Article : Is this the best tennis we have ever seen? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Article : Is this the best tennis we have ever seen?

Pages : [1] 2

Nole fan
02-04-2012, 08:04 AM
This article makes a valid point and should be read by any people with an interest in tennis. Taking into account the latest discussions amongst fans about the state of tennis today and the direction is it going, I ask you is this the best tennis we have ever seen? Legends seem to think that it is. Still some people can't find a way to appreciate this golden era of tennis and complain about court surfaces and the new physicality of the game imposed by Rafa and Novak, two players who are reshaping tennis as we know it. Read carefully and discuss intelligently please.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/glory-in-golden-era-of-mens-tennis/story-fnbe6xeb-1226262260411

Glory in golden era of men's tennis
CHIP LE GRAND From: The Australian February 04, 2012 12:00AM

WHEN Jim Courier and Ivan Lendl bumped into each other on their way back to the US this week, they asked each other a question that would have been nagging all retired tennis champions who watched Novak Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal in one of the most extraordinary matches ever played: could I have done that?

In their world-beating days, both men were renowned as among the fittest players on tour. Courier twice ground his way to Australian Open titles at the height of brutal summers. Lendl held the No 1 ranking for a total of 270 weeks and staged, with Sweden's Mats Wilander, the previous longest slam final.

The short answer? Not a chance. As Courier put it: "Neither of us felt like we could have possibly made it through the way those guys did."

There is ongoing debate over whether last Sunday's Australian Open final was the best match ever played. Some tennis pundits found fault with the lack of variety compared with the great Pete Sampras versus Andre Agassi duels, or a fabled storyline like the one that coursed through John McEnroe's Wimbledon final loss to Bjorn Borg in 1980. Others have taken issue with the 5 hour 53 minutes taken to decide the match, arguing that if Djokovic and Nadal hadn't dawdled between points, it would have been over a lot quicker.


Deep within tennis geekdom, there is a group of fans convinced that this men's final was an epic demonstration of all that is wrong with tennis. They yearn for another time when hard courts were faster and it only took one brilliant shot -- rather than a dozen -- to win a point. "The Pandora's box has now been opened," bemoaned one contributor to a popular online forum. "The Australian Open got such great press that I fear the courts will be slowed down even further in order to assure five-hour finals."

There is no right or wrong answer to these arguments, which are based on aesthetics, tennis preference and taste. For as long as tennis has been played, there has never been agreement on what is the most attractive game style. Some find beauty on a baseline, others in the increasingly rare moments when Roger Federer ventures to the net.

Yet by any objective view of tennis, the sport has never been faster, stronger or more skilful. In pure athletic terms, last Sunday's final was played at a pace and intensity that stunned not only observers but greats of the game and professionals still competing at the top levels of the sport.

This from Agassi: "I have played opponents who can play marathon matches. These guys played a whole marathon like a sprint."

This from Andy Roddick on Twitter: "Djokovic and rafa. Absolute war. Physicality of tennis has been taken to another level in the past 5 years. 6 straight hours of power/speed."

This from John McEnroe: "The shots that these guys can come up with . . . is phenomenal. They have taken the baseline game to a whole new level."

This from Rod Laver: "We will never see something better than what we just saw."

So how did tennis get here? Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley, who has worked for 35 years as a tennis administrator, coach and player, tells The Weekend Australian it is man responding to machine. Where the much-discussed improvement in racquet and string technology since Borg's days has enabled players to hit with ballistic power and fierce spin, less appreciated is the hidden revolution taking place in the physiology of players and how they train and prepare to make best use of these high-tech tools.

Where today's poly-strung, graphite racquets were originally envisioned as offensive weapons -- lightweight cannons capable of firing a 240km Roddick serve and loading Nadal's forehand with 3200rpm's of top spin, it is the defensive arts that are defining tennis. Players are training to new, elite levels of fitness not to win matches, but to stay in them. The best understand that so long as you are still in a point, you have never lost it. Shots that would have been clean winners five years ago are gettable.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the return of serve; the only match statistic where you'll find Djokovic, Andy Murray and Nadal at the top of the tennis tree, and Federer not far behind.

"Big serves are still big serves but what has got bigger is returns," Tiley explains. "With science and technology in the sport now you can start to determine where a player is directing their serves and where their tendencies are, and players can respond to those tendencies. There is no question that the advantage of the serve has been taken away a little bit by the ability of players to defend. So the next stage of the sport will probably be the serve becoming even bigger."

McEnroe, speaking to a tennis academy in New York this week, declared Djokovic the best returner of serve the game had seen -- better than Agassi, better than Jimmy Connors. Nadal said much the same thing after dragging himself off the Rod Laver Arena close to 2am on Monday morning. "Is something unbelievable how he returns, no? His return is probably one of the best in history."

Comparisons have been drawn between the raw physical demands of Sunday's match and other elite sports. Tennis Australia high performance manager Machar Reid, who as part of his work analyses Hawk-Eye tracking data on ball and player movements in matches, estimates that Djokovic and Nadal would have covered anywhere between 8km and 10km each during their five sets. The critical difference with professional tennis is the abrupt, high-speed changes in direction required to stay in a rally. Each time Djokovic slid to a halt and powered back the other way, his bracing leg absorbed about 2 1/2 times his body weight. That happened, on average, four to eight times each point. There were 369 points in the match.

"You have got those stopping and starting movements associated with the lower limbs and then you have got your upper limbs rotating at really high speed to produce the racquet and ball velocity that they do," Reid says. "To be honest, I'm not sure there is any real parallel with other sports."

Two significant advances in the physiology of today's players is their capacity for high-intensity repetitions and the balance and strength they have in what Reid calls their "end range" -- the body position a player adopts to hit back a ball at the limit of their reach.

"The guys are far stronger and more stable in those positions than the players of yesteryear," he says. "That is by virtue of needing to find solution and reshaping their training programs in the gym and on court. The guys can turn on a dime. That is something that has evolved over time."

The evolution of tennis has rendered meaningless many of the statistics traditionally used to measure matches and individual performance. Still reckon it comes down to a big first serve? If you look at tennis's big four, only Federer ranked in the top 10 last year in both aces hit and first service points won. Djokovic, the best player in the game, ranked 26th in aces and 21st for first service points. Still think winners minus errors is a good way to track the quality of a match? Between them, Djokovic and Nadal hit 39 more unforced errors than winners on Sunday night. But as Laver marvelled the morning after the match, both players were hitting endless "winners" -- the ball just kept coming back.

Tiley says some of the points played in the men's final would have been impossible not long ago. The combination of the ball being hit harder, players running faster and improved anticipation and defensive shot making is, in effect, shrinking the tennis court before our eyes.

"The game has evolved with greater speed and velocity and now players, with their skills, are countering that speed and velocity and adding some of their own. Some of those rallies between Nadal and Djokovic, we would never have seen those 10, 15 years ago. Not at that pace and not at that duration. There was one 37 ball rally where Djokovic almost won the point eight times and Nadal was able to defend."

Another misleading statistic in tennis, though the only one that ultimately matters, is the string of tournaments won by Djokovic. Djokovic last year had one of the most dominant seasons in ATP history, winning 10 tournaments including the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open, and losing just six matches for the year. He has begun this season the same way.

Yet men's tennis is far from one Djoker and the pack. The quality of last Sunday's final and the two epic semi-finals that preceded it were the product not of one dominant player being challenged by the rest but four rarely gifted players pushing each other and the game into a very uncomfortable place.

The ruling order in tennis is shaped by a rock-paper-scissors relationship between Djokovic who beats Nadal, Nadal who beats Federer, and Federer who is the only player to beat Djokovic in a slam last year since 2010. The power balance is fragile, as Nadal can ruefully attest after narrowly missing a makeable backhand pass that would have put him 5-2 up in the fifth set against Djokovic. Then there is the emerging Murray, who according to McEnroe played the best match of his career against Djokovic in their oscillating semi-final, and came within a couple of points of winning.

Pete Sampras, a man who physically monstered tennis in another era, saw the future at Wimbledon last year when he said of Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer: "Those four guys are just better movers than everyone else. They are better athletes."

Competition theory says that so long as the big four stay healthy, tennis can only get better. That means more matches comparable to last week's Australian Open final and more arguments about which match is the greatest. The one thing not to do is spend this "golden era" of men's tennis -- as Tiley and others have dubbed it -- wishing the game was played another way. "I think it is an incredible time," McEnroe says.

"I think we (had) better enjoy it while it lasts."

ossie
02-04-2012, 08:05 AM
del potro is the best tennis you have ever seen

Action Jackson
02-04-2012, 08:27 AM
Could you not be lazy next time, yes actually put in the source and writer of the article.

The answer is no.

leng jai
02-04-2012, 08:42 AM
This article makes a valid point and should be read by any people with an interest in tennis. Taking into account the latest discussions amongst fans about the state of tennis today and the direction is it going, I ask you is this the best tennis we have ever seen? Legends seem to think that it is. Still some people can't find a way to appreciate this golden era of tennis and complain about court surfaces and the new physicality of the game imposed by Rafa and Novak, two players who are reshaping tennis as we know it. Read carefully and discuss intelligently please.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/glory-in-golden-era-of-mens-tennis/story-fnbe6xeb-1226262260411

Glory in golden era of men's tennis
CHIP LE GRAND From: The Australian February 04, 2012 12:00AM

WHEN Jim Courier and Ivan Lendl bumped into each other on their way back to the US this week, they asked each other a question that would have been nagging all retired tennis champions who watched Novak Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal in one of the most extraordinary matches ever played: could I have done that?

In their world-beating days, both men were renowned as among the fittest players on tour. Courier twice ground his way to Australian Open titles at the height of brutal summers. Lendl held the No 1 ranking for a total of 270 weeks and staged, with Sweden's Mats Wilander, the previous longest slam final.

The short answer? Not a chance. As Courier put it: "Neither of us felt like we could have possibly made it through the way those guys did."

There is ongoing debate over whether last Sunday's Australian Open final was the best match ever played. Some tennis pundits found fault with the lack of variety compared with the great Pete Sampras versus Andre Agassi duels, or a fabled storyline like the one that coursed through John McEnroe's Wimbledon final loss to Bjorn Borg in 1980. Others have taken issue with the 5 hour 53 minutes taken to decide the match, arguing that if Djokovic and Nadal hadn't dawdled between points, it would have been over a lot quicker.


Deep within tennis geekdom, there is a group of fans convinced that this men's final was an epic demonstration of all that is wrong with tennis. They yearn for another time when hard courts were faster and it only took one brilliant shot -- rather than a dozen -- to win a point. "The Pandora's box has now been opened," bemoaned one contributor to a popular online forum. "The Australian Open got such great press that I fear the courts will be slowed down even further in order to assure five-hour finals."

There is no right or wrong answer to these arguments, which are based on aesthetics, tennis preference and taste. For as long as tennis has been played, there has never been agreement on what is the most attractive game style. Some find beauty on a baseline, others in the increasingly rare moments when Roger Federer ventures to the net.

Yet by any objective view of tennis, the sport has never been faster, stronger or more skilful. In pure athletic terms, last Sunday's final was played at a pace and intensity that stunned not only observers but greats of the game and professionals still competing at the top levels of the sport.

This from Agassi: "I have played opponents who can play marathon matches. These guys played a whole marathon like a sprint."

This from Andy Roddick on Twitter: "Djokovic and rafa. Absolute war. Physicality of tennis has been taken to another level in the past 5 years. 6 straight hours of power/speed."

This from John McEnroe: "The shots that these guys can come up with . . . is phenomenal. They have taken the baseline game to a whole new level."

This from Rod Laver: "We will never see something better than what we just saw."

So how did tennis get here? Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley, who has worked for 35 years as a tennis administrator, coach and player, tells The Weekend Australian it is man responding to machine. Where the much-discussed improvement in racquet and string technology since Borg's days has enabled players to hit with ballistic power and fierce spin, less appreciated is the hidden revolution taking place in the physiology of players and how they train and prepare to make best use of these high-tech tools.

Where today's poly-strung, graphite racquets were originally envisioned as offensive weapons -- lightweight cannons capable of firing a 240km Roddick serve and loading Nadal's forehand with 3200rpm's of top spin, it is the defensive arts that are defining tennis. Players are training to new, elite levels of fitness not to win matches, but to stay in them. The best understand that so long as you are still in a point, you have never lost it. Shots that would have been clean winners five years ago are gettable.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the return of serve; the only match statistic where you'll find Djokovic, Andy Murray and Nadal at the top of the tennis tree, and Federer not far behind.

"Big serves are still big serves but what has got bigger is returns," Tiley explains. "With science and technology in the sport now you can start to determine where a player is directing their serves and where their tendencies are, and players can respond to those tendencies. There is no question that the advantage of the serve has been taken away a little bit by the ability of players to defend. So the next stage of the sport will probably be the serve becoming even bigger."

McEnroe, speaking to a tennis academy in New York this week, declared Djokovic the best returner of serve the game had seen -- better than Agassi, better than Jimmy Connors. Nadal said much the same thing after dragging himself off the Rod Laver Arena close to 2am on Monday morning. "Is something unbelievable how he returns, no? His return is probably one of the best in history."

Comparisons have been drawn between the raw physical demands of Sunday's match and other elite sports. Tennis Australia high performance manager Machar Reid, who as part of his work analyses Hawk-Eye tracking data on ball and player movements in matches, estimates that Djokovic and Nadal would have covered anywhere between 8km and 10km each during their five sets. The critical difference with professional tennis is the abrupt, high-speed changes in direction required to stay in a rally. Each time Djokovic slid to a halt and powered back the other way, his bracing leg absorbed about 2 1/2 times his body weight. That happened, on average, four to eight times each point. There were 369 points in the match.

"You have got those stopping and starting movements associated with the lower limbs and then you have got your upper limbs rotating at really high speed to produce the racquet and ball velocity that they do," Reid says. "To be honest, I'm not sure there is any real parallel with other sports."

Two significant advances in the physiology of today's players is their capacity for high-intensity repetitions and the balance and strength they have in what Reid calls their "end range" -- the body position a player adopts to hit back a ball at the limit of their reach.

"The guys are far stronger and more stable in those positions than the players of yesteryear," he says. "That is by virtue of needing to find solution and reshaping their training programs in the gym and on court. The guys can turn on a dime. That is something that has evolved over time."

The evolution of tennis has rendered meaningless many of the statistics traditionally used to measure matches and individual performance. Still reckon it comes down to a big first serve? If you look at tennis's big four, only Federer ranked in the top 10 last year in both aces hit and first service points won. Djokovic, the best player in the game, ranked 26th in aces and 21st for first service points. Still think winners minus errors is a good way to track the quality of a match? Between them, Djokovic and Nadal hit 39 more unforced errors than winners on Sunday night. But as Laver marvelled the morning after the match, both players were hitting endless "winners" -- the ball just kept coming back.

Tiley says some of the points played in the men's final would have been impossible not long ago. The combination of the ball being hit harder, players running faster and improved anticipation and defensive shot making is, in effect, shrinking the tennis court before our eyes.

"The game has evolved with greater speed and velocity and now players, with their skills, are countering that speed and velocity and adding some of their own. Some of those rallies between Nadal and Djokovic, we would never have seen those 10, 15 years ago. Not at that pace and not at that duration. There was one 37 ball rally where Djokovic almost won the point eight times and Nadal was able to defend."

Another misleading statistic in tennis, though the only one that ultimately matters, is the string of tournaments won by Djokovic. Djokovic last year had one of the most dominant seasons in ATP history, winning 10 tournaments including the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open, and losing just six matches for the year. He has begun this season the same way.

Yet men's tennis is far from one Djoker and the pack. The quality of last Sunday's final and the two epic semi-finals that preceded it were the product not of one dominant player being challenged by the rest but four rarely gifted players pushing each other and the game into a very uncomfortable place.

The ruling order in tennis is shaped by a rock-paper-scissors relationship between Djokovic who beats Nadal, Nadal who beats Federer, and Federer who is the only player to beat Djokovic in a slam last year since 2010. The power balance is fragile, as Nadal can ruefully attest after narrowly missing a makeable backhand pass that would have put him 5-2 up in the fifth set against Djokovic. Then there is the emerging Murray, who according to McEnroe played the best match of his career against Djokovic in their oscillating semi-final, and came within a couple of points of winning.

Pete Sampras, a man who physically monstered tennis in another era, saw the future at Wimbledon last year when he said of Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer: "Those four guys are just better movers than everyone else. They are better athletes."

Competition theory says that so long as the big four stay healthy, tennis can only get better. That means more matches comparable to last week's Australian Open final and more arguments about which match is the greatest. The one thing not to do is spend this "golden era" of men's tennis -- as Tiley and others have dubbed it -- wishing the game was played another way. "I think it is an incredible time," McEnroe says.

"I think we (had) better enjoy it while it lasts."

Obo

TennisOnWood
02-04-2012, 08:59 AM
Yeah, lets quote whole post 100 times now

Answer is no of course

samanosuke
02-04-2012, 09:07 AM
Could you not be lazy next time, yes actually put in the source and writer of the article.



how you can ever dare to think that nole spam hasn't her own opinions

finishingmove
02-04-2012, 09:19 AM
it's true

Alex999
02-04-2012, 09:25 AM
ok. define the best match ever. I've seen so many good tennis matches. I can't really decide which one was the best... too many good matches. It was a great match IMHO, I had a great time. I mean, I don't get it. what do you guys want? people on this board are ...
I'm going to open a new thread 'what is the best match ever, let's talk

Myrre
02-04-2012, 09:34 AM
Courier said a few things more that have been conveniently edited out:

1. It’s hard to get my head wrapped around the physical effort I saw Sunday night in Melbourne, even a few days later. The tennis Novak and Rafa were able to summon late in the match boggles my mind. Ivan Lendl and I were talking about it Monday morning on our way back to the States, and both of us were shaking our heads and asking the same question: How could they possibly not cramp up out there? Ivan and I were known to be among the fittest of our time, but neither of us felt like we could have possibly made it through the way those guys did. It was a hot night (Novak changed his first shirt at the 30-minute mark) and the rallies were brutal from the get-go. Whatever it is that these guys are drinking/eating on court, I want some immediately to stave off my jet lag.

hxxp://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=16176&zoneid=9

TennisOnWood
02-04-2012, 09:42 AM
ok. define the best match ever. I've seen so many good tennis matches. I can't really decide which one was the best... too many good matches. It was a great match IMHO, I had a great time. I mean, I don't get it. what do you guys want? people on this board are ...
I'm going to open a new thread 'what is the best match ever, let's talk

You don't need to go to far to past.. just watch Federer vs Safin from AO 2005 1/2.. more games, variety and no 6 hours pain

Alex999
02-04-2012, 09:52 AM
[QUOTE=TennisOnWood;11715098]You don't need to go to far to past.. just watch Federer vs Safin from AO 2005 1/2.. more games, variety and no 6 hours pain[/QUOTE.
I have seen that match so many times. I love it. Safin was so great, Fed too.

GSMnadal
02-04-2012, 10:03 AM
As a Nadal fan I so desperately want to say otherwise, but that AO final was something else... I can say Nadal is nowhere near his peak, I can say his serve is terrible, I can say his backhand is dogshit and that Djokovic is just feasting on the fading Fedals. But that would be a lie.

Djokovic is ridiculous right now, he just isn't missing a shot. Nadal was fantastic that match, never seen him this aggressive, his flat forehand was great, he hit a couple of backhand winners I've never seen before from him. And his serve was actually decent apart from the third set. But then again, was his serve/backhand really that much better back in the days, or was it just not being tested back then like it is now? He didn't had someone who returned like Djokovic back then.

This has to be the greatest tennis ever, these two have taken it to the next level. There will be highs and lows in terms of quality, but in general:

today's greats > yesterday's greats

Myrre
02-04-2012, 10:19 AM
As someone said on another forum; Tennis lost, science won.

Action Jackson
02-04-2012, 10:23 AM
As a Nadal fan I so desperately want to say otherwise, but that AO final was something else... I can say Nadal is nowhere near his peak, I can say his serve is terrible, I can say his backhand is dogshit and that Djokovic is just feasting on the fading Fedals. But that would be a lie.

Djokovic is ridiculous right now, he just isn't missing a shot. Nadal was fantastic that match, never seen him this aggressive, his flat forehand was great, he hit a couple of backhand winners I've never seen before from him. And his serve was actually decent apart from the third set. But then again, was his serve/backhand really that much better back in the days, or was it just not being tested back then like it is now? He didn't had someone who returned like Djokovic back then.

This has to be the greatest tennis ever, these two have taken it to the next level. There will be highs and lows in terms of quality, but in general:

today's greats > yesterday's greats

Funny one.

nadejda
02-04-2012, 10:23 AM
this AO final isn't the greatest match I've ever seen, quality wise, not even top 5

Shirogane
02-04-2012, 10:26 AM
As someone said on another forum; Tennis lost, science won.
http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/v1/compositions/16264675/views/1,width=178,height=178,interlace=true/black-respect-the-chemistry-breaking-bad-t-shirts_design.png

Allez
02-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Whilst the Ossie final is obviously Not the greatest match ever I do agree that from around 2005 onwards it has been a golden age of tennis. Each year since has seen the tennis move up a gear. At least three of the greatest matches of all time (in terms of quality) took place during this period.

1. 2008 Wimbledon Men's Final. Roger vs Rafa
2. 2005 Australian Open Men's semi final Roger vs Marat Safin.
...
Top 10. 2012 Australian Open Men's Final Nole vs Nadal

fast_clay
02-04-2012, 10:46 AM
stepanek / paes is the best we have witnessed

Shinoj
02-04-2012, 10:47 AM
When you are judging Tennis you have to keep in mind of two aspects, the physicality and the skill level. This in terms of Physicality is one of the best ever. And i don't even remember such a physical slog since i started watching Tennis from the 90s. And trust me its not even close. Its gladitorial, its brutal, its astonishing really. Yes in terms of Physicality this is certainly one of the best ever. Those 4 5 hours Slogs on Roland Garos has been put to shame by these two.

And then comes the skill part. And i dont know whether its the court conditions or the evolution of the game but the skill part has been put as secondary. Not to say that the current game lacks skill but showing of skills in these conditions wont pay off much for sure. Your physical game is enough to put off your more graceful opponent for sure.

In terms of as a pure watching spectacle it is certainly one of the best ever but in terms of skill and grace of tennis it surely lacks.

TennisOnWood
02-04-2012, 10:55 AM
Whilst the Ossie final is obviously Not the greatest match ever I do agree that from around 2005 onwards it has been a golden age of tennis. Each year since has seen the tennis move up a gear. At least three of the greatest matches of all time (in terms of quality) took place during this period.

1. 2008 Wimbledon Men's Final. Roger vs Rafa
2. 2005 Australian Open Men's semi final Roger vs Marat Safin.
...
Top 10. 2012 Australian Open Men's Final Nole vs Nadal

Maybe you need to watch Rome 2006 final again too

Chirag
02-04-2012, 11:13 AM
the Ao match is definately above fedal 08

bokehlicious
02-04-2012, 11:20 AM
No this is not. Today's the "whoever-gets-the-best-supplements" era.

Roamed
02-04-2012, 11:22 AM
Of course people are going to be falling over themselves now, not even a week since it happened, calling it some of the best tennis ever, but no one is going to be talking about the 2017 Roland Garros final as 'potentially even better than the 2012 AO final!'

It was a tense match, but far too many errors in my view.

Sunset of Age
02-04-2012, 11:28 AM
A big fat NO to that one.
And I don't care if it's old legends saying so. They'll say anything to spark the interest in current tennis, as it's their bread.

2003
02-04-2012, 11:39 AM
It would be minus the gamesmanship and time wasting from top players that has crept into the game.

You in NZ yet Nina?

Farenhajt
02-04-2012, 11:45 AM
Absolutely. The utter tennis boredom in Sampras's Wimbledon days (ace, ace, service winner, serve-return-volley, service winner, game over, repeat ad nauseam) is finally over, and tennis is now - and rightfully - megaathletic sport ruled by gladiator-minded champions. Thanks Djokovic and Nadal for that.

Just bear in mind that those who belittle this era are exactly those interested in Federer and/or Nadal (possibly Murray too) winning titles. Sour grapes.

leng jai
02-04-2012, 11:48 AM
The longer the rallies the better. In 2025 we'll be fawning over 90 shot rallies on grass.

nalbyfan
02-04-2012, 12:26 PM
The best has yet to come

Allez
02-04-2012, 12:45 PM
The longer the rallies the better. In 2025 we'll be fawning over 90 shot rallies on grass.

:lol:

BigJohn
02-04-2012, 02:01 PM
Only noletards will agree with this.

BigJohn
02-04-2012, 02:02 PM
how you can ever dare to think that nole spam hasn't her own opinions

this

alexocfp
02-04-2012, 02:10 PM
looks like the writer frequents these forums because he referenced my Pandora's box quote from the "speed up the courts" thread

samanosuke
02-04-2012, 02:20 PM
With this could agree just people who haven't seen how tennis can be played and few gloryhuter journalists who aren't capable of writing decent tennis text so they have to write bunch of carp which could satisfy just people mentioned in first part of sentence

zcess81
02-04-2012, 02:24 PM
Nole fans will say "yes", Rafa fans will say "no", Fed fans will say "I don't care", and neutral fans will say...well, who cares about what they think anyway! :)

thrust
02-04-2012, 02:35 PM
ok. define the best match ever. I've seen so many good tennis matches. I can't really decide which one was the best... too many good matches. It was a great match IMHO, I had a great time. I mean, I don't get it. what do you guys want? people on this board are ...
I'm going to open a new thread 'what is the best match ever, let's talk

This year's AO final was indeed, IMO, a great match. However, I would not say it was the greatest ever. As you state, there have been so many great matches, it is impossible to pick just one. Today's game, with advanced equipment and physical training, is totally different from the Lave era. The other day I was watching a Laver-Rosewall match clips. In about 10 minutes there was more volleying, and overheads than in the nearly 6 hours of the AO final. They too ran each other aroud the court, back and forth, side to side. The net play, by both, was great. Their 72 WCT final was similiar to the match I saw on You Tube. That match was over 3 hours, of all-court exhausting tennis. It probably would be impossible today to play that sort of tennis, but both styles are to be enjoyed and reconized as great tennis.

TennisOnWood
02-04-2012, 02:40 PM
This year's AO final was indeed, IMO, a great match. However, I would not say it was the greatest ever. As you state, there have been so many great matches, it is impossible to pick just one. Today's game, with advanced equipment and physical training, is totally different from the Lave era. The other day I was watching a Laver-Rosewall match clips. In about 10 minutes there was more volleying, and overheads than in the nearly 6 hours of the AO final. They too ran each other aroud the court, back and forth, side to side. The net play, by both, was great. Their 72 WCT final was similiar to the match I saw on You Tube. That match was over 3 hours, of all-court exhausting tennis. It probably would be impossible today to play that sort of tennis, but both styles are to be enjoyed and reconized as great tennis.

And that really was one of the best matches all time

LawrenceOfTennis
02-04-2012, 02:42 PM
Nadal fans: no, it's complete shit.
Djokovic fans: best ever
Federer fans: low quality
Sampras fans: wtf is this?

rocketassist
02-04-2012, 02:44 PM
No, not anywhere near.

paseo
02-04-2012, 02:51 PM
The drama was great. But the tennis? It makes me sad, really.

zlaja777
02-04-2012, 03:02 PM
Funny how most of the people reply without even reading the whole article. He's not talking only about AO final.
Yes, the highest quality tennis has been produced by the current top 3 (starting with Feds peak years, followed by Nadal and the arrival of Djokovic who is now at his peak). This particular match is probably not the best ever, maybe most dramatic. But it is a good example.

r3d_d3v1l_
02-04-2012, 03:17 PM
Tennis isnīt all drama, it isnīt a physical struggle to see who lasts the most playing the game. Itīs a technical sport, period.

The joy i get from tennis is from the speed and beauty of the shots and from the technical brilliance displayed by the players. Thatīs it.

The thing is that nowadays theyīve been selling this spartan thing, where the most fittest player prevails, taking advantage of the slower courts and highly defensive play.

Itīs no surprise Djokovic and Nadal have been dominating most of the tour. Itīs all build to fit their styles. And iīm not offended when people say they enjoy their clashes, but to say itīs the best tennis we have ever seen is stupid.


PS: 2008 Wimbledon final is way overrated.

Bobby
02-04-2012, 03:38 PM
Tennis isnīt all drama, it isnīt a physical struggle to see who lasts the most playing the game. Itīs a technical sport, period.

The joy i get from tennis is from the speed and beauty of the shots and from the technical brilliance displayed by the players. Thatīs it.

The thing is that nowadays theyīve been selling this spartan thing, where the most fittest player prevails, taking advantage of the slower courts and highly defensive play.

Itīs no surprise Djokovic and Nadal have been dominating most of the tour. Itīs all build to fit their styles. And iīm not offended when people say they enjoy their clashes, but to say itīs the best tennis we have ever seen is stupid.


PS: 2008 Wimbledon final is way overrated.

Well said.

Pirata.
02-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Tennis isnīt all drama, it isnīt a physical struggle to see who lasts the most playing the game. Itīs a technical sport, period.

The joy i get from tennis is from the speed and beauty of the shots and from the technical brilliance displayed by the players. Thatīs it.

The thing is that nowadays theyīve been selling this spartan thing, where the most fittest player prevails, taking advantage of the slower courts and highly defensive play.

Itīs no surprise Djokovic and Nadal have been dominating most of the tour. Itīs all build to fit their styles. And iīm not offended when people say they enjoy their clashes, but to say itīs the best tennis we have ever seen is stupid.


PS: 2008 Wimbledon final is way overrated.

This, exactly.

ballbasher101
02-04-2012, 05:15 PM
Has journalism been this poor or am I just starting to notice? The match was poor but the drama was great. Djokovic pretty much choked the 4th set with some shocking play at times. Nadal then returned the favour in the fifth by giving the break back. The match-up is not that great to watch but I love the result :worship:. More Djoker victories please :D.

Action Jackson
02-04-2012, 05:30 PM
Has journalism been this poor or am I just starting to notice? The match was poor but the drama was great. Djokovic pretty much choked the 4th set with some shocking play at times. Nadal then returned the favour in the fifth by giving the break back. The match-up is not that great to watch but I love the result :worship:. More Djoker victories please :D.

Tennis journalism for the most part is awful, the best ones tend not to be native English speakers.

incognito
02-04-2012, 06:10 PM
Tennis isnīt all drama, it isnīt a physical struggle to see who lasts the most playing the game. Itīs a technical sport, period.

The joy i get from tennis is from the speed and beauty of the shots and from the technical brilliance displayed by the players. Thatīs it.

The thing is that nowadays theyīve been selling this spartan thing, where the most fittest player prevails, taking advantage of the slower courts and highly defensive play.

Itīs no surprise Djokovic and Nadal have been dominating most of the tour. Itīs all build to fit their styles. And iīm not offended when people say they enjoy their clashes, but to say itīs the best tennis we have ever seen is stupid.


PS: 2008 Wimbledon final is way overrated.
You make it sound like it's all about endurance, well, it isn't... If it was, then the favored playing style would be pushing the ball until someone falls over due to exhaustion. I definitely wouldn't describe Djokovic as a pusher and Nadal also displayed some brilliant shotmaking in this match, that is when Djokovic's deep returns/groundstrokes allowed him to. Djokovic and Nadal were hitting better winners deep into the 5th set and 6th hour than many others managed to display in their respective first few sets/hours of play. Players don't become pushers just because the other guy has an uncanny ability to retrieve balls that would be winners against 99% of players on tour.

As for endurance, endurance only truly comes into play when you meet someone who's actually your equal in terms of tennis skills. It's not like they are slugging it out past the 5 hour mark from round one. But, are you saying that endurance shouldn't be one of those factors (along with mental fortitude, etc) that separates two equally matched players? Isn't that also a part of the sports experience? This is tennis after all, not golf, you're supposed to do some running ;) You say that you appreciate the "beauty of shots and technical brilliance" in tennis, but isn't footwork and court positioning equally important in shotmaking technique? Even when someone like Federer neglects his footwork, his shotmaking and accuracy takes a visible hit. If footwork, running and stretching wasn't important to most tennis fans, then wheelchair tennis would be aired on primetime TV. There is more to tennis than just the finishing touch of the wrist, even Federer with all his touch and finesse knows better than to ignore that.

Regarding the historic development of the sport, from 1993-2003 (with the sole exception of Agassi in '99) you had year-ending #1's that were either ace serving machines (Sampras, Roddick), clay court specialists (Kuerten) or archetypal pushers (Hewitt). If anything has ever been a threat to the sport of tennis, it's IMHO not "monster fitness" but "monster serving". I definitely wouldn't want to see the likes of Isner and Raonic dominate the tour over someone like Djokovic.

samanosuke
02-04-2012, 06:24 PM
archetypal pushers (Hewitt)

hewitt is a pusher but nadal is a shotmaker :worship:


clay court specialists (Kuerten)

:facepalm:

ace serving machines (Sampras

:facepalm:


but even if your statements were true . there was some variety . not battle of last standing pin-pongers

it's amazing how somebody has the will to write few paragraphs of such quality rubbish :facepalm:

TennisOnWood
02-04-2012, 06:58 PM
Sampras never served 40 aces in a match (also not to many with +30).. stupid troicki made 28 in 4 sets in Wimbledon last year

ssin
02-04-2012, 06:59 PM
"a rock-paper-scissors relationship between Djokovic who beats Nadal, Nadal who beats Federer, and Federer who is the only player to beat Djokovic in a slam last year since 2010"

I like this part, it's funny. The AO final may not be the greatest match, but there was something in it that I had never seen before, it seems it fueled interest for tennis, even casual fans are now more intrigued, I wouldn't say these tennis times are boring. I'm looking forward to RG, and can't remember the last time I awaited some tournament with so much anticipation.

BodyServe
02-04-2012, 07:18 PM
If by "best tennis" you mean running left and right for 6 hours on a pathetic slow court then yes.

incognito
02-04-2012, 07:24 PM
archetypal pushers (Hewitt)

hewitt is a pusher but nadal is a shotmaker :worship:
I think you could say that he was at least in patches in this match (with the qualifier that I included and which you conveniently omitted for the sake of your argument - namely, when not pushed back by Djokovic's depth), at least it was evident that he was trying very hard to be that. I did not give the pretence of this statement being a complete analysis of his game. That's just something you've decided to extrapolate from my words.

[CODE]ace serving machines (Sampras

:facepalm:
There was of course more to his game than serving (he was far more versatile than, for instance, a true serve-bot like Ivanisevic), and I would never go as far as calling him an archetypal serve-bot for that matter. However, while we're generalizing the attributes of the current top players, I don't think this is any less an accurate statement.

but even if your statements were true . there was some variety . not battle of last standing pin-pongers

Are you talking about just the Djokovic-Nadal match[up] or the current state of tennis in general? I see some variety in the different matchups between the current top 4 and also the way they matchup/play on different surfaces (in the USO final they weren't pinned to the baseline quite as much). Then, additionally, you have contrasting styles further down the ranks within the top 20 as evidenced by the likes of Isner and Dolgopolov. It was way more boring to watch tennis at Wimbledon in the '90:s for instance. It's not such a bad time to be a tennis fan now...

Orka_n
02-04-2012, 07:32 PM
The most drawn-out tennis ever seen probably. The best? Meh, not so much.

Mr. Oracle
02-04-2012, 08:21 PM
The question that remains is will the increased physicality of the game reduce players' careers substantially, or will the improved science of the game (training methods, fitness levels, equipment) counter-act the physical demands and allow them to last for the length of a traditional career. I guess we'll know in about a decade from now. That said, it's pretty darn impressive that nadal has been able to last this long without any career ending injuries--I suspect we'll see alot of that from the current autobot players--(djokovic included?). This is clearly not the short shorts tennis era and wheezers are not welcome anymore.

samanosuke
02-04-2012, 08:32 PM
How i know that today's tennis sucks ? From watching Llodra's tanked matches I don't remember 98 without will pathetic points, just remember two pieces of brilliance points and it's enough to me . 40+ near death rallies every third point I leave to some other fans to enjoy

Looner
02-04-2012, 08:32 PM
The answer is a as resounding as possible NO.

MatchFederer
02-04-2012, 09:45 PM
The quality of tennis offensively in this match actually wasn't so high and it's a match being overrated in terms of quality because of the drama it produced and because Nadal picks is ass enough and Nole bounces the ball enough to stretch the match to 5 hours 53 minutes rather than about 5 hours 20 minutes. Novak can certainly play rather better on that surface, without much question.

TheBoiledEgg
02-04-2012, 10:54 PM
What a load of twaddle
Best ?? :haha:

Call this tennis ?

shuhrat
02-04-2012, 11:09 PM
Funny how most of the people reply without even reading the whole article. He's not talking only about AO final.
Yes, the highest quality tennis has been produced by the current top 3 (starting with Feds peak years, followed by Nadal and the arrival of Djokovic who is now at his peak). This particular match is probably not the best ever, maybe most dramatic. But it is a good example.
+1 :scratch: Well, most of you still would say no anyway and I don't think that was the best tennis I've ever seen either. But the message of the article is far more complicated than this one-line question and it's definitely worth to read.

There's not a single type of tennis to be able to please everyone and I get why the final was frustrating for someone. Then again the game is changing all the time. So I believe the AO final type of tennis won't last forever like McEnroe implied. While you don't need to adjust your taste in the game, surely you can show some respect to the players occasionally for what they're delivering with (to some's eyes) their limited talent under the given circumstances and acknowledge their efforts to reach that level.

MIMIC
02-04-2012, 11:19 PM
No this is not. Today's the "whoever-gets-the-best-supplements" era.

http://memecreator.net/advice-dog/showimage.php/407/oh-ok-stay-mad.jpg

tektonac
02-04-2012, 11:21 PM
maybe not the best but :lol: at the fedfarts drowning in their own hate and misery ...

leng jai
02-04-2012, 11:23 PM
30+ shot rallies used to be rare and fun to watch because of that. These days they're far too common even on hard court. How many of the shots in the really actually had a purpose? Over half of them are rally/junk balls which could have been avoided if someone had the balls to take the initiative.

Kat_YYZ
02-04-2012, 11:56 PM
it's fine to have some matches like this; that's what the clay season is for. But why on hard courts? Why all the time?

munZe konZa
02-05-2012, 12:01 AM
nice to see bitter fans of lesser players complaining, there must be something to it.

munZe konZa
02-05-2012, 12:19 AM
30+ shot rallies used to be rare and fun to watch because of that. These days they're far too common even on hard court. How many of the shots in the really actually had a purpose? Over half of them are rally/junk balls which could have been avoided if someone had the balls to take the initiative.

I like aces as well , I just don't like them in every game.

Gagsquet
02-05-2012, 12:34 AM
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/442474/442474,1255697109,2/stock-vector-human-brain-38968282.jpg For you Nole fan http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpUazPTJ42HWT9FfYvYOLrKdTAuIAPN jaFmXiEbwv0ZwnO9MiplknpvA

Hewitt =Legend
02-05-2012, 12:39 AM
it's fine to have some matches like this; that's what the clay season is for. But why on hard courts? Why all the time?

Because this is what the ATP/ITF wants. They are adhering to the casual tennis fan that doesn't know any better. Revenue is through the roof and this is all that matters to them. Just like any other business in the world I guess...

Looner
02-05-2012, 12:48 AM
nice to see bitter fans of lesser players complaining, there must be something to it.

And who allowed you to use a computer. I thought you needed a brain to use such a device.

In all seriousness, this final was plain boring for most of the points except when Novak decided to step it up.

FairWeatherFan
02-05-2012, 02:16 AM
Articles like this are why they've slowed down the courts in the first place.

Pirata.
02-05-2012, 02:55 AM
maybe not the best but :lol: at the fedfarts drowning in their own hate and misery ...

Fed is the best player of this past decade and arguably of all time, we really have nothing to be hateful or miserable about :wavey:

Pirata.
02-05-2012, 03:04 AM
Articles like this are why they've slowed down the courts in the first place.

Sad, but true.

atennisfan
02-05-2012, 03:07 AM
Fed is the best player of this past decade and arguably of all time, we really have nothing to be hateful or miserable about :wavey:


This x99999

Slice Winner
02-05-2012, 03:09 AM
Watching Montpellier makes me remember that tennis can actually be fun to watch sometimes.

They have this special new part of the scoring system there. Apparently you are able to gain points by hitting the ball past your opponent! They say it's called a 'winning shot', but I think it'll need to be shortened to catch on.

Yolita
02-05-2012, 03:54 AM
This kind of tennis is very compelling to a wider audience. The ratings for the AO final were among the highest for a sporting event on Australia's channel 7, almost 2 million people watched it. But what's most impressive is that at 1.30 am 1.6 million were still watching. Many people outside the sport have been attracted to this power-tennis because of the drama and the intensity of the duel.

Of course it's a matter of taste, but I prefer watching rallies than a series of aces in which you win by not letting the opponent touch the ball. I believe some people find that kind of tennis terribly exciting.

Aren't we lucky that we have players for all tastes?

rocketassist
02-05-2012, 04:19 AM
This kind of tennis is very compelling to a wider audience. The ratings for the AO final were among the highest for a sporting event on Australia's channel 7, almost 2 million people watched it. But what's most impressive is that at 1.30 am 1.6 million were still watching. Many people outside the sport have been attracted to this power-tennis because of the drama and the intensity of the duel.

Of course it's a matter of taste, but I prefer watching rallies than a series of aces in which you win by not letting the opponent touch the ball. I believe some people find that kind of tennis terribly exciting.

Aren't we lucky that we have players for all tastes?

WTA tards use this crap as their basis for their sycophantic diatribe, i.e. WTA isn't all-serve like the ATP. God help the future when people think reversing homogenization is gonna end up with Karlovic and Isner sharing the slams.

Shinoj
02-05-2012, 05:54 AM
I wanna see Novak play on the faster courts like the O2 arena or if we get lucky any more faster courts. I wanna see if he is really that good on all surfaces. Dont have much doubt about Nadal because he is close to pathetic on Faster surfaces.

silverarrows
02-05-2012, 06:11 AM
Federer vs Rafa Rome 2006 is better in terms of quality.

Chirag
02-05-2012, 06:22 AM
I like these kind of matches since they are rare .In the Australian Open it only happenned in the last 2 matches and since 127 matches were played ,its fine as it is .Of course they do need to speed up the hard courts .Especially Indian wells and Miami which behave slower than Madrid :facepalm:

Mechlan
02-05-2012, 07:31 AM
This kind of tennis is very compelling to a wider audience. The ratings for the AO final were among the highest for a sporting event on Australia's channel 7, almost 2 million people watched it. But what's most impressive is that at 1.30 am 1.6 million were still watching. Many people outside the sport have been attracted to this power-tennis because of the drama and the intensity of the duel.

Of course it's a matter of taste, but I prefer watching rallies than a series of aces in which you win by not letting the opponent touch the ball. I believe some people find that kind of tennis terribly exciting.

Aren't we lucky that we have players for all tastes?

There's nothing wrong with this tennis. But when the same brand of tennis is being played tournament after tournament and causing the top players to threaten to boycott to shorten the season, there is a problem.

As for players for all tastes, that is a joke. Where are the S&Vers? Where are the indoor carpet tournaments? The homogenization is very clear, and yes it's because people enjoy the long grinding points that it keeps happening. Doesn't make it a good thing, which I'm sure event the Nadal and Djokovic fans will agree with come October.

Nole fan
02-05-2012, 07:33 AM
Funny how most of the people reply without even reading the whole article. He's not talking only about AO final.
Yes, the highest quality tennis has been produced by the current top 3 (starting with Feds peak years, followed by Nadal and the arrival of Djokovic who is now at his peak). This particular match is probably not the best ever, maybe most dramatic. But it is a good example.

In 72 posts you're the only one who got it. :bigclap:
The rest are lazy knobs.

leng jai
02-05-2012, 07:42 AM
In 72 posts you're the only one who got it. :bigclap:
The rest are lazy knobs.

Too bad the match everyone is banging on about in this thread is a prime example of the "best tennis ever" these players are producing.

Nole fan
02-05-2012, 07:46 AM
You make it sound like it's all about endurance, well, it isn't... If it was, then the favored playing style would be pushing the ball until someone falls over due to exhaustion. I definitely wouldn't describe Djokovic as a pusher and Nadal also displayed some brilliant shotmaking in this match, that is when Djokovic's deep returns/groundstrokes allowed him to. Djokovic and Nadal were hitting better winners deep into the 5th set and 6th hour than many others managed to display in their respective first few sets/hours of play. Players don't become pushers just because the other guy has an uncanny ability to retrieve balls that would be winners against 99% of players on tour.

As for endurance, endurance only truly comes into play when you meet someone who's actually your equal in terms of tennis skills. It's not like they are slugging it out past the 5 hour mark from round one. But, are you saying that endurance shouldn't be one of those factors (along with mental fortitude, etc) that separates two equally matched players? Isn't that also a part of the sports experience? This is tennis after all, not golf, you're supposed to do some running ;) You say that you appreciate the "beauty of shots and technical brilliance" in tennis, but isn't footwork and court positioning equally important in shotmaking technique? Even when someone like Federer neglects his footwork, his shotmaking and accuracy takes a visible hit. If footwork, running and stretching wasn't important to most tennis fans, then wheelchair tennis would be aired on primetime TV. There is more to tennis than just the finishing touch of the wrist, even Federer with all his touch and finesse knows better than to ignore that.

Regarding the historic development of the sport, from 1993-2003 (with the sole exception of Agassi in '99) you had year-ending #1's that were either ace serving machines (Sampras, Roddick), clay court specialists (Kuerten) or archetypal pushers (Hewitt). If anything has ever been a threat to the sport of tennis, it's IMHO not "monster fitness" but "monster serving". I definitely wouldn't want to see the likes of Isner and Raonic dominate the tour over someone like Djokovic.

Most intelligent and spot on post so far. :yeah:

Action Jackson
02-05-2012, 07:52 AM
Djokovic and Nadal fans love tennis at the moment, it's pretty simple cause their men are ruling the roost. Then you see Nadal fans rip on the end of season Masters.

It's very easy to get what he is saying. How can it be the best ever when there is lack of diversity.

Nole fan
02-05-2012, 07:53 AM
Fed is the best player of this past decade and arguably of all time, we really have nothing to be hateful or miserable about :wavey:

And still you are. :lol:
Accept that he's not the end of it all. Tennis existed and will keep existing without Federer. Most people posting negative comments here are fedtards annoyed and frustrated with their guy not reaching the finals anymore and probably not winning another slam ever again. Such is life and evolution.

atennisfan
02-05-2012, 08:03 AM
I wanna see Novak play on the faster courts like the O2 arena or if we get lucky any more faster courts. I wanna see if he is really that good on all surfaces. Dont have much doubt about Nadal because he is close to pathetic on Faster surfaces.

Yes, I wanna see it too, and see whether this "best tennis we have ever seen" is really true.

samanosuke
02-05-2012, 08:08 AM
Tennis existed and will keep existing again.

says a girl who has been watching it from 06-07 and will stop to watch it when Nole retires

Nole fan
02-05-2012, 08:11 AM
says a girl who has been watching it from 06-07 and will stop to watch it when Nole retires

Your obsession with me is endearing. :hug:

Myrre
02-05-2012, 08:24 AM
And still you are. :lol:
Accept that he's not the end of it all. Tennis existed and will keep existing without Federer. Most people posting negative comments here are fedtards annoyed and frustrated with their guy not reaching the finals anymore and probably not winning another slam ever again. Such is life and evolution.

I like Novak's tennis. I just don't like his sudden transformation into superhuman Novak. It's a good thing that Nadal finally gets some of his own medicine though.

leng jai
02-05-2012, 10:06 AM
Your obsession with me is endearing. :hug:

Obo

atennisfan
02-05-2012, 10:50 AM
I like Novak's tennis. I just don't like his sudden transformation into superhuman Novak. It's a good thing that Nadal finally gets some of his own medicine though.


I wonder what makes Nole suddenly became super human.
Maybe the rest should also get some of Nole's non-glutein diet.

Vida
02-05-2012, 11:32 AM
it is the next step I guess. few players are so above everybody else its practically a league. is it "golden era"? in a way yes, cause its so clogged at the top. but it wont last.

Vida
02-05-2012, 11:34 AM
I wonder what makes Nole suddenly became super human.
Maybe the rest should also get some of Nole's non-glutein diet.

murray already did that didnt he? but novak has a health reaction to gluten, so it worked for him, not sure it'll work for everyone.

helvet kingdom
02-05-2012, 11:48 AM
best tennis? LOL
best running with a racket? maybe.

mikkemus23
02-05-2012, 01:39 PM
Hell no! There`s nothing like Fed 04-07.

TBkeeper
02-05-2012, 01:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBXANW9clw0
Hope this helps you with the answer ...

Commander Data
02-05-2012, 02:30 PM
Courier said a few things more that have been conveniently edited out:

1. It’s hard to get my head wrapped around the physical effort I saw Sunday night in Melbourne, even a few days later. The tennis Novak and Rafa were able to summon late in the match boggles my mind. Ivan Lendl and I were talking about it Monday morning on our way back to the States, and both of us were shaking our heads and asking the same question: How could they possibly not cramp up out there? Ivan and I were known to be among the fittest of our time, but neither of us felt like we could have possibly made it through the way those guys did. It was a hot night (Novak changed his first shirt at the 30-minute mark) and the rallies were brutal from the get-go. Whatever it is that these guys are drinking/eating on court, I want some immediately to stave off my jet lag.

hxxp://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=16176&zoneid=9

+1

Wonder what these guys take in.

Vida
02-05-2012, 02:46 PM
b2b 5 setter has happened before, dont see why courier looks so bewildered. he should know, still hanging in the locker rooms all over the globe, the fitness, recovery techniques, nutritional science, plain medicine have gone to another level in 20 years since them 2 were playing. those things as, I guess, plain technology of sports is on a level now that probably wont go much higher. you can invent only so much. add to that, the natural athletic talent that american could only dream about - you have what you have. nothing really to be bewildered about.

Myrre
02-05-2012, 02:54 PM
b2b 5 setter has happened before, dont see why courier looks so bewildered. he should know, still hanging in the locker rooms all over the globe, the fitness, recovery techniques, nutritional science, plain medicine have gone to another level in 20 years since them 2 were playing. those things as, I guess, plain technology of sports is on a level now that probably wont go much higher. you can invent only so much. add to that, the natural athletic talent that american could only dream about - you have what you have. nothing really to be bewildered about.

And you would know better than Courier and Lendl what it takes?

Vida
02-05-2012, 03:02 PM
And you would know better than Courier and Lendl what it takes?

oddly - yes. they dont appear to know anything so knowing little as I do does make me know better.

Shinoj
02-05-2012, 03:31 PM
irrespective of the court conditions what Novak is doing to tennis is something phenomenal. To think of it, its not he or his family who has advised ATP to slow down the courts. ATP probably slowed the courts down for better revenues and Novak, to start of, had talent for the game and then he in between showed incredible determination to improve himself and he did everything possible for that. To go Glutten free for optimal physical condition and he would have done what not.

Its not easy to overthrow an already existing dominating duo in the sport totally upside down and become a Number 1. He deserves every credit and every title that he is winning.

Some of the circumstances that the guy was in and he still ended up winning is really great. Down 5-4 Match points down in a US Open Semi Final against Roger Federer and down 4-2 against Rafael Nadal in the fifth set is not everybody cup of Tea.

I really hope he crosses Nadal Grand Slam count. Atleast.

alexocfp
02-05-2012, 04:16 PM
As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with 6 hour finals. Nobody wants tennis to go back to a serving contest.

I think a lot of tennis fans want some variety in the courts which is fair.

You can have slow claycourtrs which produce 6 hour matches but you can also have medium speed and fast hardcourts which favor the power players as well and end quicker.

This Australian open was a clay event on hardcourt which defeats the purpose of clay events.

And the next generation of tennis players are watching and as more of these players come in the game, and as the tennis athlete is improving every year, the 4 hour match will become the norm if the courts remain like this or are slowed down even more. In 10 years there will be 50 nadal and djokovic's on tour because that will become the standard in tennis, and not the exception as they are today.

look at the improvements in fitness, 30 years ago you could get drunk before a gs final and still win (of course your opponent was in the same establishment as you)

fitness now is a necessity, so the next step is player improvement.

nadal had a -40 winner/ue count and almost won. I dont want this to become the norm either because if this happened in a wta match it would be used as an example of how low quality the womens game is.

No matter how you support, you do not want tennis to evolve into just one style with one type of court.

Again, I dont mind long matches because I watched the ao final in its entirety, and the diehards will continue to watch, but I want to see how many fans will sit through this on a consistent basis.

Also not being said is you cannot play matches like this every week so the top players will have to play less and less and will not be in peak condition by the end of the year. Look at what the top players besides federer looked like at the atp finals.

This 6 hour match means nadal and djokovic will take it easy until the french open. Then the complaints will be why arent the top players playing more. You can't have it both ways.

Play a 6 hour us open final and see who is left in the stadium by the end.

That being said, 100% respect to both nadal and djokovic for the physical battle.

thrust
02-05-2012, 04:45 PM
Hell no! There`s nothing like Fed 04-07.

Except Nadal.

Ozone
02-05-2012, 04:47 PM
Yes. 3 GOATs playing at once? Duh.

tektonac
02-05-2012, 04:54 PM
Hell no! There`s nothing like Fed 04-07.

and then came Rafa Nadal.

rutinos harcos
02-05-2012, 05:11 PM
how you can ever dare to think that nole spam hasn't her own opinions

I know samanopuke,I know life is not easy for you at the moment.

Myrre
02-05-2012, 05:16 PM
oddly - yes. they dont appear to know anything so knowing little as I do does make me know better.

OK, I'll take your word over Courier's any day. :)

nadejda
02-05-2012, 05:26 PM
best tennis? LOL
best running with a racket? maybe.

:haha:

samanosuke
02-05-2012, 08:25 PM
best tennis? LOL
best running with a racket? maybe.

:haha:

Man, I liked your posting . You should have tried to mask the double one little more :lol:

stewietennis
02-05-2012, 08:36 PM
It was a great display of athleticism however the lack-of-contrast in their styles don't match the Wimbledon finals by Fed/Nadal and McEnroe/Borg. I would even rank the Nadal-Verdasco 2009 semi above this year's final.

bjurra
02-05-2012, 08:38 PM
Only an idiot would even suggest the possibility of the AO 2012 final being the best match ever. The first three sets were actually disappointing.

I think the AO final 2009 was the best match ever, too bad it was marred by Federer folding like a little girl in the 5th set. The first four sets were amazing.

BauerAlmeida
02-05-2012, 09:07 PM
Best match ever was Safin-Federer in AO 2005. Sets 4 and 5 were fantastic.

LeChuck
02-05-2012, 09:10 PM
A few years ago I thought Djokovic would 2 grand slam titles, one in Melbourne and one in New York, so he has comfortably exceeded my expectations.

It has been great to see him end the tedious monotony of the Fedal domination and he deserves all the plaudits has been getting.

Still seeing the same style of tennis dominating on every surface at every grand slam is painful, but unfortunately surface homogenisation is here to stay as long the top players are continually reaching the latter rounds of every grand slam.

NID
02-05-2012, 09:20 PM
+1

Wonder what these guys take in.

Lindt pralines?

fmolinari2005
02-05-2012, 09:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBXANW9clw0
Hope this helps you with the answer ...

It is a sad thing that we won't probably have guys playing like Haas and Federer in the future. The best hope is Dimitrov and I am not holding my breath.

Welcome to the generic baseliner era. Tennis is turning into the Tour of France.

Sophocles
02-05-2012, 09:49 PM
Some of the best defensive tennis on hard courts - yes. Whether you think that equals the best tennis depends on whether you have an imagination.

Farenhajt
02-05-2012, 11:23 PM
Several things had to happen for (singles) tennis to improve and finally say goodbye to all the remnants of hideous "serve and volley" era:

1. There's no more such thing as Federer;

2. ... Erm, sorry, that's all.

Action Jackson
02-05-2012, 11:55 PM
Several things had to happen for (singles) tennis to improve and finally say goodbye to all the remnants of hideous "serve and volley" era:

1. There's no more such thing as Federer;

2. ... Erm, sorry, that's all.

You didn't even know what tennis was before Djokovic won his first Grand Slam and some would say that hasn't changed.

Once Djokovic is past his peak, you will disappear again.

leng jai
02-05-2012, 11:59 PM
Is this the best the best article we've ever read?

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 12:00 AM
Is this the best the best article we've ever read?

Only if Peter Bodo or Tignor wrote it?

HKz
02-06-2012, 12:17 AM
No, this is NOWHERE near the best tennis ever. Physically, yes, the sport is becoming more and more demanding, but much of this is due to the play style of many of these players. I feel the tennis that they bring, while pretty entertaining, isn't the same thing as past players. This is much more about determination and physical strength in order to wait for high percentage opportunities to win the point.

Also, to compare these eras in terms of physical ability, very stupid thing to do. If Lendl, Courier, Chang, Connors, etc were born in this era, who is to say they wouldn't be just as fit? Fact is they did enough to succeed in their era which was certainly a lot more about actual tennis rather than anything physical at least when comparing to now.

habibko
02-06-2012, 01:28 AM
Deep within tennis geekdom, there is a group of fans convinced that this men's final was an epic demonstration of all that is wrong with tennis. They yearn for another time when hard courts were faster and it only took one brilliant shot -- rather than a dozen -- to win a point. "The Pandora's box has now been opened," bemoaned one contributor to a popular online forum. "The Australian Open got such great press that I fear the courts will be slowed down even further in order to assure five-hour finals."

interesting that the article quoted an MTF post :yeah:

The pandora's box has been opened now. The AO final got such great press that I fear the courts will be slowed down even further in order to assure 5 hour finals. Im sure the ITF and the grand slams like this kind of tennis, they get to sell the gladiatorial nature of the sport.

Of course this has other consequences, namely the players will see careers shortened considerably, and players will be more dead after the US open, as we saw this year when everyone, bar federer, was a zombie come the finals.

The only way the courts get sped up now is if people tire of 6 hour matches. This ao final was a novelty but if it becomes the norm there may be backlash by the average fan. Have people walk out halfway through 5 hour grand slam finals and see how fast changes get made, no pun intended. The reason the courts were slowed down initially was that 2 shot rallies were boring. We need not revisit those times again.

There has to be a happy medium between old school serve contest wimbledon and clay court matches on hardcourts which is what we have now, aka the balance has shifted too much to the other side.

The AO court was ridiculous, the ball hit the court and slowed down considerably like playing on a bouncy sponge.

As many people said, outside of clay, you should not have to hit 5 winners in order to get one. Sure, it may be outdated today to look at winners to ue because of the sheer difficulty of hitting winners, and i may be totally wrong here, but a match where a player is -40 and still almost wins should sound some alarm bells.

a spot on post of course and it seems to be the direction tennis is heading towards, tennis as we knew and loved will truly be dead with Federer's eventual retirement

fast_clay
02-06-2012, 01:38 AM
best tennis? LOL
best running with a racket? maybe.

:spit:

You didn't even know what tennis was before Djokovic won his first Grand Slam and some would say that hasn't changed.

Once Djokovic is past his peak, you will disappear again.

:haha: :haha:

interesting that the article quoted an MTF post :yeah:



a spot on post of course and it seems to be the direction tennis is heading towards, tennis as we knew and loved will truly be dead with Federer's eventual retirement

good spot habinko :worship: go mtf... a dinghy of truth in an ocean of sh!t...

alexocfp
02-06-2012, 04:04 AM
thanks for the kind words. I still cannot believe my simple post ended up quoted in the australian.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:16 AM
thanks for the kind words. I still cannot believe my simple post ended up quoted in the australian.

Shows how bad tennis journalism is, your post was a good one.

incognito
02-06-2012, 04:47 AM
It is a sad thing that we won't probably have guys playing like Haas and Federer in the future. The best hope is Dimitrov and I am not holding my breath.

Welcome to the generic baseliner era. Tennis is turning into the Tour of France.

Actually, that's Haas and baseliner Davydenko playing in case you didn't notice ;) FWIW, it's just a 10min highlight from a 5 set match, and I've seen better Youtube highlights from these past few slams.

Also, I'm not sure if you're lamenting the retirement of just a few talented/versatile individuals or the passing of a whole era. By the sound of it I would have to assume that everything was great in the world of tennis until this past year when Djokovic came along and spoiled the party. While the style of tennis played in this AO final may not be everyone's cup of tea, the way it's been "butchered" by some on this forum is just ridiculous. It's almost like there's some kind of reverse bandwagoning taking place, it's become fashionable to publicly display one's complete and utter disgust with this match as often as possible.

Nevermind the fact that this year's final by most accounts was better than last year's blowout, that this match was well received by the wider public (ignorant fools ;)) and that it's even been used as a positive example (hard to imagine, isn't it ;)) by some who are criticizing the women's final and the state of women's tennis in general. At the end of the day, this was just one of many past and future matches between Djokovic and Nadal, not every match between them has been (nor will be) as physical and drawn-out as this one was.

tektonac
02-06-2012, 06:00 AM
a spot on post of course and it seems to be the direction tennis is heading towards, tennis as we knew and loved will truly be dead with Federer's eventual retirement

not sure why you are trying to generalize what type of tennis should be loved? at least no more lame excuses when he retires. the sooner the better.

MariaV
02-06-2012, 07:43 AM
thanks for the kind words. I still cannot believe my simple post ended up quoted in the australian.

Well, I won't judge the tennis jorunalism but like AJ said, your post was a good one.

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 07:55 AM
Serbians hating on Federer. Old news.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-06-2012, 08:27 AM
Serbians hating on Federer. Old news.

Says the one who turned into a serbian and had a serbian flag during AO.

Time Violation
02-06-2012, 09:07 AM
a spot on post of course and it seems to be the direction tennis is heading towards, tennis as we knew and loved will truly be dead with Federer's eventual retirement

How dramatic :lol: Tennis has a 100+ years long history, it's certainly not going to "die" because one player retired, nobody is going to play forever anyway.

However on MTF, tennis dies and gets saved at least once per day, sometimes even multiple times per match, so nothing new here :)

You didn't even know what tennis was before Djokovic won his first Grand Slam and some would say that hasn't changed.

Once Djokovic is past his peak, you will disappear again.

Not really different from all those (talking in general, not pointing fingers) who pretend to be huge admirers of the game, but actually only follow Federer because he has the most slams.

leng jai
02-06-2012, 09:11 AM
FG is the reason tennis exists.

zcess81
02-06-2012, 09:11 AM
interesting that the article quoted an MTF post :yeah:



a spot on post of course and it seems to be the direction tennis is heading towards, tennis as we knew and loved will truly be dead with Federer's eventual retirement

:haha::haha: Funny thing is, Fed will probably still be playing tennis when he's 40, and by then he'll be beaten by so many mugs that a lot of people will forget how great he once was. But Fed's ego won't let him retire, he believes that he can win slams even at 40. If Fed is smart enough he'll retire after the Olympics (or shortly afterwards), especially if he wins gold.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-06-2012, 09:35 AM
However on MTF, tennis dies and gets saved at least once per day, sometimes even multiple times per match, so nothing new here :)

Spot on.

Vida
02-06-2012, 10:05 AM
so much crying over here :facepalm: jesus.

atennisfan
02-06-2012, 11:07 AM
Shows how bad tennis journalism is, your post was a good one.

NO. It shows how bad australian newspapers/journalism are.

habibko
02-06-2012, 11:14 AM
not sure why you are trying to generalize what type of tennis should be loved? at least no more lame excuses when he retires. the sooner the better.

naturally you wish him to retire soon, your flag suggests you would

How dramatic :lol: Tennis has a 100+ years long history, it's certainly not going to "die" because one player retired, nobody is going to play forever anyway.

However on MTF, tennis dies and gets saved at least once per day, sometimes even multiple times per match, so nothing new here :)

die is a figurative term, tennis isn't a living being to die, if the current trend continued tennis will no longer reward technical excellence, mastery and beautiful technique - the things avid tennis fans admired through the ages - but instead will reward freaks who run marathons on court to prolong the endless rallies until someone collapses

of course none of that is anything a Djokovic tard would comprehend

Time Violation
02-06-2012, 11:20 AM
die is a figurative term, tennis isn't a living being to die, if the current trend continued tennis will no longer reward technical excellence and mastery and beautiful technique, the things avid tennis fans admired through the ages, of course none of that is anything a Djokovic tard would comprehend

Look, I can understand that someone doesn't want to watch the sport when his favorite retires, that's cool, however to declare that everything "good" in tennis will (figuratively) die when some player retires, that's an ultimate manifestation of tardism - Aprčs moi, le déluge :spit: Hope you are just trolling though, otherwise not sure whether to laugh or to feel pity :)

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 11:26 AM
Not really different from all those (talking in general, not pointing fingers) who pretend to be huge admirers of the game, but actually only follow Federer because he has the most slams.

Yes, there are gloryhunters everywhere. Federer actually took a while to become the player he did, not like Nadal or Djokovic. Then this thread is clear evidence that there are so many instant experts on the game of tennis who think this is the epitome of tennis without a reference point.

Looking at old youtube clips thinking they can apply the same standards now to then, when it was more about tennis skill due to the equipment and surfaces.

As for tennis dying, well it depends on what side you are on.

NO. It shows how bad australian newspapers/journalism are.

The writer is an American, do some research please. The standard of tennis journalism is poor and only getting worse, especially within the English speaking world. When Tignor is considered a good journalist, the genre sucks.

Farenhajt
02-06-2012, 11:27 AM
You didn't even know what tennis was before Djokovic won his first Grand Slam and some would say that hasn't changed.

Once Djokovic is past his peak, you will disappear again.

You know, for a person supposedly ingesting great amounts of omega 3 acids in his diet, your brain is strangely shriveled, withered and non-inventive. This song you play is older than runes, yet you stick to it as if it being repeated enough times would make it true. Or that repeating it would change your status from a pseudo-connoiseur to some kind of expert.

Oh well :smoke: you just keep doing your thing, but bear in mind that your boy is ta-ta and good riddance, and my boy is the future. No matter how often or rare I make my appearance here.

tripwires
02-06-2012, 11:28 AM
This kind of tennis is very compelling to a wider audience. The ratings for the AO final were among the highest for a sporting event on Australia's channel 7, almost 2 million people watched it. But what's most impressive is that at 1.30 am 1.6 million were still watching. Many people outside the sport have been attracted to this power-tennis because of the drama and the intensity of the duel.

Of course it's a matter of taste, but I prefer watching rallies than a series of aces in which you win by not letting the opponent touch the ball. I believe some people find that kind of tennis terribly exciting.

Aren't we lucky that we have players for all tastes?

Why is it necessarily a choice between one or the other? Speeding up the courts doesn't necessarily translate to all matches becoming boring serve fests. The point which you have missed is that tennis has been changed too much in favour of 6-hour long "gladiatorial" "power-tennis" where players win not by the finesse of their shots but by 1) their physical conditioning; and/or 2) their ability to out last their opponent in a rally by not being the first person to make an unforced error. Nobody wants to watch 2 hours of aces; but I definitely have little interest in watching two guys run all over the court for 6 hours playing the same shots over and over with little to no variety or shot-making.

In fact, given the choice, I might choose to watch a serve-fest. At least that wouldn't rob me of 6 hours of my life.

FG is the reason tennis exists.

TH is the reason tennis exists.

tripwires
02-06-2012, 11:28 AM
You know, for a person supposedly ingesting great amounts of omega 3 acids in his diet, your brain is strangely shriveled, withered and non-inventive. This song you play is older than runes, yet you stick to it as if it being repeated enough times would make it true. Or that repeating it would change your status from a pseudo-connoiseur to some kind of expert.

Oh well :smoke: you just keep doing your thing, but bear in mind that your boy is ta-ta and good riddance, and my boy is the future. No matter how often or rare I make my appearance here.

Who's AJ's boy? :confused:

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 11:31 AM
Look, I can understand that someone doesn't want to watch the sport when his favorite retires, that's cool, however to declare that everything "good" in tennis will (figuratively) die when some player retires, that's an ultimate manifestation of tardism - Aprčs moi, le déluge :spit: Hope you are just trolling though, otherwise not sure whether to laugh or to feel pity :)

Not being able to spot the difference in style between Fed and Nadal/Djokovic is surely a tardism trademark.

Farenhajt
02-06-2012, 11:33 AM
Who's AJ's boy? :confused:

Well, with him, it's a Jewish Mother thing.

Jewish Mother: "Son, here's a blue tie, and a red tie. You may choose whichever you like better, but if you choose the red one, your mother will be very sad."

AJ keeps his "objective distance", but when somebody touches Federer's "greatness", he becomes very sad.

Puschkin
02-06-2012, 11:38 AM
The question asked originally is not if one prefers Novak, Rafa, Roger or whoever else was brought into the discussion. The simple answer to the question is no.

Castafiore
02-06-2012, 11:40 AM
At least that wouldn't rob me of 6 hours of my life.
That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Nobody forced you to watch 6 hours.

From a technical point of view, I agree that the AO final is not the best.

Having said that: the reason why many did enjoy it was because of the tension that could be felt until the end. People enjoyed it because it was a close battle to the end. It was not the best match in the history of tennis, it isn't as bad as many of you make it out to be.

Besides, with most tennis matches being the best of 3 sets, it's not very likely that we're going to see many 6 hour matches either.

tripwires
02-06-2012, 11:41 AM
That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Nobody forced you to watch 6 hours.

From a technical point of view, I agree that the AO final is not the best.

Having said that: the reason why many did enjoy it was because of the tension that could be felt until the end. People enjoyed it because it was a close battle to the end. It was not the best match in the history of tennis, it isn't as bad as many of you make it out to be.

Besides, with most tennis matches being the best of 3 sets, it's not very likely that we're going to see many 6 hour matches either.

True, I definitely exaggerated. I stopped watching after the fourth set and I only started watching halfway through the second.

Point is, the lack of variety in that match is pretty typical of today's tennis in general. And I personally find it boring, no matter how long the match is.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 11:43 AM
Faren, the act is still the same. Gloat when Djokovic wins, as if you won the match and hide when he loses.

Your knowledge of tennis can be written down on the back of a postage stamp folded in half and still have space left over. I've already explained why.

The sport evolves though not always in directions that are better for the game, especially when commercial interests are put ahead of the sport itself. It's about the game and the players, not the TV networks, agents or executives.

If people want to see feats of endurance then watch cross country skiing, marathon running. Tennis has a mixture of many great aspects these should be encouraged not dumbed down for casual fans or just producing the same style of play on all surfaces.

Vida
02-06-2012, 11:55 AM
there are many things which could be better, but its the amount of "epic" that makes press label this era as they are. there was fed, a great player, than nadal, also a great player, and than suddenly theres djokovic winning everything ... :shrug: in a way I find it justified that its called golden ere, while, for sure, its ok to point to what could be better.

but look at it from another perspective: in a few years there might not be epic clashes between great players and we could still end up with boring, repetitive baseline bashing and choking all over the place. from that point, looking back, this era will especially be called golden era, but not because of all the artistry but cause of all the "epic". its just how a common fan gets fascinated.

bouncer7
02-06-2012, 12:13 PM
maybe not the best but :lol: at the fedfarts drowning in their own hate and misery ...

LOL

Vida
02-06-2012, 12:23 PM
sometimes it is indeed difficult to distinguish justified critique from sour grapes.

Farenhajt
02-06-2012, 12:33 PM
Faren, the act is still the same. Gloat when Djokovic wins, as if you won the match and hide when he loses.

Your knowledge of tennis can be written down on the back of a postage stamp folded in half and still have space left over. I've already explained why.

The sport evolves though not always in directions that are better for the game, especially when commercial interests are put ahead of the sport itself. It's about the game and the players, not the TV networks, agents or executives.

If people want to see feats of endurance then watch cross country skiing, marathon running. Tennis has a mixture of many great aspects these should be encouraged not dumbed down for casual fans or just producing the same style of play on all surfaces.

Yup, as I said - whatever doesn't work for Federer's goals is definitely the step back in the history of tennis.

You know, people don't want to watch feats of endurance. People want to watch feats of endurance IN TENNIS. Extremely more entertaining sport than those boredom fests such as Langlauf (don't you find it significant that it was Norwegians who invented it?) and marathon.

But not only that, you know. After decades of S&V and Federer's hybrid school (a bit of S&V legacy, some of the baseline stuff, as much as his lame BH allowed), where the stress was on brilliant OFFENSIVE shotmaking, what people want to watch now is DEFENSIVE tennis at the genius level, which naturally requires very high endurance. Their hopes were never met by the likes of Hewitt, but now spectators can enjoy a whole new chapter in tennis history - and thank God for that. If you can't see beauty in defensive tennis, but only in offense, then you are indeed a tennis ignorant.

As for fairweather, you can repeat it all you want. People here know that all of your "knowledge" on tennis is simply recycling what other people say - much the same type of act as Clay Death, but you don't overdo it, so you can keep the act of "knowledgeable class". Bullshit.

To conclude: this era of tennis beats anything any kind of S&V'er of spliced-up Federer produced. In 10 years time no one will even remember there was an opposition to new anti-Federer gladiator school of tennis.

duong
02-06-2012, 12:45 PM
Yet by any objective view of tennis, the sport has never been faster, stronger or more skilful. In pure athletic terms, last Sunday's final was played at a pace and intensity that stunned not only observers but greats of the game and professionals still competing at the top levels of the sport.

The deceit in this article is that nearly all of the arguments are about the physicality of the match, if you read carefully only McEnroe speaks about the shots.

But then in the end of the sentence they add like for nothing "or more skilful".

I personally consider that there were many more skills in the game of McEnroe, Laver and Nastase.

As for the physicality, yes it looks like the most physical performance of all times, yes precisely

... but why wouldn't it get better in the future ?

If this is all got by training ... or doping, why wouldn't the physical part of tennis get much and much better later ?

Personally, my main fear about this match is that if the physique gets so important in tennis and if it's so so hard, there has never been better incitation for doping.

I say that without even talking of Djokovic and Nadal here ... a sport where the physique is that important and hard inevitably gets extremely contaminated by doping (if it's not already) : look at cycling.

Sorry but this worries me, not puts me into delight, because I'm not naive. And I know that the doping controls in tennis are much worse than in cycling which is heavily contaminated by doping.

And the fact that all of these commentators don't even say one word about that, that the debate goes on other questions about "aesthetics", is even more worrying, because it means that a chape of hypocrisy has been put on all of that in tennis.

McEnroe, speaking to a tennis academy in New York this week, declared Djokovic the best returner of serve the game had seen -- better than Agassi, better than Jimmy Connors.

I used to think that but somebody showed me the Ricoh stats : undoubtedly Murray has had better stats than Djokovic about that.

And the fact that this point is so much emphasized after a match against Nadal's serve, surely not one of the best ones, clearly shows how much "marketing" is involved in those judgments and surely not an "expert opinion" : McEnroe's words are all about the marketing of tennis since he has started working for American TV (including about Federer ;) )

Vida
02-06-2012, 12:54 PM
people should not be too worried about too much physicality in tennis imo. theres only two or three players who are that good athletically that you can't beat them any other way than to outgrind/outhit them physically (and consequently - mentally). they wont live forever and it is not very likely there will be such a combination anytime soon. bitching about physicality, pardon my french, is sour grapes most often coming from fed fans all in pain cause "no hands" nadal beat their fave.

samanosuke
02-06-2012, 01:08 PM
Even the most tardest tards wouldn't admire to defensive skill more than attacking, at least they would be denying defensive play of their idols but this guy is just something else, something different, even for this place .

I haven't met closely with Farenhajt's work till now . Just heard the rumors and unfortunately all were true

Farenhajt
02-06-2012, 01:13 PM
^Ma duvaj ga, moronu.

duong
02-06-2012, 01:14 PM
people should not be too worried about too much physicality in tennis imo. theres only two or three players who are that good athletically that you can't beat them any other way than to outgrind/outhit them physically (and consequently - mentally). they wont live forever and it is not very likely there will be such a combination anytime soon.

yes yes tennis is a heaven, the only sport which will be free from doping, and where nobody will ever be able to have a physique like Djokovic and Nadal.

If you read carefully the article, it doesn't say that the current "best tennis ever seen" came because, by miracle, 3 "Goats" were born in the same period.

No it explains that the "best tennis ever seen" comes from the fact that not only the rackets have changed but also the training, physiological methods for players have never been better.

So how did tennis get here? Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley, who has worked for 35 years as a tennis administrator, coach and player, tells The Weekend Australian it is man responding to machine. Where the much-discussed improvement in racquet and string technology since Borg's days has enabled players to hit with ballistic power and fierce spin, less appreciated is the hidden revolution taking place in the physiology of players and how they train and prepare to make best use of these high-tech tools.

bouncer7
02-06-2012, 01:22 PM
Even the most tardest tards wouldn't admire to defensive skill more than attacking, at least they would be denying defensive play of their idols but this guy is just something else, something different, even for this place .

I haven't met closely with Farenhajt's work till now . Just heard the rumors and unfortunately all were true

and who you are to talk about history of tennis LOL you weren't even born when Goran had played GS finals. You words have same weight as one from Sapeod and both of you were playin in sandbox when Federer start dominaton LOL

Vida
02-06-2012, 01:24 PM
yes yes tennis is a heaven, the only sport which will be free from doping, and where nobody will ever be able to have a physique like Djokovic and Nadal.

If you read carefully the article, it doesn't say that the current "best tennis ever seen" came because, by miracle, 3 "Goats" were born in the same period.

No it explains that the "best tennis ever seen" comes from the fact that not only the rackets have changed but also the training, physiological methods for players have never been better.

dont matter what this specific article said tbh I havent payed much attention to it beyond first glance. what you say in the end is only the set of circumstances in which players that we have now have flourished. nothing else. make no mistake about it, the key lays in the players nowhere else.

now would it be different were there different circumstances? sure, but you could've easily had worst results in the same circumstances had it not been the players. easily.

its almost the same thing with why fed musnt take the blame for weak era.

atennisfan
02-06-2012, 01:24 PM
The deceit in this article is that nearly all of the arguments are about the physicality of the match, if you read carefully only McEnroe speaks about the shots.

But then in the end of the sentence they add like for nothing "or more skilful".

I personally consider that there were many more skills in the game of McEnroe, Laver and Nastase.

As for the physicality, yes it looks like the most physical performance of all times, yes precisely

... but why wouldn't it get better in the future ?

If this is all got by training ... or doping, why wouldn't the physical part of tennis get much and much better later ?

Personally, my main fear about this match is that if the physique gets so important in tennis and if it's so so hard, there has never been better incitation for doping.

I say that without even talking of Djokovic and Nadal here ... a sport where the physique is that important and hard inevitably gets extremely contaminated by doping (if it's not already) : look at cycling.

Sorry but this worries me, not puts me into delight, because I'm not naive. And I know that the doping controls in tennis are much worse than in cycling which is heavily contaminated by doping.

And the fact that all of these commentators don't even say one word about that, that the debate goes on other questions about "aesthetics", is even more worrying, because it means that a chape of hypocrisy has been put on all of that in tennis.



I used to think that but somebody showed me the Ricoh stats : undoubtedly Murray has had better stats than Djokovic about that.

And the fact that this point is so much emphasized after a match against Nadal's serve, surely not one of the best ones, clearly shows how much "marketing" is involved in those judgments and surely not an "expert opinion" : McEnroe's words are all about the marketing of tennis since he has started working for American TV (including about Federer ;) )


I totally agree with everything you said.

It is too naive to think that there's no doping in tennis.

Vida
02-06-2012, 01:26 PM
by the way goran just said djoko can be the best of all time.

http://www.index.hr/sport/clanak/ivanisevic-za-index-htio-sam-srediti-hrvatski-tenis-savez-je-na-razini-ispod-nule/597595.aspx

HNCS
02-06-2012, 01:33 PM
Yup, as I said - whatever doesn't work for Federer's goals is definitely the step back in the history of tennis.

You know, people don't want to watch feats of endurance. People want to watch feats of endurance IN TENNIS. Extremely more entertaining sport than those boredom fests such as Langlauf (don't you find it significant that it was Norwegians who invented it?) and marathon.

But not only that, you know. After decades of S&V and Federer's hybrid school (a bit of S&V legacy, some of the baseline stuff, as much as his lame BH allowed), where the stress was on brilliant OFFENSIVE shotmaking, what people want to watch now is DEFENSIVE tennis at the genius level, which naturally requires very high endurance. Their hopes were never met by the likes of Hewitt, but now spectators can enjoy a whole new chapter in tennis history - and thank God for that. If you can't see beauty in defensive tennis, but only in offense, then you are indeed a tennis ignorant.

As for fairweather, you can repeat it all you want. People here know that all of your "knowledge" on tennis is simply recycling what other people say - much the same type of act as Clay Death, but you don't overdo it, so you can keep the act of "knowledgeable class". Bullshit.

To conclude: this era of tennis beats anything any kind of S&V'er of spliced-up Federer produced. In 10 years time no one will even remember there was an opposition to new anti-Federer gladiator school of tennis.


:speakles:
I hope you never get to meet Novak Djokovic in person. He might just quit tennis knowing he inspired 'tennis' fans like you.

bouncer7
02-06-2012, 01:34 PM
yes yes tennis is a heaven, the only sport which will be free from doping, and where nobody will ever be able to have a physique like Djokovic and Nadal.


who really cares why others players are lazy ones, most of people want to watch champions and they have it. And the rest of people are whining at forums about these lazy ones. So natural LOL

samanosuke
02-06-2012, 01:39 PM
^Ma duvaj ga, moronu.

tu se već bolje snalaziš . drži se samo ti uvreda, teniske analize pusti drugima

and who you are to talk about history of tennis LOL you weren't even born when Goran had played GS finals. You words have same weight as one from Sapeod and both of you were playin in sandbox when Federer start dominaton LOL

i am touched deeply with your ability for reading people, so strong words from one tennis guru bringing the tears on my eyes

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Stick to English, this is not a Serbian speaking forum.

samanosuke
02-06-2012, 01:46 PM
Stick to English, this is not a Serbian speaking forum.

He said " Suck it, moron "
I said " You are better in insulting people than in tennis analyzes so you better stick with it and analyzes leave for somebody else "

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 01:57 PM
by the way goran just said djoko can be the best of all time.

Hlasek said it is Federer :shrug:

Vida
02-06-2012, 01:59 PM
Hlasek said it is Federer :shrug:

he probably mean now. goran was speaking as in potential.

(told you this is going to happen)

Shirogane
02-06-2012, 02:01 PM
Roddick summed it up best IMO: "What they're doing is physically impressive."

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 02:03 PM
he probably mean now. goran was speaking as in potential.

(told you this is going to happen)

Potentially Dimitrov is the GOAT. End of story.

tennizen
02-06-2012, 02:03 PM
The sport evolves though not always in directions that are better for the game, especially when commercial interests are put ahead of the sport itself. It's about the game and the players, not the TV networks, agents or executives.

And who is to be the judge of what exactly that means or constitutes? The MTF ACC committee?

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 02:09 PM
And who is to be the judge of what exactly that means or constitutes? The MTF ACC committee?

You don't get it do you. Not every innovation is better for the sport, yes the sport is more important than Fed, Murray, Djokovic or Nadal.

Slowing down of the surfaces to the level where they reduce the variety of playing style doesn't benefit for the sport, only the ATP/ITF because they benefit the most financially. Technique, fitness, tactical, mental strength and application of these assets need different scenarios, very hard to do so when surface homogensiation reduces the differences and yes I remember the old days.

Cricket hasn't always benefited from certain developments, some ways yes, some ways, no and tennis is not different. It's not hard.

Clay Death
02-06-2012, 02:10 PM
i will end this nonsense. the sport of tennis is evolving right before our very eyes to its highest level. this is as good as it gets.

its a natural progression based on natural selection. there can be no other conclusion.


you can cry, weep, and bitch all you want to but some slowing down of the courts--like the wimbledon grass--was critical for the survival of the sport.

who the hell is insterested in serving contests? people want to see the actual war waged on the court that is replete with endurance, athleticism, intelligence, strategy, and tactics.

also who the hell is going to be able to return 170 mph serves of the future and 120 mph drives to the corners which is not too far off now. the runaway speed of the game--driven by technology, advances in sports medicine, and simply bigger and better athletes--has to be kept in check. and the only way to do that is to slow the courts down.

the runaway speed and the power of the sport cannot and will not allow you to play any other way except from the baseline. you cant volley what you cant see or get to. hell even at the baseline they are having to guess, let alone at the net. the war must be waged from the backcourt. go ahead rush to the net if you want to behind your 135 MPH serve but you wont be able to pay your mortgage.


to recapitulate, dont let some clueless observer of the sport bend your mind. the sport is by far at its highest level ever. we have 3 all time greats that simply wont allow anybody else on their dinner table. that is the only problem we have and it is a problem for the rest of the players and not us.

top 3 are just too damn good. none of the players of the past would have stood much of a chance against these top 3. murray is trying to catch up but he too is a dominant force in his own right.

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:12 PM
interestingly, steve tignor thinks surfaces havent changed that much in the last 10 years, and that the whole thing is overblown.

It’s also not like the surfaces are getting slower everyday, as some people seem to think. Wimbledon’s grass has been the same since 2001; players have been talking about Key Biscayne playing like clay since at least 2005; the Aussie Open’s previous surface, Rebound Ace, was a similar pace to the Plexicushion they use now, and it was installed in 1988. Many fans hold out Federer as an example of an attacking player who can’t win on today’s courts, but he’s been winning on them his whole career, including five trips to the French Open final.

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/reading-the-readers-ozzie-edition.html

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:14 PM
Potentially Dimitrov is the GOAT. End of story.

no way dimitrov will ever be greater than laver. no way.

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:17 PM
You don't get it do you. Not every innovation is better for the sport, yes the sport is more important than Fed, Murray, Djokovic or Nadal.

Slowing down of the surfaces to the level where they reduce the variety of playing style doesn't benefit for the sport, only the ATP/ITF because they benefit the most financially. Technique, fitness, tactical, mental strength and application of these assets need different scenarios, very hard to do so when surface homogensiation reduces the differences and yes I remember the old days.

Cricket hasn't always benefited from certain developments, some ways yes, some ways, no and tennis is not different. It's not hard.

wait if the slowing of courts leads to decreased variety which in turn is bad for the sport cause of all the boring baseline slugging why did the tour choose to go that way?

TennisOnWood
02-06-2012, 02:17 PM
Tignor strikes back

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 02:17 PM
interestingly, steve tignor thinks surfaces havent changed that much in the last 10 years, and that the whole thing is overblown.



http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/reading-the-readers-ozzie-edition.html

What does that journalist know about it? I'd rather trust the players who actually play on the surfaces :shrug:

no way dimitrov will ever be greater than laver. no way.

no way djokovic will ever be greater than laver. no way.

arm
02-06-2012, 02:20 PM
no way dimitrov will ever be greater than laver. no way.

:rolls:

Clay Death
02-06-2012, 02:20 PM
interestingly, steve tignor thinks surfaces havent changed that much in the last 10 years, and that the whole thing is overblown.



http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/reading-the-readers-ozzie-edition.html

of course it is overblown: by the clueless clowns and the imbeciles in the press.

queens is as fast as ever. us. open is fast as ever. killer cahill said that australian open was "medium fast".

grass is still grass. the ball stays low and so on.

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:22 PM
What does that journalist know about it? I'd rather trust the players who actually play on the surfaces :shrug:
no way djokovic will ever be greater than laver. no way.

what tignor say is the bible.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-06-2012, 02:23 PM
Potentially Dimitrov is the GOAT. End of story.

BS

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 02:25 PM
wait if the slowing of courts leads to decreased variety which in turn is bad for the sport cause of all the boring baseline slugging why did the tour choose to go that way?

I remember the bad old days, yes the matches where they might as well have started at the tiebreaks. Even then the clay was the alternative, which stopped the worst excesses.

Fact is this, they needed to do something cause there weren't enough rallies on the faster surfaces. That was the ATP/ITF fault for not regulating equipment unlike golf, hockey, baseball and cricket where the weapons of choice are very specific as to what they can include.

In spite of this, there was actual diversity and now the game is safe enough they can make the game faster on quicker surfaces and slower on clay. You know when Fed and Djokovic say that they've benefited from surface homogenisation it's pretty clear.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 02:26 PM
Tignor strikes back

If Tignor says something, the golden rule is opposite.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-06-2012, 02:27 PM
If Tignor says something, the golden rule is opposite.

this

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 02:27 PM
what tignor say is the bible.

what goran says as well :hug:

tennizen
02-06-2012, 02:28 PM
You don't get it do you. Not every innovation is better for the sport, yes the sport is more important than Fed, Murray, Djokovic or Nadal.

You say better for the sport again. A sport has many different stakeholders with inherently opposing requirements. What criteria do you have to pick and choose and say this is better for the sport than this? At best, you can say what's better for you as a viewer. But that's a very limited view point given that not even all viewers will be in agreement with you over what is best.

Probably the biggest impetus for change would be if the players are in opposition to the existing conditions. But I'd be surprised if there was any sort of consensus even amongst them as to what would constitute "better".

samanosuke
02-06-2012, 02:31 PM
by the way goran just said djoko can be the best of all time.

http://www.index.hr/sport/clanak/ivanisevic-za-index-htio-sam-srediti-hrvatski-tenis-savez-je-na-razini-ispod-nule/597595.aspx

Just for Nadal tards you should have translated the second part of sentence also :lol:

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 02:34 PM
You say better for the sport again. A sport has many different stakeholders with inherently opposing requirements. What criteria do you have to pick and choose and say this is better for the sport than this? At best, you can say what's better for you as a viewer. But that's a very limited view point given that not even all viewers will be in agreement with you over what is best.

Diversity of styles and conditions are better, but they don't count as it's all about cash. My own personal preferences count for shit and you don't know what they are. There are reasons that the boom time of tennis was the mid 70s through to mid 80s. Had diversity of characters at the top, diverse playing styles and conditions, that fans could easily relate to.

Surface homogenisation suits the money people cause they can market the big 4 thinking about all the $$$$$$$ easier without growing anything behind them or looking to the future.

If you seriously think virtually the same style of tennis on all surfaces besides movement doesn't lead to tedium, it's not different to what happened when they changed it.

Probably the biggest impetus for change would be if the players are in opposition to the existing conditions. But I'd be surprised if there was any sort of consensus even amongst them as to what would constitute "better".

Like the top players are going to give a shit when they benefit from the status quo, don't be naive.

They aren't going to be around forever. ATP/ITF are reactionary forces, nothing will happen unless it's so bad, they have to do something.

Clay Death
02-06-2012, 02:41 PM
You say better for the sport again. A sport has many different stakeholders with inherently opposing requirements. What criteria do you have to pick and choose and say this is better for the sport than this? At best, you can say what's better for you as a viewer. But that's a very limited view point given that not even all viewers will be in agreement with you over what is best.

Probably the biggest impetus for change would be if the players are in opposition to the existing conditions. But I'd be surprised if there was any sort of consensus even amongst them as to what would constitute "better".



at last a reasonable and objective post. well done great tennizen.


damn near every sport is being played at its highest level ever. that might give some clues to the truly clueless.

its better technology, greater and more advances in sports medicine, better training, and better and bigger athletes.

could anybody expect a different conclusion. its the natural progression based on natural selection.

and of course its better than ever before. take guys like sampras and edberg. today they would have trouble winning small, mickey mouse events, let alone masters events and slams.

with the runaway speed and the power in the sport, there is simply no other way to wage war on the court except from the baseline.

fed has been asked this very question himself. he said he cant win as a serve and volley player in the modern game. nobody can.

this homogenisation bullshit is being oversold and overbought. by those who are looking for a better, more dramatic story to the truly clueless who need somebody to console them during their endless weeping sessions.

bouncer7
02-06-2012, 02:43 PM
What does that journalist know about it? I'd rather trust the players who actually play on the surfaces :shrug:

yeah you should trust lame excuses for defeats LOL
why should you trust to anyone

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:44 PM
Just for Nadal tards you should have translated the second part of sentence also :lol:

goran mentions nadal as that he cant beat djokovic. he than goes on to mention him once more when describing federer as having "big nadal complex".

:/

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:53 PM
I remember the bad old days, yes the matches where they might as well have started at the tiebreaks. Even then the clay was the alternative, which stopped the worst excesses.

Fact is this, they needed to do something cause there weren't enough rallies on the faster surfaces. That was the ATP/ITF fault for not regulating equipment unlike golf, hockey, baseball and cricket where the weapons of choice are very specific as to what they can include.

In spite of this, there was actual diversity and now the game is safe enough they can make the game faster on quicker surfaces and slower on clay. You know when Fed and Djokovic say that they've benefited from surface homogenisation it's pretty clear.

this is confusing in the sense that the main complaint seemed to be in lack of versatility in the middle ranked player not in the fact we have big 4. it is good to have big players clogged up there in any era, but what is lacking now is the strong R2 players, surface specialist, etc...

whats that gotta do with fed and djokovic benefiting from surface homogenization? one arguably the goat and the other is, well, no 1 player. somebody has to be no 1 player, and for sure there have been dominant no 1s in the past - on all kinds of surfaces.

bouncer7
02-06-2012, 02:55 PM
goran mentions nadal as that he cant beat djokovic. he than goes on to mention him once more when describing federer as having "big nadal complex".

:/

poor guy goran he thinks it is complex. Will someone finally tell him it is surface homogenisation problem :(

Shirogane
02-06-2012, 02:55 PM
Djoko might be "clueless" as he thinks play on grass has been slowed down since he started on the tour, but he certainly is the man without any complexes at the moment.

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:56 PM
poor guy goran he thinks it is complex. Will someone finally tell him it is surface homogenisation problem :(

lol.

by the way, who ever hear of GOAT having a "complex"?! :confused:

tennizen
02-06-2012, 02:56 PM
Diversity of styles and conditions are better, but they don't count as it's all about cash.

What's wrong with the same style being played to an excellent and sustained high level other than producing boredom in a subsection of viewers?

My own personal preferences count for shit and you don't know what they are. There are reasons that the boom time of tennis was the mid 70s through to mid 80s. Had diversity of characters at the top, diverse playing styles and conditions.
Boom time in terms of what?

Surface homogenisation suits the money people cause they can market the big 4 thinking about all the $$$$$$$ easier without growing anything behind them or looking to the future. If the top 4 are being successfully marketed by the money people ,isn't this a sort of boom time for tennis, then?

Like the top players are going to give a shit when they benefit from the status quo, don't be naive.I wasn't limiting myself to the top 4. I was referring to the entire body of players. Also, the top 4 adapted to the status quo. Nobody crowned them kings and placed them there. They rose to the top through the exact same conditions available for everyone.

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 02:58 PM
lol.

by the way, who ever hear of GOAT having a "complex"?! :confused:

Sorry to break it to you but Djokovic obviously has a personality complex, he'll never be GOAT then. :sad:

Vida
02-06-2012, 02:59 PM
Sorry to break it to you but Djokovic obviously has a personality complex, he'll never be GOAT then. :sad:

look. can a GOAT have a "complex"? no.

does fed have a nadal "complex"? yes.

:shrug:.... draw your own conclusions.;)

bokehlicious
02-06-2012, 03:01 PM
look. can a GOAT have a "complex"? no.

does fed have a nadal "complex"? yes.

:shrug:.... draw your own conclusions.;)

Fed doesn't have any "complex". Just unlucky to have the perfect bad match-up here.

Vida
02-06-2012, 03:05 PM
Fed doesn't have any "complex". Just unlucky to have the perfect bad match-up here.

:eek: oh oh Ive never head it called that way. praise the lord...

feds got a girly nerve fat as my arm and entire planet knows it. see nadal over the net or, recently, djokovic, the nerve gets all wobbly and a huge choke is right around the corner sure as hell itself. there will be books about it just you wait.

I wouldnt be too sure about that GOAT thing if I were you.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:06 PM
this is confusing in the sense that the main complaint seemed to be in lack of versatility in the middle ranked player not in the fact we have big 4. it is good to have big players clogged up there in any era, but what is lacking now is the strong R2 players, surface specialist, etc...

It actually all ties in together. Very hard to have surface specialists when there is virtually no difference between the surfaces besides specific movement.

whats that gotta do with fed and djokovic benefiting from surface homogenization? one arguably the goat and the other is, well, no 1 player. somebody has to be no 1 player, and for sure there have been dominant no 1s in the past - on all kinds of surfaces

It actually has quite a lot to do with it. The players before Federer to a lesser extent actually had to test themselves on you know fast low bouncing carpet, slick hardcourts, low bouncing grass and the clay was slower then with heavier balls. Look at Fed's clay record pre-2004 against players past their best on clay with that game from a previous generation, he struggled. At the same time he had the strokes and game to play during that time, he was able to adjust to conditions.

Djokovic and Nadal never played in those conditions, so you know it goes back to what I said the previous conditions were more of a test. From Federer himself " Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself".

In other words the conditions today are too similar that impacts on the tennis and results, pretty easy to see.

Pirata.
02-06-2012, 03:14 PM
interestingly, steve tignor thinks surfaces havent changed that much in the last 10 years, and that the whole thing is overblown.

yeah, because we should all take a clown like tignor's word over Fed or Navratilova :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:14 PM
What's wrong with the same style being played to an excellent and sustained high level other than producing boredom in a subsection of viewers?

You are a Nadal fan so it doesn't matter if there is a lack of diversity. Monotony doesn't work over time.

Boom time in terms of what?

I will use a cricket example think of India winning the World Cup in 83, then one day cricket was massive and the game boomed in the country.

Tennis was massive that was the boom time globally, where everything came together with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Gerulaitis to a lesser extent. They managed to gather so much interest and fans that stuck with the game, that's a boom period.

If the top 4 are being successfully marketed by the money people ,isn't this a sort of boom time for tennis, then?

No, because the original one was organic. This is not a boom time at all when everything is virtually the same, it's forced.

I wasn't limiting myself to the top 4. I was referring to the entire body of players. Also, the top 4 adapted to the status quo. Nobody crowned them kings and placed them there. They rose to the top through the exact same conditions available for everyone

All animals are equal, some are more equal. Nadal has whined about surfaces been too quick, both he and Federer helped get rid of carpet as a surface on the main tour.

Johnny Groove
02-06-2012, 03:15 PM
Once again the pursuit of cash puts a backseat to improving the quality of the game. People love watching 30 stroke rallies and 6 hour matches. What incentive does the ATP/ITF have to speed up the courts?

Personally I don't think the court speed is as big an issue as the tennis balls being used. We saw those Babolat balls at RG last year, and I thought it was great viewing. Then we have the Slazenger balls at the Wimbledon, which are opened before the event and are slow as fuck.

Wilson USO balls are a bit quicker than the AO balls, but both fluff up so quickly, that after 2-3 games, they are big, and slow.

I say, use a standard ball throughout the season, or at least in the runups. I.e. Use the same balls in the pre-AO events as the AO. Use the same balls on any clay event as you would at RG, the same for Wimbledon and the pre-USO events.

Too bad the ball companies all have their own contracts, and the money issue comes up again.

The best would be to have medium speed, medium bounce AO, slow speed, high bounce clay, high speed, low bounce grass, and high speed, medium bounce USO, followed by high speed, low bounce indoor events.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:18 PM
Once again the pursuit of cash puts a backseat to improving the quality of the game. People love watching 30 stroke rallies and 6 hour matches. What incentive does the ATP/ITF have to speed up the courts?

Personally I don't think the court speed is as big an issue as the tennis balls being used. We saw those Babolat balls at RG last year, and I thought it was great viewing. Then we have the Slazenger balls at the Wimbledon, which are opened before the event and are slow as fuck.

Wilson USO balls are a bit quicker than the AO balls, but both fluff up so quickly, that after 2-3 games, they are big, and slow.

I say, use a standard ball throughout the season, or at least in the runups. I.e. Use the same balls in the pre-AO events as the AO. Use the same balls on any clay event as you would at RG, the same for Wimbledon and the pre-USO events.

Too bad the ball companies all have their own contracts, and the money issue comes up again.

The best would be to have medium speed, medium bounce AO, slow speed, high bounce clay, high speed, low bounce grass, and high speed, medium bounce USO, followed by high speed, low bounce indoor events.

This and Babolat balls weren't used at all before RG, that seemed to be more of an issue than the speed of the balls which were quite lively.

There is no incentive to change the surface speeds at all, in fact if anything it will be slower if anything.

Logical
02-06-2012, 03:20 PM
It actually all ties in together. Very hard to have surface specialists when there is virtually no difference between the surfaces besides specific movement.



It actually has quite a lot to do with it. The players before Federer to a lesser extent actually had to test themselves on you know fast low bouncing carpet, slick hardcourts, low bouncing grass and the clay was slower then with heavier balls. Look at Fed's clay record pre-2004 against players past their best on clay with that game from a previous generation, he struggled. At the same time he had the strokes and game to play during that time, he was able to adjust to conditions.:spit:

Djokovic and Nadal never played in those conditions, so you know it goes back to what I said the previous conditions were more of a test.:spit: From Federer himself " Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself".

In other words the conditions today are too similar that impacts on the tennis and results, pretty easy to see.Fedull record in indoor court finals is 2-5 because fast surfaces,big serve players.Fedull did not adjusted.He play same game everywhere and lost to surface players who play differently with regard to surface.He struggle more now because there is Fako and Rafa.:wavey:Take out them,Fedull is the winner of Australian Open '11,Roland Garros '11,USO '11 and AO '12:lol:
There is no logic if you said Fedull adjusted but Rafa not.Because both play in same surfaces from 2003.I will ask my brother for more.He know more about 2000 and before tennis.

Johnny Groove
02-06-2012, 03:20 PM
I wouldn't mind them using that Babolat ball the whole season, and keeping the courts the same.

It would help, at least.

Shirogane
02-06-2012, 03:24 PM
There is no logic if you said Fedull adjusted but Rafa not. Because both play in same surfaces from 2003.I will ask my brother for more. He know more about 2000 and before tennis.:haha:

Shinoj
02-06-2012, 03:26 PM
My Gut feeling is that Novak will continue thumping everybody on faster surfaces too. He has gone to a different level.

Logical
02-06-2012, 03:27 PM
Tennis is best quality now.Shut up the surfaces homogenisation talk and enjoy the matches.FedullTards complaint,cry because Fedull cannot win grandslam no more.Why Fedull talk about surfaces now but not when he won grandslams in 2009 and completed career grandslam:rolleyes:

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:29 PM
Fedull record in indoor court finals is 2-5 because fast surfaces,big serve players.Fedull did not adjusted.He play same game everywhere and lost to surface players who play differently with regard to surface.He struggle more now because there is Fako and Rafa.:wavey:Take out them,Fedull is the winner of Australian Open '11,Roland Garros '11,USO '11 and AO '12:lol:
There is no logic if you said Fedull adjusted but Rafa not.Because both play in same surfaces from 2003.I will ask my brother for more.He know more about 2000 and before tennis.

Nadal was playing challengers mixed in with some ATP events in 2003. He wasn't a top player until 2005, get your dates right.

You know Fed was on tour in 1999, that's quite a difference especially since he actually played on fast indoor carpet and hardcourts, whereas when Nadal was playing more indoors the surfaces had already changed.

You need to apply some of your username and check the dates, then once you do that. Fed played under the old conditions for 3-4 years, whereas Nadal didn't . But I forget you are the one that is able to transport in time, expect them to all play the same way as now back then.

Oh! yes Fed benefited as well, but him not saying that isn't enough.

r3d_d3v1l_
02-06-2012, 03:34 PM
The US Openīs Wilson balls are slow as ass. I can testify to that.

I would love to see some clear cientific proof that the courts and balls are slower, just to shut up the tards.

Vida
02-06-2012, 03:38 PM
The US Openīs Wilson balls are slow as ass. I can testify to that.

I would love to see some clear cientific proof that the courts and balls are slower, just to shut up the tards.

I second this motion. too much contradictions and vague data floating around.

Clay Death
02-06-2012, 03:40 PM
its the voluntary blind leading the blind here Logical. amusing shit to be sure.

Logical just proceed to laugh at them. you noitced that they dont dare reply to any of my posts.

logical progression to its highest level ever doesnt elude them at all. why?

1. nobody can possibly be that stupid.

2. because it is happening in all of sports so there is no way to escape it.

the idea of better technologies, better training, advances in sports medicine, bigger, better, and smarter athletes based on natrual selection is not exactly a novel concept.

we can all see it being played out right before our eyes. its just that some of these people like their weeping, whining, and crying. it must be their way to snatch some attention.

even sampras, who has a reason to be blind, said after watching nole that nobody on the planet had ever moved so well before. the sport is improving right before our very eyes. some of the all time greats had a role in this progression. today the current players not only stand on the shoulders of pioneering players like agassi, connors, borg, sampras, and the like but they also benefit from all of the advances constantly taking place.

nobody but truly the dumbest of the dumbest bag lady on the side of the road--who is legless, toothless, eyeless, gutless, spineless, and totally brain dead due to lack of food--would ever believe even for a second that the game is not at its highest level ever.

people also hate nadal and nole with a passion. so that is a deeper reason for their weeping.

gods weep for these folks too for they are truly miserable.

Time Violation
02-06-2012, 03:41 PM
Once again the pursuit of cash puts a backseat to improving the quality of the game. People love watching 30 stroke rallies and 6 hour matches. What incentive does the ATP/ITF have to speed up the courts?

So, from now on, every final is going to be at least 6 hours long? Then how come until now the longest slam final was played 20+ yrs ago? :)

bouncer7
02-06-2012, 03:41 PM
It actually all ties in together. Very hard to have surface specialists when there is virtually no difference between the surfaces besides specific movement.



It actually has quite a lot to do with it. The players before Federer to a lesser extent actually had to test themselves on you know fast low bouncing carpet, slick hardcourts, low bouncing grass and the clay was slower then with heavier balls. Look at Fed's clay record pre-2004 against players past their best on clay with that game from a previous generation, he struggled. At the same time he had the strokes and game to play during that time, he was able to adjust to conditions.

Djokovic and Nadal never played in those conditions, so you know it goes back to what I said the previous conditions were more of a test. From Federer himself " Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself".

In other words the conditions today are too similar that impacts on the tennis and results, pretty easy to see.

he started to whining when he started to fail back to back :)

Why Soderling has back to back RG finals and no SFs at other Slams? Why Tsonga won't ever do anything at RG if you believe in that surface shit? LOL or why Almagro is average player if we exclude clay where he can only win something.
Stop blaming surface anymore, whine about modern racket technology and new physics of players. And you can even blame new balls before surfaces.
So when we see Soderling playing back to back wimbledon finals or even one or when Tsonga will be playing final of RG or even semi(Rafter played semi on ultra SLOW surface LOL) untill that moment surface discussion is just tard discussion(feeds by fedtards journalists who are tired of making a new excuses of "Nadal complex" 5 years in row in Slams) cause there are many more substantial factors that determines modern game.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:43 PM
From the ITF about the balls used.

To help determine which ball should be used on which surface, the ITF introduced an official Court Surface Classification Scheme (CSCS) in 2000, which was superseded by the Court Pace Classification Programme (CPCP) from January 2008.

As part of the assessment procedure, each surface product is awarded a Court Pace Rating, which classifies it as a slow (Category 1), medium-slow (Category 2),medium (Category 3), medium-fast (Category 4) or fast (Category 5) surface.


Court surfaces which have an ITF Court Pace Rating of 0 to 29 shall be classified as being Category 1 (slow pace). Examples of court surface types which conform to this classification will include most clay courts and other types of unbound mineral surface.


Court surfaces which have an ITF Court Pace Rating of 30 to 34 shall be classified as being Category 2 (medium-slow pace), while court surfaces with an ITF Court Pace Rating of 35 to 39 shall be classified as being Category 3 (medium pace). Examples of court surface types which conform to this classification will include most acrylic coated surfaces plus some carpet surfaces.

Court surfaces with an ITF Court Pace Rating of 40 to 44 shall be classified as being Category 4 (medium-fast pace), while court surfaces which have an ITF Court Pace Rating of 45 or more shall be classified as being Category 5 (fast pace). Examples of court surface types which conform to this classification will include most natural grass, artificial grass and some carpet surfaces


Case 1: Which ball type should be used on which court surface?

Decision: 3 different types of balls are approved for play under the Rules of Tennis,
however:

a. Ball Type 1 (fast speed) is intended for play on slow pace court surfaces
b. Ball Type 2 (medium speed) is intended for play on medium-slow, medium and
medium-fast pace court surfaces
c. Ball Type 3 (slow speed) is intended for play on fast pace court surfaces

Can use whatever brand of ball, but it has to fit the specifics of the grades that are set.

Logical
02-06-2012, 03:45 PM
Nadal was playing challengers mixed in with some ATP events in 2003. He wasn't a top player until 2005, get your dates right.

You know Fed was on tour in 1999, that's quite a difference especially since he actually played on fast indoor carpet and hardcourts, whereas when Nadal was playing more indoors the surfaces had already changed.

You need to apply some of your username and check the dates, then once you do that. Fed played under the old conditions for 3-4 years, whereas Nadal didn't . But I forget you are the one that is able to transport in time, expect them to all play the same way as now back then.

Oh! yes Fed benefited as well, but him not saying that isn't enough.But he lost more matches before 2003 and not win one grandslam.How do you say he adjusted?:confused:He played from 1999 but cannot win grandslams upto 2003 and 2004.So he struggled before time the tour made slow surfaces.If Oscaractor and El Matador are taken out,Fedull is winner of last four of five slams.He enjoy now surfaces more then before 2003 but Fedulltards donot want to believe it.:lol:

Clay Death
02-06-2012, 03:46 PM
So, from now on, every final is going to be at least 6 hours long? Then how come until now the longest slam final was played 20+ yrs ago? :)

exactly.

also how does that explain their eliminating the best of 5 sets finals at masters events. they took away the epic nature of these masters finals by doing that.

Fumus
02-06-2012, 03:47 PM
Tennis fans by nature are little babies, this is only natural because most of the players they idolize also complain in a similar fashion. Top singles players of this sport are essentially rockstars complete with an entourage and a microphone. It comes as no surprise that in this debate over the speed of the game many fans have a vested interest and completely subjective biased opinion on this subject.

Fans complained when the players got bigger, taller, and stronger leading to super sonic nonreturnable serves . Serve fests which often came down to uninspired unforced errors on seemingly innocuous shots or nerves which caused a late match choke often resulted in some of the poorest quality and anticlimactic tennis matches(and finals) this sport has ever seen.

It should seem fitting that only few years later fans would complain saying they miss the shot making of those days and pine for the return of faster smaller balls with less felt and less gritty slicker courts so balls could whiz by players unreturned instead of being moonballed back.

The long and the short of this is that no one is ever going to be happy. Tennis is an evolving sport, it's a young sport. The only real tradition that it has is that it's constantly changing with improvements in racquet, court and sports technology. I'm glad for this. I like sports that are progressive and willing to adapt to change.

Imagine how great it would be if everyone was playing will wood racquets, on grass courts with untensioned string? The true dark ages of tennis. I suppose fans wouldn't know any better and really wouldn't be able to complain about changes in the game...but being that I can watch the awful tennis from then and compare it to the tennis of now...I can say evolution was always the best choice.

To answer the article's question...is this the best tennis we've ever seen? Best is subjective and everyone has an opinion on what is pleasurable to watch. I think however, what the writer meant is that this is the most "advanced" tennis we've ever seen. It will continue to advance and I look forward to another 20 years of innovation. :cool:

tennizen
02-06-2012, 03:48 PM
You are a Nadal fan so it doesn't matter if there is a lack of diversity. Monotony doesn't work over time.


Oh no, you didn't! You don't even know whose fan I am, btw:lol:


I will use a cricket example think of India winning the World Cup in 83, then one day cricket was massive and the game boomed in the country. So it is with Serbia and Djokovic. So what? If at all, that just shows that success of a particular player or team generates interest in that sport in that country.

Tennis was massive that was the boom time globally, where everything came together with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Gerulaitis to a lesser extent. They managed to gather so much interest and fans that stuck with the game, that's a boom period.
The point is that there is nothing to back this sort of statement. You talk in terms of some general feeling. I don't see any mass exodus of fans today from the sport. And if the Djokovic-Nadal AO match gets new viewers excited about tennis,that's as valid as the viewership that you speak of. Yet, somehow, you would like to paint those fans as "inferior".


No, because the original one was organic. This is not a boom time at all when everything is virtually the same, it's forced.I don't see how you are able to make that distinction. It can't be that the ATP/ITF came to know what money is and fell in love with it only 10 years ago.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:50 PM
Why and how grass was changed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/jun/16/tennis3

TennisOnWood
02-06-2012, 03:51 PM
So, from now on, every final is going to be at least 6 hours long? Then how come until now the longest slam final was played 20+ yrs ago? :)

O.k, Lendl and Wilander played 4 sets of US Open 1987 final 4 hours 47 minutes (with one bagel) mostly from baseline but against Cash in AO 1/2 on grass he rushed to the net 150 times in 4 sets

r3d_d3v1l_
02-06-2012, 03:52 PM
So, from now on, every final is going to be at least 6 hours long? Then how come until now the longest slam final was played 20+ yrs ago? :)

The US Open would have been easily played in over 5 hours, if it wasnīt for the Nadal crash in the fourth set. Even though it was a breadstick, they still played over 4 hours.

Just to get a point, the 2007 Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer, that had 2 tie-breaks, was 25 minutes short to last yearīs US Open final.

Maybe itīs all due to time wasting and everything or maybe not. Who knows. The only certain thing you can get is from following the sport and get your own conclusions and mine is that the sport has gotten quite slower.

It really isnīt just that easy to make winners and when you have guys like Djokovic, Nadal or Murray, retrieving almost everything, you gotta wonder something is wrong. I really donīt think there was a night to day change that leveled up the top4 physical values. Itīs crazy to think that theyīve changed that much.

Logical
02-06-2012, 03:58 PM
its the voluntary blind leading the blind here Logical. amusing shit to be sure.

Logical just proceed to laugh at them. you noitced that they dont dare reply to any of my posts.

logical progression to its highest level ever doesnt elude them at all. why?

1. nobody can possibly be that stupid.

2. because it is happening in all of sports so there is no way to escape it.

the idea of better technologies, better training, advances in sports medicine, bigger, better, and smarter athletes based on natrual selection is not exactly a novel concept.

we can all see it being played out right before our eyes. its just that some of these people like their weeping, whining, and crying. it must be their way to snatch some attention.

even sampras, who has a reason to be blind, said after watching nole that nobody on the planet had ever moved so well before. the sport is improving right before our very eyes. some of the all time greats had a role in this progression. today the current players not only stand on the shoulders of pioneering players like agassi, connors, borg, sampras, and the like but they also benefit from all of the advances constantly taking place.

nobody but truly the dumbest of the dumbest bag lady on the side of the road--who is legless, toothless, eyeless, gutless, spineless, and totally brain dead due to lack of food--would ever believe even for a second that the game is not at its highest level ever.

people also hate nadal and nole with a passion. so that is a deeper reason for their weeping.

gods weep for these folks too for they are truly miserable.Very brilliant post.I will agree.El Matador and Novak take tennisto great level.Also two other of the top4.Some fans not happy because the favorite player cannot win grandslams.Murray and Fedull fans.:lol:If court is fast,big new rakets,big athletic players in 2012 will service speed upto more then 150 miles which cannot be returned.Match becomes all about serving.Little slowing of courts provides for logical tennis,interesting rallies.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 03:58 PM
Oh no, you didn't! You don't even know whose fan I am, btw:lol:.

Most Nadal and Djokovic fans think it's fantastic. It's like domination it's great, when their player is dominating.

The point is that there is nothing to back this sort of statement. You talk in terms of some general feeling. I don't see any mass exodus of fans today from the sport. And if the Djokovic-Nadal AO match gets new viewers excited about tennis,that's as valid as the viewership that you speak of. Yet, somehow, you would like to paint those fans as "inferior".

You needed to be a fan at that time to understand. Thanks to Borg the started to become more international, which paved the way for everyone and at that time tennis was everywhere. They wish they'd get that sort of coverage now and no this is not going to revolutionise the sport.

I don't see how you are able to make that distinction. It can't be that the ATP/ITF came to know what money is and fell in love with it only 10 years ago

You're taking the piss now. There were massive problems with the organisations at the time, not much different to now but it was cause of the ATP rules and burn out that caused Borg to retire. Marketing wasn't slick then and it was through the force of personalities, games and matches that got all the fans in, nothing to do with the organising body.

Sport has existed longer than 10 years, you do know business practices have evolved over time as the sport becomes more professional.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:03 PM
O.k, Lendl and Wilander played 4 sets of US Open 1987 final 4 hours 47 minutes (with one bagel) mostly from baseline but against Cash in AO 1/2 on grass he rushed to the net 150 times in 4 sets

Lendl did take as long as Nadal and Djokovic in between points.

TennisOnWood
02-06-2012, 04:08 PM
Lendl did take as long as Nadal and Djokovic in between points.

I know, that US Open final was one crazy match.. set with bagel was gone in 28 minutes so the 3 others lasted almost hour and a half each

Vida
02-06-2012, 04:10 PM
I watched wilander mecir the other day, was it us open, now that was good those playing cat and mouse all over the court. still cant escape the impression whatevers going on there has very little to do with balls and courts, as compared to racquet technology. "effortless winner" is almost abstract category for that age.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:12 PM
CD, you only have to change a few words to the template and copy/paste. Best ever, spartan, slayer, warrior just adjust when necessary with names. It's not the best ever tennis far from it, physical and endurance wise well it will be memorable for that. Dramatic hell yes, turgid tennis for the first 3 sets definitely.

Too many people live in the moment, don't want to step back and actually look at things from a different perspective.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:14 PM
I know, that US Open final was one crazy match.. set with bagel was gone in 28 minutes so the 3 others lasted almost hour and a half each

The 88 final was a better match than this one.

Vida, it was a different sport you had to outplay, outsmart your opponent, can't be belting 160km/h forehands down the line at that time. It was another sport virtually.

scoobs
02-06-2012, 04:15 PM
Best tennis? No. Well, definitely not on a sustained basis. Quantity <> Quality.

There were a lot of great exchanges although mostly in the fourth and fifth sets. Mostly there were a lot of long points that ended in some sort of error, as slow court baseline tennis between two great movers is prone to do. I was prepared to watch six hours of it but I doubt a lot of casual sportsfans would. Slow conditions and slow players = very long match duration. I'm all for 5 set classics but I think pushing 6 hours for a title match is getting a bit much.

Clay Death
02-06-2012, 04:16 PM
Very brilliant post.I will agree.El Matador and Novak take tennisto great level.Also two other of the top4.Some fans not happy because the favorite player cannot win grandslams.Murray and Fedull fans.:lol:If court is fast,big new rakets,big athletic players in 2012 will service speed upto more then 150 miles which cannot be returned.Match becomes all about serving.Little slowing of courts provides for logical tennis,interesting rallies.

affirmative. good post on your part also.


we are armed with the truth. that is why they will not bother dealing with us.

stats from nearly all of the sports are there for anybody--who has the inclination and need--- to examine.

there is no way to avoid and or not see what is happening acorss all sports. its the logical prgression on mankind and damn near all of them are being played at their highest levels possible.

that should be everybody`s first clue but i dont believe anybody can possibly be that stupid. i think they understand and see the logical progression based on natural selection and technologies at every level.

i think its all about the hate for nole and nadal.


also nobody--at least not me--- said that the Oz was the best tennis ever. it was just one match. in this one there were too many unforced errors from both sides. i think nadal had somehting like 71. he had 7 against fed at a rg final in 2008. you expect more errors from him on hard courts but still 71 is way too many. nole also had around 60+.

on the average, the sport of tennis is now at it highest level ever. and that does not mean every single match.

Yolita
02-06-2012, 04:18 PM
The Australian Open final was compelling because of the drama and the intensity. In terms of quality of play, the 2009 Madrid semifinal between Nadal and Djokovic was much more impressive: equally intense, incredibly long, but with amazing quality from beginning to end. A better match.

But what's happening to tennis in general is great: more players are stronger than ever, fitter than ever and ready to take the sport to another level. There is an air of expectation in the air that we hadn't had for many years. Even casual fans are now getting more interested in tennis.

Best ever? I don't know. But we're living a golden era in the sport. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.

rocketassist
02-06-2012, 04:19 PM
The Australian Open final was compelling because of the drama and the intensity. In terms of quality of play, the 2009 Madrid semifinal between Nadal and Djokovic was much more impressive: equally intense, incredibly long, but with amazing quality from beginning to end. A better match.

But what's happening to tennis in general is great: more players are stronger than ever, fitter than ever and ready to take the sport to another level. There is an air of expectation in the air that we hadn't had for many years. Even casual fans are now getting more interested in tennis.

Best ever? I don't know. But we're living a golden era in the sport. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.

The player in your sig/pic winning everything obviously influences this opinion.

Vida
02-06-2012, 04:21 PM
The 88 final was a better match than this one.

Vida, it was a different sport you had to outplay, outsmart your opponent, can't be belting 160km/h forehands down the line at that time. It was another sport virtually.

thats what Im saying. that thing does appear to lack somewhat on all levels.

still, to me the entire complaint does appear bit overblown, cause this shit we have now wont last beyond fed, nadal and djoko, Im pretty sure of that. those talents, be it physical, mental or "in the hands" dont fall from the sky.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:26 PM
thats what Im saying. that thing does appear to lack somewhat on all levels.

still, to me the entire complaint does appear bit overblown, cause this shit we have now wont last beyond fed, nadal and djoko, Im pretty sure of that. those talents, be it physical, mental or "in the hands" dont fall from the sky.

What is overblown? That this clown journalist is trying to say that this is the best tennis era ever? That's a massive statement and trying to call this match the best ever, their matches on clay last year were better than this. Conditions leading to more diversity aren't going to change, as I said cause of the reactionary organisations involved and cash makes the world turn around.

duong
02-06-2012, 04:28 PM
Tennis is best quality now.Shut up the surfaces homogenisation talk and enjoy the matches.

Cycling was also at its best quality in 1995 when tens of cyclists could climb "l'Alpe d'Huez" quickly than what the cyclists did last year (Pantani did it 5 minutes better : 36.40 minutes rather than 41.40, 12% better !!)

It was the best level ever shown there no doubt.

PS : they were all doped.

luie
02-06-2012, 04:33 PM
It was a drama filled grindfest.

Vida
02-06-2012, 04:34 PM
What is overblown? That this clown journalist is trying to say that this is the best tennis era ever? That's a massive statement and trying to call this match the best ever, their matches on clay last year were better than this. Conditions leading to more diversity aren't going to change, as I said cause of the reactionary organisations involved and cash makes the world turn around.

I meant the complaint that keeps popping up here on mtf, mostly from real or fake purists and injured fed fanatics, about how everything sux balls now. that is overblown, I havent said anything about the article (which I havent payed much attention to anyway) except that I understand why the press is glorifying present tennis. so, yes it can be better there are plenty of things missing but yes, todays top guys are incredible and we should enjoy it while it last rather than cry our guts all over the place.

Nole Rules
02-06-2012, 04:38 PM
The answer is no but this Era IS a golden era. Best top 4 of all time.

Time Violation
02-06-2012, 04:38 PM
Most Nadal and Djokovic fans think it's fantastic. It's like domination it's great, when their player is dominating.

Not necessarily :) I think Novak adjusted to these conditions because he had no other choice. If courts played differently, he would probably spend more time working on, I don't know, net play, than working on stamina and endurance.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:42 PM
I meant the complaint that keeps popping up here on mtf, mostly from real or fake purists and injured fed fanatics, about how everything sux balls now. that is overblown, I havent said anything about the article (which I havent payed much attention to anyway) except that I understand why the press is glorifying present tennis. so, yes it can be better there are plenty of things missing but yes, todays top guys are incredible and we should enjoy it while it last rather than cry our guts all over the place.

There are quite a lot of things that suck about tennis this is very clear, that's not overblown. Actually the press and former players in the media whose interest to hype up tennis are contributing to the overhyping problem making it worse.

Once these guys are gone, the game will survive and then the press will find another bandwagon to jump on.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:44 PM
Not necessarily :) I think Novak adjusted to these conditions because he had no other choice. If courts played differently, he would probably spend more time working on, I don't know, net play, than working on stamina and endurance.

He had to adjust, that's what the best players do and this is no way the best ever 4 to play the game. But you don't know how they'd play under properly different conditions, this leads to the press being lazy with their bull articles.

He tries to volley, but doesn't need it so much.

rocketassist
02-06-2012, 04:45 PM
Tennis journalists are all shite. Finding a good one is like finding an honest politician.

Nole Rules
02-06-2012, 04:46 PM
Not necessarily :) I think Novak adjusted to these conditions because he had no other choice. If courts played differently, he would probably spend more time working on, I don't know, net play, than working on stamina and endurance.

This. Some haters think that he can't dominate if the courts were faster. :lol:

Nole is an attacking player in the 1st place but these condition (slow courts) forced him to change his game and work on stamina & endurance.

luie
02-06-2012, 04:47 PM
lol.

by the way, who ever hear of GOAT having a "complex"?! :confused:

U are falling into the same trap as GOAT tards
My favorite , has the best resume or least weakness
Than yours. This judging the player at his peak.
Will only set u up for disappointment.
Sampras - clay , Borg mc Enron ,retired early
Laver Gonzalez early on and rose wall at the FO
Nadull - Novak & indoor environment.
Fed- nadull on slow surfaces.
Novak in time will have his complexes too.
Basically the best time to judge a player is not at
His absolute peak.

Time Violation
02-06-2012, 04:51 PM
He had to adjust, that's what the best players do and this is no way the best ever 4 to play the game. But you don't know how they'd play under properly different conditions, this leads to the press being lazy with their bull articles.

He tries to volley, but doesn't need it so much.

Yup, maybe he would be equally successful, maybe not. He had some very good results on hard courts though even as a 20 yr old, won WTF at second attempt etc, so I guess he would adjust pretty well to quick courts if he had to.

Fumus
02-06-2012, 04:55 PM
What is overblown? That this clown journalist is trying to say that this is the best tennis era ever? That's a massive statement and trying to call this match the best ever, their matches on clay last year were better than this. Conditions leading to more diversity aren't going to change, as I said cause of the reactionary organisations involved and cash makes the world turn around.

I don't think he means best as in "golden era" or best as in...the most compelling or entertaining.

What the author was getting at is that tennis is now the most advanced it has ever been. Through sports science, racquet, court technology etc. the game has evolved. We are currently witnessing tennis at it's most advanced.

That is to say the tennis played isn't better per se than years gone by, only more advanced through innovation.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:56 PM
Yup, maybe he would be equally successful, maybe not. He had some very good results on hard courts though even as a 20 yr old, won WTF at second attempt etc, so I guess he would adjust pretty well to quick courts if he had to.

Clay and hardcourts he'd be fine. Well he lost to has been Safin on grass, a guy who hated the surface. Fast low bouncing grass and carpet are challenges he doesn't need to face now.

Action Jackson
02-06-2012, 04:59 PM
I don't think he means best as in "golden era" or best as in...the most compelling or entertaining.

What the author was getting at is that tennis is now the most advanced it has ever been. Through sports science, racquet, court technology etc. the game has evolved. We are currently witnessing tennis at it's most advanced.

That is to say the tennis played isn't better persay than years gone by, only more advanced through innovation.

He is hyping up the golden era thing, well that happens every few years when it comes to advances. If it was truly advanced then they'd use more variety mixed in with the other advancements.