qualiity would be unprecedented. Or is there another
example?
bob
probably not another example, but a sport as large as baseball has
maintained a tight control on what it allows the equipment to do,
tennis should be able to follow the example. in that regard, it is
precedented.
bob
pltr...@xhost.org
<jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Right, so to have a sport's equipment go up and up and up and then
>plummet in qualiity would be unprecedented. Or is there another
>example?
NCAA (college) baseball banned metal and most composition bats this year, and
went back to wood.
-- Larry
Jason Catlin
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Jason Catlin
>
> >Right, so to have a sport's equipment go up and up and up and then
> >plummet in qualiity would be unprecedented. Or is there another
> >example?
>
> NCAA (college) baseball banned metal and most composition bats this year, and
> went back to wood.
>
> -- Larry
I wonder who would be better though, Albert Pujols with a wooden bat,
or the best college slugger with a metal or composition bat. I'm
wondering because I don't think the difference is quite as dramatic as
going from current tennis racquets to wood. Not sure though because I
don't know enough about baseball.
pltr...@xhost.org
<jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> NCAA (college) baseball banned metal and most composition bats this year, and
>> went back to wood.
>
>I wonder who would be better though, Albert Pujols with a wooden bat,
>or the best college slugger with a metal or composition bat. I'm
>wondering because I don't think the difference is quite as dramatic as
>going from current tennis racquets to wood. Not sure though because I
>don't know enough about baseball.
The primary concern was that a pitcher or third baseman was going to be killed
-- it was that big a difference.
-- Larry
Jason Catlin
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Jason Catlin
>
OK, I hear you :)
Still, the idea of going back to wood racquets seems so bizarre at
this point. Maybe just making them use
small head sizes (like the old Pro Staffs) could be a middle ground?
wenquan lee
i agree very much with your first point (in your earlier post) that
they should mix the speeds.
re your second point - depends on your definition of "good". your
inclusion of the 09 final makes it especially strange as, although it
was more "accessible" than the 07 and 08 finals (more old school, less
attritional fromk the baseline - actually enjoyed watching it more, in
one sense; i also thought the results in both the 07 and 08 finals
were the wrong way round), it wasn't particularly great, quality-wise.
if we're talking about top quality demolition - look no further than
the 99 final. and agassi wasn't playing badly. the sun in the first
week made the courts rather firm that year and many said they were
playing more like hardcourt. and still sampras steamrolled andre.
if we're talking about contrast in styles, and going 5 sets - and if
we include 00 in the last decade - then the sf between agassi and
rafter that year was amazing (and of course they had one the next year
too).
overall, though, you may have a point - but i wonder if the 07-09
matches arose in part (apart from all-time greats in fed and nadal
being around) because of the tinkering and slowing of conditions? in
the 90s and early 00s, it *seemed* like there were more one-sided blow-
outs - maybe the differing conditions helped tip this balance? if so,
from that perspective, there is an argument not to mix speeds (even
though i want them to).
surprising that you didn't find pete v andre matches interesting,
especially on hardcourt. i think they pioneered the fast, first-strike
hardcourt tennis that i miss today. they had the angles and the pace -
and far more aggression. end result? every shot in a rally had a
purpose, as opposed to merely bunting/looping into play waiting for an
error. it was the most exhilarating that "efficient" tennis could be -
due also to the contrasts in their games, of course.
wl
wenquan lee
i used to think so without doubt. in fact, i still think that
conditioning, nutrition etc has helped the non-great players in this
era (great players exist in every era). players are probably fitter
and faster, although it is difficult to tell with the slowing of
conditions (see the 2000 ao final between agassi and kafelnikov -
hitting and movement from the baseline as good as a lot out there
today).
however, evolution doesn't always happen, or at least sometimes it
really slows, or even reverses for a while.
example: you really think heavyweight boxers of today stand a chance
against ali, frazier, foreman, marciano etc in their peak?
i don't think so. and if heavywight boxing can go backwards, why can't
tennis? after all, volleying skills are declining no doubt, so there's
an argument right there that "evolution" isn't always better.
wl
MBDunc
> Right, so to have a sport's equipment go up and up and up and then
> plummet in qualiity would be unprecedented. Or is there another
(ok motorsports have a lot of these...) but: (some examples are bit
narrow).
In tennis alone: Spaghetti strings 1977 which were banned after a
couple of months.
Table tennis: racket material regs (and ball size was modified to
allow "more rallies").
Athletics: Javelin (1986 weight distribution change which effected 10%
maybe). Also 1992 minor adjustments for prevent loopholes.
Athletics: thick bottom (up to 5 inches) high jump jumping shoes
(banned late 50:ies)...
Rowing: "cannot recall the exact technology but it was banned mid/
late-80:ies which allowed rower to considerably save his energy - was
allowed for some time).
...
probably a lot of those....
.mikko
Jason Catlin
Thanks for the list.
The other aspect of this is the consumer market for racquets. I would
imagine most average players would not
want to give up their large-headed racquets and switch to the small
wood frames the pros would be obligated to use.
So you'd still have an industry making more and more advanced racquets
for the average hacker. Yet I don't know what would happen to
endorsement contracts because the pros wouldn't be using those frames
anymore.
Just would be a weird situation all around. But who knows? Maybe it
could work.
Whisper
>>> the players and people invovled in the sport that things have gone way too
>>> far. He was saying that when Fed goes the game is really going to feel his
>>> loss sorely as there isn't really anyone else doing anything
>>> interesting.....no variety.
>>
>>> Getting to like Cash of late! :)
>>
>> That's pretty sad when Fed rates a 10 on the tennis entertainment scale
>> today, but a 6 by historical standards.
>
> his game would be like in a more variety-friendly era... Off the
> charts-entertaining and probably even more effective.
Probably not without the modern strings?
Fed would be more hit/miss using regular strings.
Whisper
> On Aug 31, 12:48 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-31 07:56:05 -0700, felangey said:
>>
>>> of the players and people invovled in the sport that things have gone
>>> way too far. He was saying that when Fed goes the game is really going
>>> to feel his loss sorely as there isn't really anyone else doing
>>> anything interesting.....no variety.
>>
>>> Getting to like Cash of late! :)
>>
>> the kids like Sampras, Agassi etc., and people like myself who were
>> whining about the lack of variety were being called old guys who refuse
>> to come out of the past ? Oh, wait, Cash is an old guy too. :-)
>
> interesting to watch... their last match was good... overall 1990s
> tennis was fine... Wimbledon in the 1990s was certainly not as good as
> now... there was NEVER a match as good as the 2007 or 2008 or 2009
> finals in the entire decade...
>
> P
91,93,95 & 99 were probably all better tennis than anything last decade.
Whisper
> On Sep 1, 6:15 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/09/2011 12:56 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>> the players and people invovled in the sport that things have gone way too
>>> far. He was saying that when Fed goes the game is really going to feel his
>>> loss sorely as there isn't really anyone else doing anything
>>> interesting.....no variety.
>>
>>> Getting to like Cash of late! :)
>>
>> That's pretty sad when Fed rates a 10 on the tennis entertainment scale
>> today, but a 6 by historical standards.
>
> wise...
>
>
> P
Not without modern strings he wouldn't. I'd say he'd be a 4 using wood
rackets.
Whisper
With wood? lol.
Whisper
Real tennis fans didn't watch Agassi much, for obvious reasons. Any
Agassi fans 'glued' to the tv didn't understand or watch the actual tennis.
Whisper
I did watch more USO because I was impressed with Rafa's form. I never
saw him hit the ball better, & it was frightening in a way. I honestly
thought he'd win the tournament without dropping a set. Fed really
copped a break by losing in semis - final woulda been ugly like 61 60 62.
Whisper
> On Sep 1, 2:35 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/09/2011 11:28 PM, drew wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 1, 9:18 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yep. They probably should force the pros to go back to wood on a trial
>>>> basis, say 5 years& see if there's any improvement.
>>
>>> Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Composite has been around
>>> since before most
>>> of these guys were born. Now you're going to make them play with
>>> wood? And how are
>>> you going to police the nature of the wood? You can be sure somebody
>>> will be able to make
>>> something out of 'wood' that plays pretty close to composite.
>>
>>> Not realistic, not at all.
>>
>> Start it in 10 years to give everyone to time to switch over. Something
>> has to be done. As much as I like Rafa as a person I only watch if he's
>> We can't avoid the dark years coming up, but can limit it by announcing
>> equipment change in 2020. If nothing happen 'evolution' will have
>> killed off tennis.
>
> Maybe you're right and that's the solution to make tennis a really top-
> tier international sport on a par with basketball or rugby (I rather
> doubt that's even possible). It would be strange though to have the
> quality of a sport's equipment just dramatically plummet from one year
> to the next. Is there any precedent for that?
They did something like that in cricket with aluminium bats. Tennis
should go back to being about skill & variety. Now it's a just a
slugfest from the baseline with everyone playing similar style. Very
hard to captivate an audience with that kind of nonsense.
Whisper
Sure. I'm not necessarily saying it has to be wood, but something that
will allow for more variety & different styles, certainly bring back net
play & volleys. I doubt too many really enjoy watching the same type of
players slugging it out from baseline on all 3 surfaces yr round.
Whisper
There's nothing wrong with technology that allows the game to be
enhanced - ie better serves, volleys, rallies etc. The problem is when
it kills off variety & reduces everyone to clones of Agassi.
felangey
> enhanced - ie better serves, volleys, rallies etc. The problem is when it
> kills off variety & reduces everyone to clones of Agassi.
Well it is nice to hear you admit that it is the improvement in these things
that has killed off variety (ie. serve and volley et al)...
felangey
With a racquet made of soggy butterfly wings.
felangey
>rackets.
Yes well....everyone will be glad to hear that. Thanks for sharing. :)
Whisper
>> There's nothing wrong with technology that allows the game to be
>> enhanced - ie better serves, volleys, rallies etc. The problem is when it
>
> Well it is nice to hear you admit that it is the improvement in these things
> that has killed off variety (ie. serve and volley et al)...
>
>
I wouldn't call it 'improvement'. The proof is in the pudding, & if the
pudding stinks then it's no improvement.
If they allow drivers that hit the ball 500 meters, would that be
'improving' golf? It would make current courses obsolete as you just
sail over bunkers, water, hazards etc. No strategy required. That's
like modern tennis. Camp on the baseline & slug your heart out.
felangey
> 'improving' golf? It would make current courses obsolete as you just sail
> over bunkers, water, hazards etc. No strategy required. That's like
> modern tennis. Camp on the baseline & slug your heart out.
Well, tennis is obviously different from golf, as the only obstacle to get
it past is your opponent - and that challenge remains the same for everyone
regardless of the technology and to that end, strategy must be
applied....but I get the gist of what you are saying. Essentially though, we
are saying the development of technology that had outmoded s&v? I ask,
because I have the distinct impression that you have been here in the past
saying that a good serve and volleyer could clean up in the current era.
Superdave
cuda wuda shuda as usual from the whisp.
if brains were taxable he would be getting a refund.
Rodjk #613
It would have to address several issues. Size of the racquet...
Say, 85 in at the most?
Another important issue would be weight. Swinging a 10oz racquet makes
for some of the amazing spin (which produces angles that help kill off
volleying). So make it a 12oz minimum on the racquet weight. Strings,
well, having to play with smaller head racquets and higher weight
would take away at least some of the advantage of the new strings.
They could start changing the rules one step at a time and see what
sort of effect it has...I would say the racquet head size and weight
first. (To continue Bob's baseball analogy, in baseball the bats have
to meet size/weight restrictions. The advantage of aluminum/composite
bats is that they can be larger bats with lower weights, therefor
increasing swing speed. Tennis could do something similar)
Taking some spin and therefor angles away from the baseline players
and slowing down their swing speed would certainly be a step in the
right direction and has the added benefit of not changing things too
much for the casual player.
Rodjk #613
Whisper
>> If they allow drivers that hit the ball 500 meters, would that be
>> 'improving' golf? It would make current courses obsolete as you just sail
>> over bunkers, water, hazards etc. No strategy required. That's like
>
> Well, tennis is obviously different from golf, as the only obstacle to get
> it past is your opponent - and that challenge remains the same for everyone
> regardless of the technology and to that end, strategy must be
> applied....but I get the gist of what you are saying. Essentially though, we
> are saying the development of technology that had outmoded s&v? I ask,
> because I have the distinct impression that you have been here in the past
> saying that a good serve and volleyer could clean up in the current era.
>
>
A great s/v'er could clean up in this era, but it would have to be
someone in the Sampras/Edberg mold. A great server who can mix it up
well, & of course brilliant at volleys. Just bunting the volley back in
play won't cut it, which is the only kind of volleying we see today.
TT
Ski Jump, "V" versus lower start.
Slightly different, but
If at some point detection methods for doping improve...then the results
will drop a lot in many a sport. Jarmila holding STILL 800m world record
would be one example of that.
TT
>
> A great s/v'er could clean up in this era, but it would have to be
> someone in the Sampras/Edberg mold. A great server who can mix it up
> well, & of course brilliant at volleys. Just bunting the volley back in
> play won't cut it, which is the only kind of volleying we see today.
Karlovic did beat Gasquet yesterday.
I advice to watch Nadal vs. Mahut today, there might be some interesting
tactical differences.
wenquan lee
stich played great in 91. i did think edberg was playing even better
that year than the years he won, and stich beat him without breaking
his serve. edberg would go on to play supremely in the uso that year.
93 featured good tennis too, from sampras obviously but also courier
as a baseliner. wasn't that the year they beat becker and edberg
respectively?
i've mentioned the 99 final and sampras and becker also played a
quality final. becker was also amazing in despatching agassi in the
semis that year.
wl
SliceAndDice
Sampras and Edberg are different players. Sampras was a great
volleyer, but Edberg was in a class of his own. Sampras is the best
server of all time, but Edberg's serve was more to set up his
tremendous volleys. In this era, I do not think the Edberg method
would be as effective.
Whisper
> On Sep 2, 9:03 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/09/2011 1:43 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 12:48 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2011-08-31 07:56:05 -0700, felangey said:
>>
>>>>> ...having a it of a rant today. Apparently feeling goes deep with many
>>>>> of the players and people invovled in the sport that things have gone
>>>>> way too far. He was saying that when Fed goes the game is really going
>>>>> to feel his loss sorely as there isn't really anyone else doing
>>>>> anything interesting.....no variety.
>>
>>>>> Getting to like Cash of late! :)
>>
>>>> I thought modern tennis is "great", a much improved game as compared to
>>>> the kids like Sampras, Agassi etc., and people like myself who were
>>>> whining about the lack of variety were being called old guys who refuse
>>>> to come out of the past ? Oh, wait, Cash is an old guy too. :-)
>>
>>> I actually never thought the Pete vs. Andre matches were all that
>>> interesting to watch... their last match was good... overall 1990s
>>> tennis was fine... Wimbledon in the 1990s was certainly not as good as
>>> now... there was NEVER a match as good as the 2007 or 2008 or 2009
>>> finals in the entire decade...
>>
>>> P
>>
>
>
>
>
> stich played great in 91. i did think edberg was playing even better
> that year than the years he won, and stich beat him without breaking
> his serve. edberg would go on to play supremely in the uso that year.
>
> 93 featured good tennis too, from sampras obviously but also courier
> as a baseliner. wasn't that the year they beat becker and edberg
> respectively?
>
> i've mentioned the 99 final and sampras and becker also played a
> quality final. becker was also amazing in despatching agassi in the
> semis that year.
>
> wl
>
>
Exactly right. Plenty of great matches in the 90's. These days it's
very barren outside Fed v Rafa slam finals. I have no idea what these
Fednuts are crapping on about?
Whisper
> On Sep 2, 10:15 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/09/2011 11:43 PM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> If they allow drivers that hit the ball 500 meters, would that be
>>>> 'improving' golf? It would make current courses obsolete as you just sail
>>>> over bunkers, water, hazards etc. No strategy required. That's like
>>>> modern tennis. Camp on the baseline& slug your heart out.
>>
>>> Well, tennis is obviously different from golf, as the only obstacle to get
>>> it past is your opponent - and that challenge remains the same for everyone
>>> regardless of the technology and to that end, strategy must be
>>> applied....but I get the gist of what you are saying. Essentially though, we
>>> are saying the development of technology that had outmoded s&v? I ask,
>>> because I have the distinct impression that you have been here in the past
>>> saying that a good serve and volleyer could clean up in the current era.
>>
>> A great s/v'er could clean up in this era, but it would have to be
>> someone in the Sampras/Edberg mold. A great server who can mix it up
>> play won't cut it, which is the only kind of volleying we see today.
>
> Sampras and Edberg are different players. Sampras was a great
> volleyer, but Edberg was in a class of his own. Sampras is the best
> server of all time, but Edberg's serve was more to set up his
> tremendous volleys. In this era, I do not think the Edberg method
> would be as effective.
I meant a composite of Sampras/Edberg. A guy with those skills would
know how to hit an approach shot to a particular opponent, know where to
serve to get a favourable response, & obviously have the supreme voley
skills to either win the point outright or set up a sitter put-away.
Today's players, even on the odd occasion they get into the net, they
simply don't know how or where to hit the volley. I don't blame them as
that's not the way the game is tought these days, but you watch Edberg &
Mac when they approached - they knew exactly what was going on.
Shakes
> On Aug 31, 12:48 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-31 07:56:05 -0700, felangey said:
>>
>>> ...having a it of a rant today. Apparently feeling goes deep with many
>>> of the players and people invovled in the sport that things have gone
>>> way too far. He was saying that when Fed goes the game is really going
>>> to feel his loss sorely as there isn't really anyone else doing
>>> anything interesting.....no variety.
>>
>>> Getting to like Cash of late! :)
>>
>> I thought modern tennis is "great", a much improved game as compared to
>> the kids like Sampras, Agassi etc., and people like myself who were
>> whining about the lack of variety were being called old guys who refuse
>> to come out of the past ? Oh, wait, Cash is an old guy too. :-)
>
> I actually never thought the Pete vs. Andre matches were all that
> interesting to watch... their last match was good... overall 1990s
> tennis was fine... Wimbledon in the 1990s was certainly not as good as
> now... there was NEVER a match as good as the 2007 or 2008 or 2009
> finals in the entire decade...
>
> P
As it is mostly in these cases, different strokes for different folks.
So, never say never. :-)
The 2007, 2008, 2009 matches were made interesting mainly because of
the dynamics between the finalists, esp. Fed and Nadal. But, from the
perspective of stylistic variety, it still does not match the
Sampras-Agassi, or even Agassi-Rafter matches between 1999-2001,
Becker-Agassi in 1995, Sampras-Courier in 1993, just to name a few.
If people on rst like myself, along with former players like Cash, Mac
are complaining about the homogeniety in today's tennis, something must
be amiss, right ? We can't all be wrong.
jdeluise
On 2-Sep-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> I did watch more USO because I was impressed with Rafa's form. I never
> saw him hit the ball better, & it was frightening in a way. I honestly
> thought he'd win the tournament without dropping a set. Fed really
> copped a break by losing in semis - final woulda been ugly like 61 60 62.
Sure... we know your thoughts on tiebreakers and Rafa was in three of them
in the first two rounds. You might want to research a bit before you lie.
Shakes
Correct. Plus most people have the impression that we mean to say that
a great serve-volleyer cannot be passed. That's not correct. A
volleyer, even as great as Edberg, knows, even accepts, to be passed a
lot. It's all about percentages.
Even accepting the obvious fact that it's a lot more difficult to be a
serve-volleyer on today's surfaces, with today's strings, it doesn't
mean that these guys are expert volleyers who choose not to come in
because of the conditions. It's not necessarily cause and effect. Fed
is the best among the lot today, and that's not saying a great deal.
Shakes
> On Sep 1, 8:46 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it is about one thing - the equipment.
>>
>> If players had really developed into the supermen compared with times
>> past, as some claim. they would have been good enough to come in on
>> deep approaches. But they don't. They have been driven back to the
>> baseline.
>
> Do you expect human evolution to match the pace of technological
> development?
No. Esp. in the last 15 yrs, there has been NO human evolution as
regards to tennis. Only the tools and the canvas have changed.
For us to be able to measure true human evolution in sport, the
conditions have to be the same (look at them as "controls") and then
the stats can give a correct indication. When you change the surfaces,
racquets, balls, strings, there is NO WAY you can claim to make an
inference about human evolution in tennis.
Shakes
>>
>> I thought modern tennis is "great", a much improved game as compared to
>> the kids like Sampras, Agassi etc., and people like myself who were
>> whining about the lack of variety were being called old guys who refuse
>> to come out of the past ? Oh, wait, Cash is an old guy too. :-)
>
> What can't be reasonably denied is that it supercedes and eclipses the
> tennis of yore in terms of power, athleticism and potential for success
> in the current court conditions.....by quite some way.
Actually the power aspect can be refuted easily. Have you read the book
by Dr. Howard Brody, "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" ? You
should if you can. It's a great, detailed book explaining the effects
of racquets, strings, court surfaces etc. on the speed, trajectory,
bounce of the ball.
According to his tests on racquets, strings etc., the most critical
aspect for linear power as relates to tennis is the racquet mass. The
racquet composition itself does not matter.
And the racquets used by the players are DEFINITELY lighter than they
used to be. That's why the players are able to whip them using all
wrist to generate all that topspin. For sure, topspin creates some
angular momentum, but owing to it's lighter mass, it takes away REAL
"weight" on the ball. Is a topspin Nadal FH with all that RPM really
HARDER (in terms of pace, time, and momentum) than, say, a Sampras or a
Krajicek or a Becker FH ? No. You just have to compare it to a Del Po
or Berdych FH, who hit it relatively flat.
As regards to athleticism, when the surfaces have been made slower (as
you yourself agreed), it's easier, relatively, to run down balls (esp.
when both players are from the baseline). It's harder to run down
volleys hit from the net with underspin to keep them low.
MBDunc
Physical difference are minimal (fitness level among the field has
improved overally sure).
But the biggest difference is "professional approach" including
strategy + mental approach + discipline on/off court.
There is no more room for smt. like Mac at Stockholm 78 when he went
to celebrate and to the bars after beating Borg at SF and later 3.am
in the next (final scheduled) morning was totally drunk and lost in
Stockholm streets when trying to find his hotel (of course Mac won the
final easily)....or Agassi and his "hamburgers and pizza" -only diet
late 80:ies/early 90:ies....
.mikko
Patrick Kehoe
They would get blitzed!
P
Patrick Kehoe
As you say...
I just enjoy Fed vs Rafa LIGHT YEARS over Pete and Andre or any other
match up you mentioned... Pete vs Courier was painful to watch...
P
felangey
> in the Sampras/Edberg mold.<
..but....you just drew a comparison between the new tennis equipment and a
500 meter driver that would "made current courses obsolete"....directly
inferring by comparison that the current technology in tennis had made s&v
et al similarly obsolete. And you weren't wrong. I love s&v...but until *at
the very least* the conditions of play are speeded up, it is just not a
winning strategy. It is a good tactic to employ every so often to keep an
opponent guessing...but even at that, one must accept being passed/lobbed
quite often.
Pelle Svanslös
>
> Actually the power aspect can be refuted easily. Have you read the book
> by Dr. Howard Brody, "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" ? You should
> if you can. It's a great, detailed book explaining the effects of
> racquets, strings, court surfaces etc. on the speed, trajectory, bounce
> of the ball.
>
> According to his tests on racquets, strings etc., the most critical
> aspect for linear power as relates to tennis is the racquet mass. The
> racquet composition itself does not matter.
That's what I've been saying all along. (Although, the composition does
enable some nifty things which matter somewhat but those are never going
to be anything setting players apart.)
Anybody who thinks a modern racquet is more powerful than an older
graphite can go and play with the gizmos at TW and see what kind of
differences we're talking about. Close to zero.
Besides quite a few of the pros play with the "old blue one" anyway, if
you know what I mean.
The same goes for the strings. Despite what shit you get to read about
these things on the net, the measured differences are much smaller than
people here think they are.
Rafa says it best. "The strings don't play". The same goes for the
racquets.
The biggest difference is what the players do with those things.
Technical aspects are harder to sell to the public, since explaining
them isn't for TV and even if it was, most of the recipients wouldn't
know what the fuck hit them anyway, so ...
topspin
> If people on rst like myself, along with former players like Cash, Mac
> are complaining about the homogeniety in today's tennis, something must
> be amiss, right ? We can't all be wrong.
Oh yes you can. Cash is an idiot. So is McEnroe (no surprise there).
The game is not being ruined. All you complainers are more-or-less-old
fogeys living in a rose-tinted past. Tennis at the top level is an
entertainment. Audiences are coming back and enjoying what they see
now as compared with what they were being offered in the 90s, when
audiences were dropping. Tennis is recovering its popularity. It is
different, but for general audiences it is better.
I can remember a homogeneous s/v past, a over-emphasised serve game in
the 90s (when audiences fell), and a fairly homogeneous baseline game
now (when audiences have recovered). The players at the top are much
what they always were, but they now emphasise different aspects of the
game. I don't think Nadal and Federer play a homogeneous style, and
what they play connects in a big way with audiences. Their finals have
almost always been compelling, and their 2008 Wimbledon final was one
of the finest and most dramatic matches ever. I would not change how
they play in any way.
While I would prefer more mobility on the women's side, I also
remember some of the pat-a-cake stuff that used to be played before
they were given more power in their hands.
Shakes
> On Sep 2, 5:15�pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If people on rst like myself, along with former players like Cash, Mac
>> are complaining about the homogeniety in today's tennis, something must
>> be amiss, right ? We can't all be wrong.
>
> Oh yes you can. Cash is an idiot. So is McEnroe (no surprise there).
> The game is not being ruined. All you complainers are more-or-less-old
> fogeys living in a rose-tinted past. Tennis at the top level is an
> entertainment. Audiences are coming back and enjoying what they see
> now as compared with what they were being offered in the 90s, when
> audiences were dropping. Tennis is recovering its popularity. It is
> different, but for general audiences it is better.
You can stop patronizing. It's all right if you disagree, but to claim
that we are all wrong tells more about you than about us. Having read
your posts, I know that you have scant respect for Sampras' game (I
remember he was not even there in your top 5 choices of players whom
you would choose to play for you), and you are forced to put him at the
top of your lists only because of his stellar record, but that doesn't
make either Sampras or the '90's boring. Sampras is NO LESS than Fed on
a pure talent level. The guy was an awesome player with a clutch
mentality. Great to watch if you know what to look for. For
couch-potato fans, I agree Sampras was a real bore.
Now, if you are talking SPECIFICALLY about the Sampras-Ivanisevic
matches at Wim, I would agree they were boring. But what about HC, and
players who did not rely on their serves (though there's nothing wrong
with relying on the serve) ?
The Sampras-Agassi matches at the USO, AO boring ? Agassi-Rafter
matches at the AO and Wim ? Becker-Agassi at the USO ? If they are
boring to you, your idea about what makes watcheable tennis is
different from mine. Doesn't make you right, though.
>
> I can remember a homogeneous s/v past, a over-emphasised serve game in
> the 90s (when audiences fell), and a fairly homogeneous baseline game
> now (when audiences have recovered). The players at the top are much
> what they always were, but they now emphasise different aspects of the
> game. I don't think Nadal and Federer play a homogeneous style, and
> what they play connects in a big way with audiences. Their finals have
> almost always been compelling, and their 2008 Wimbledon final was one
> of the finest and most dramatic matches ever. I would not change how
> they play in any way.
>
> While I would prefer more mobility on the women's side, I also
> remember some of the pat-a-cake stuff that used to be played before
> they were given more power in their hands.
Ah, the much ballyhooed "over-emphasized serve game". That's rich, as
if the serve is not a part of the game. It's probably the most
important part. Any player, even Fed, would LOVE to have a serve like
Sampras' or Ivanisevic's or Krajicek's. Don't let their ability to
serve so well fool you about how hard it is to do it. See, that's the
thing. When Fed or Nadal make an incredible get or create an incredible
angle (thanks in no small measure to the strings), people expound on
their talent, and go "ooh" and "ah", and yet when a guy like Sampras
serves aces on 2nd serves at BP down, people fail to appreciate it to
the same degree. To me, they both indicate a high level of talent and
skill. One is no less than the other.
I will ask you a question. Between Fed-Nadal and Sampras-Agassi, which
match-up do you think covers more aspects of the game - serve, return,
volley, baseline winners, defense, transition-game (as in hitting an
approach shot and coming in during a rally) ?
bob
<th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>> A great s/v'er could clean up in this era, but it would have to be someone
>> in the Sampras/Edberg mold.<
>
>..but....you just drew a comparison between the new tennis equipment and a
>500 meter driver that would "made current courses obsolete"....
it hasn't made it obsolete, we just have the top 2 players extremely
dominant for 5 straight yrs (til djok improved) and theyhappened to be
basliners.
a hack s/v player cannot beat fed/nadal on slow surfaces, obviously.
but a great s/v player can IMO still have an advantage over
fed/nadal/djok on fast surfaces.
>directly
>inferring by comparison that the current technology in tennis had made s&v
>et al similarly obsolete. And you weren't wrong. I love s&v...but until *at
>the very least* the conditions of play are speeded up, it is just not a
>winning strategy. It is a good tactic to employ every so often to keep an
>opponent guessing...but even at that, one must accept being passed/lobbed
>quite often.
the current technology combined with the current court speeds has
definitely swung the pendulum toward favoring baseliner ralliers
compared to say 15 yrs ago; doesn't mean that the top 3 s/v players in
history couldn't beat the top 3 baseliners of today at Wim/USO. it'd
be very interesting, that's all.
bob
bob
well yes, and the racket mass is based on the racket composition in
large part (as well as design and other factors of course)..
bob
felangey
> but a great s/v player can IMO still have an advantage over
> fed/nadal/djok on fast surfaces.
You know what....at Paris Masters I would give the s&c player a shout.
Shakes
Yes, I realized that later on. I meant to say that compared to the
'90's, the only change that makes the difference in playing style is
the racquet weight. Which is where the racquet composition matters. If
you try to play like Nadal using a Lendl or Becker or Sampras' frame -
weighing 13 oz., you would break your wrists.
felangey
bob
you're taking a short timeframe, about 7 yrs, where we had a very weak
field (s/v and baseliner both) but 1 and (then 2, now 3) dominant
baseliners, and making conclusions about how great s/v players from
the past would fare VS them.
we already saw this with borg/lendl/wilaner - great baseliners bested
by great s/v players on fast surfaces. btw, you're posting a lot
lately after 2am british isles time, strange i might add.
bob
bob
i don't care if they use wood, graphite, or whatnot - but variety of
shot is missing and that's the problem. in sampras' day, he was
winning also with light powerful racket, but still maintained variety
of shot.
today, i believe we need something to force the issue - i.e. a
technology change.
bob
Scott
> On 2/09/2011 3:25 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 syys, 01:16, Jason Catlin<jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Right, so to have a sport's equipment go up and up and up and then
> >> plummet in qualiity would be unprecedented. Or is there another
> >> example?-
>
> > (ok motorsports have a lot of these...) but: (some examples are bit
> > narrow).
>
> > In tennis alone: Spaghetti strings 1977 which were banned after a
> > couple of months.
> > Table tennis: racket material regs (and ball size was modified to
> > allow "more rallies").
> > Athletics: Javelin (1986 weight distribution change which effected 10%
> > maybe). Also 1992 minor adjustments for prevent loopholes.
> > Athletics: thick bottom (up to 5 inches) high jump jumping shoes
> > (banned late 50:ies)...
> > Rowing: "cannot recall the exact technology but it was banned mid/
> > late-80:ies which allowed rower to considerably save his energy - was
> > allowed for some time).
> > ...
> > probably a lot of those....
>
> > .mikko
>
> enhanced - ie better serves, volleys, rallies etc. The problem is when
> it kills off variety & reduces everyone to clones of Agassi.
actually, watching Agassi hitting balls on the rise was a lot more
exciting than this crap. beyond that, i agree with what you're
saying.
Shakes
Actually, Sampras' racquet was not light at all. It weighed around 393
gms. That's mighty heavy to swing, esp. considering that Sampras made
it even balanced by putting lead tape. When you hit a tennis ball
relatively flat, with that kind of racquet mass, it puts some serious
momentum on the ball.
Mac had noted recently that Nadal's racquet weighed about 340 gms,
Fed's about 360 gms (according to Murray). THat's some serious weight
difference for a tennis racquet.
iarwain
modern racquets.
Otherwise, guys would be serving too fast and too well to be
returned. It would just be serve, serve, serve.
I love the idea of going with wood racquets. Like Mac said, they
don't allow aluminum bats in major league baseball.
Even though they're superior, better technology. They make you use
wood. It's the same thing really.
felangey
> field (s/v and baseliner both) but 1 and (then 2, now 3) dominant
> baseliners, and making conclusions about how great s/v players from
> the past would fare VS them.
By and large, the great s/v players back the obvious conclusions.
>btw, you're posting a lot
> lately after 2am british isles time, strange i might add.
You might. Also consider the fact that it is currently only12.24am UK
time.....and as a tennis fan, one might like to stay up to watch the night
session during the Open.
Shakes
> They've slowed down the courts at all the majors to compensate for the
> modern racquets.
> Otherwise, guys would be serving too fast and too well to be
> returned. It would just be serve, serve, serve.
On grass, maybe. But not HC. Even during Sampras' time, when the courts
were fast, guys like Agassi, Courier, Chang etc. returned serves quite
well to beat or make a match against the big servers.
>
> I love the idea of going with wood racquets. Like Mac said, they
> don't allow aluminum bats in major league baseball.
> Even though they're superior, better technology. They make you use
> wood. It's the same thing really.
I doubt that would happen. Maybe put a restriction on the head size.
Put a limit of, say, 92 sq. in. ?
Whisper
Yes, I recall McEnroe came in 160 times v Jimbo in 1 USO semi. He got
passed a lot & it went 5 sets, but he never backed off.
Another good reason to keep coming in is the pressure this puts on the
baseliner. They can never relax & have to be ready to keep producing
quality shots - any bunting crap is likely to cost you big time.
It takes a certain mentality to say 'yeah I'm ok getting passed 45% of
the time' & not let it effect you negatively. Today's pros get scorched
2 or 3 times & they retreat to the baseline. They don't seem to realize
it's not about winning every point, but the overall strategy as you say
that gives the edge overall.
>
> Even accepting the obvious fact that it's a lot more difficult to be a
> serve-volleyer on today's surfaces, with today's strings, it doesn't
> mean that these guys are expert volleyers who choose not to come in
> because of the conditions. It's not necessarily cause and effect. Fed is
> the best among the lot today, and that's not saying a great deal.
>
I've seen McEnroe playing the old geezers circuit, & at age 52 he's a
far superior volleyer to any pro playing today.
Whisper
Correct. Evolutuion of technology has nothing to do with the players.
Whisper
> On Sep 2, 7:15 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/09/2011 11:43 PM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> If they allow drivers that hit the ball 500 meters, would that be
>>>> 'improving' golf? It would make current courses obsolete as you just sail
>>>> over bunkers, water, hazards etc. No strategy required. That's like
>>>> modern tennis. Camp on the baseline& slug your heart out.
>>
>>> Well, tennis is obviously different from golf, as the only obstacle to get
>>> it past is your opponent - and that challenge remains the same for everyone
>>> regardless of the technology and to that end, strategy must be
>>> applied....but I get the gist of what you are saying. Essentially though, we
>>> are saying the development of technology that had outmoded s&v? I ask,
>>> because I have the distinct impression that you have been here in the past
>>> saying that a good serve and volleyer could clean up in the current era.
>>
>> A great s/v'er could clean up in this era, but it would have to be
>> someone in the Sampras/Edberg mold. A great server who can mix it up
>> play won't cut it, which is the only kind of volleying we see today.
>
> They would get blitzed!
>
> P
Yes, if they don't know how to approach & volley. Coming in on Djoker's
bh where the ball is bouncing high right into his wheelhouse is a
terrible approach shot. Yet you see Djoker crush this for a winner &
conclude chip/charge, s/v is no longer viable in today's game? Pretty
dumb analysis.
Whisper
But Roger & Rafa are only 2 players. What can you say about the rest of
the tour?
Whisper
>> A great s/v'er could clean up in this era, but it would have to be someone
>> in the Sampras/Edberg mold.<
>
> ..but....you just drew a comparison between the new tennis equipment and a
> 500 meter driver that would "made current courses obsolete"....directly
> inferring by comparison that the current technology in tennis had made s&v
> et al similarly obsolete. And you weren't wrong.
It doesn't have to be obsolete even with modern equipment, but it
requires great serving & net skills. The foundation of modern game is
2-fisted baselining & little focus is put on developing great net instincts.
> I love s&v...but until *at
> the very least* the conditions of play are speeded up, it is just not a
> winning strategy. It is a good tactic to employ every so often to keep an
> opponent guessing...but even at that, one must accept being passed/lobbed
> quite often.
>
>
Nothing wrong with that. McEnroe was passed nearly 50% of the time by
Borg, Jimbo & Wilander. It's the overall game plan you have to stick
to, shrug off the passes.
Whisper
> On Sep 2, 5:15 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If people on rst like myself, along with former players like Cash, Mac
>> are complaining about the homogeniety in today's tennis, something must
>> be amiss, right ? We can't all be wrong.
>
> Oh yes you can. Cash is an idiot. So is McEnroe (no surprise there).
> The game is not being ruined. All you complainers are more-or-less-old
> fogeys living in a rose-tinted past. Tennis at the top level is an
> entertainment. Audiences are coming back and enjoying what they see
> now as compared with what they were being offered in the 90s, when
> audiences were dropping. Tennis is recovering its popularity. It is
> different, but for general audiences it is better.
>
> I can remember a homogeneous s/v past, a over-emphasised serve game in
> the 90s (when audiences fell), and a fairly homogeneous baseline game
> now (when audiences have recovered). The players at the top are much
> what they always were, but they now emphasise different aspects of the
> game. I don't think Nadal and Federer play a homogeneous style, and
> what they play connects in a big way with audiences. Their finals have
> almost always been compelling, and their 2008 Wimbledon final was one
> of the finest and most dramatic matches ever. I would not change how
> they play in any way.
er, Rafa won 64 64 67 67 97 & serve/volleyed only 1 time. Nothing wrong
with that at Wimbledon you think?