Article on what has happned to each slam over the years.. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Article on what has happned to each slam over the years..

FedvsNole
02-20-2012, 01:37 AM
Here is the link http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

Shows you percentage of winners over the last few years at the different slams and talks about what they have actually done to make tennis the same everywhere. Kinda sad and pathetic that this has changed in tennis so much. No variety in the game and the same old baseline tennis always everywhere.

great read. Oh and the people that hate on federer the article makes a great point why there will never be a player like him again with the variety and style he displays.

rogeragassi
02-20-2012, 01:58 AM
great article. thanks for post. Now, the question...why (with the exception of WImbledon, which was explained) were these changes implemented? So someone other than Fed would win?

bouncer7
02-20-2012, 02:26 AM
Winners mean nothing, just stats.

1 winner over Djokovic or Nadal = 10 winners over Roddick or Blake

LisaKoh
02-20-2012, 03:53 AM
great article. thanks for post. Now, the question...why (with the exception of WImbledon, which was explained) were these changes implemented? So someone other than Fed would win?

Homogenizing the surfaces means that the same players are likely to show up each and every time. Tournament directors and television programmers are all over that kind of thing because they can command better ratings for Federer-Nadal X in the second week compared to, say, Berdych-Del Potro (see AO 2012). I mean, why even bother getting Olivia Newton John to sing and bringing out the fireworks for Australia Day unless it's Roger and Rafa, right?

To be honest, I find Wimbledon's slowing of surfaces atrocious. Lleyton Hewitt getting dumped out in the first round of Wimbledon by Dr. Ivo when he was defending champ was probably one of the reasons why they slowed it down but I also think the tournament directors were so eager for the second coming of Borg and McEnroe they decided to push for a super slow surface in '08 so they could get their dream final, sell it to the public and make millions out of a "rivalry" that never would have existed if they'd kept the grass the original speed. Safin making the SFs that year revealed what a joke the grass surface was and he was so surprised that he'd even made it there.

I guess baseline wars of attrition are more popular with the viewing public unlike the 90s which was full of big serving.

rocketassist
02-20-2012, 04:43 AM
Great and factual article, but one thing he's missed out is that the US Open was finally slowed down in 2011 to bring it into line with the other snail paced 'fast court' slams.

Love how unforced errors absolutely dwarf winners in those slam finals. :lol: The game has 'evolved' though, best tennis ever yap yap yap yap

munZe konZa
02-20-2012, 05:00 AM
lacking in logic and not really worht responding to

munZe konZa
02-20-2012, 05:02 AM
Great and factual article, but one thing he's missed out is that the US Open was finally slowed down in 2011 to bring it into line with the other snail paced 'fast court' slams.

Love how unforced errors absolutely dwarf winners in those slam finals. :lol: The game has 'evolved' though, best tennis ever yap yap yap yap

In case you didn't notice, players play defense nowadays and "winners" category is often hard to determine.

leng jai
02-20-2012, 05:06 AM
In case you didn't notice, players play defense nowadays and "winners" category is often hard to determine.

Yeah defense was only a concept introduced into tennis in the last 6 years...

Ajde.

Action Jackson
02-20-2012, 05:14 AM
There was actual variation in the 90s in how to approach the game on the different surfaces.

Federer:

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 (Rafa) and myself.

munZe konZa
02-20-2012, 05:32 AM
There was actual variation in the 90s in how to approach the game on the different surfaces.
Federer:

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 (Rafa) and myself.


And the variation was serving or pushing that promoted extremely one dimensional players that didn't show up for half the season?

allpro
02-20-2012, 05:36 AM
surface speed is a red herring for the most part. itís the strings which have radically altered how the game is played. banning luxilon and allowing only natural gut is the real answer for those who bemoan homogeneity. obviously that will never happen.

allpro
02-20-2012, 05:38 AM
....as sampras said, luxilon is like "cheating".

Action Jackson
02-20-2012, 05:40 AM
lacking in logic and not really worht responding to

Yes, you keep responding to it, please stop embarrassing yourself. It's clearly obvious you don't have a clue about the subject matter at hand. If you did, then you would be able to produce a coherent and counter argument to the points that were raised in the article.

For the above to happen this would require you to have watched tennis for a period of time before Djokovic became a top player, which is something that you didn't know.

It's like this, I don't know what a woman goes through once a month during her cycle or pregnancy, therefore I'm not going comment on it. Same idea applies here to you and this article.

Action Jackson
02-20-2012, 05:42 AM
surface speed is a red herring for the most part. itís the strings which have radically altered how the game is played. banning luxilon and allowing only natural gut is the real answer for those who bemoan homogeneity. obviously that will never happen.

It's never one thing, it's a combination of things. Technology advancements, that were unregulated cause the tennis authorities have a vested interest in these technologies and the lack of rallies on the faster surfaces. Of course there are the sports science developments put them all together, this is what you have, athletes that hit tennis balls, not tennis players for the most part. Yes, there is a difference.

tektonac
02-20-2012, 05:48 AM
mods merge this thread with speed up the courts thread. we had one too many.

evilmindbulgaria
02-20-2012, 05:54 AM
Interesting article.

"That's why some cynics say that Wimbledon has turned into a green, clay court tournament."

I wonder if the author is referring to MTF's "experts" who constantly refer to surfaces as "blue clay", "green clay", "purple clay" , etc.

allpro
02-20-2012, 05:59 AM
It's never one thing, it's a combination of things. Technology advancements, that were unregulated cause the tennis authorities have a vested interest in these technologies and the lack of rallies on the faster surfaces. Of course there are the sports science developments put them all together, this is what you have, athletes that hit tennis balls, not tennis players for the most part. Yes, there is a difference.

it's a confluence of factors but string technology has had the greatest impact by far. the control and spin achieved by today's players was impossible pre-luxilon era. this results in superior passing shots (thus favoring defense) and longer rallies. volleys do not benefit from luxilon and i would argue it is dentrimental due to lack of "feel".

Action Jackson
02-20-2012, 06:05 AM
it's a confluence of factors but string technology has had the greatest impact by far. the control and spin achieved by today's players was impossible pre-luxilon era. this results in superior passing shots (thus favoring defense) and longer rallies. volleys do not benefit from luxilon and i would argue it is dentrimental to due to lack of "feel".

It's easier to teach the defensive style as well, cause with the changes in technology, surfaces the impact can't be measured till further down the track. But for all that try and playing that style on fast low bouncing courts.

With volleying still got to meet the ball out in front, split step at the net, no matter what strings are used.

allpro
02-20-2012, 06:10 AM
With volleying still got to meet the ball out in front, split step at the net, no matter what strings are used.

i disagree. volleying with natural gut is far superior in terms of "feel" and "spring" off the racket versus wire (i.e. luxilon).

Action Jackson
02-20-2012, 06:11 AM
i disagree. volleying with natural gut is far superior in terms of "feel" and "spring" off the racket versus wire (i.e. luxilon).

Still got to have the fundamentals right on any stroke, yes including volleying. At the same time it's a moot point since it hardly a factor these days.

Pirata.
02-20-2012, 06:18 AM
Interesting article.

"That's why some cynics say that Wimbledon has turned into a green, clay court tournament."

I wonder if the author is referring to MTF's "experts" who constantly refer to surfaces as "blue clay", "green clay", "purple clay" , etc.

Or perhaps they mean people like Navratilova or Henman who have commented on how slow the courts are.

Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year.'" Veteran tour pro and former Wimbledon doubles champion Jonas Bjorkman says the slower grass courts have homogenized the professional game. "There is a danger that we will have only one type of player soon because everyone is growing up on courts that are roughly the same speed."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

These current and former players would know best :shrug:

allpro
02-20-2012, 06:19 AM
Still got to have the fundamentals right on any stroke, yes including volleying. At the same time it's a moot point since it hardly a factor these days.

true. but bring back natural gut and the game will change radically versus tweaking court speed.

Action Jackson
02-20-2012, 06:22 AM
true. but bring back natural gut and the game will change radically versus tweaking court speed.

You need both, make the clay slower. Have less paint on the hardcourt surfaces and use a lighter ball. Look at Bercy 2010 when it was faster, yet there was whining of course.

Naturally the top guys don't want the surfaces changed and neither do the ATP for pretty obvious reasons, money is the real guru.

LisaKoh
02-20-2012, 06:44 AM
Yep, money talks. But after watching that final (which made horrendous heaps of cash for Channel 7 and the tournament) I don't know if the ATP would be pressed to fix the system since it keeps earning them tons of money.

I think the only way that the ATP would take action is if some of their cash cows (Federer, Nadal, the Djoker) said that they don't particularly care for tournament surfaces and would like something to be done about them. It'd be a difficult thing because none of these guys would go on the record to bash something that is so beneficial to their games but as they lose foot speed and as the rising stars become less and less charismatic, I can see the tour bending backwards for them. A tournament director might be disposed to install a faster surface if he's guaranteed Federer for the rest of the week.

It's funny, I keep thinking about what Sampras said when he was describing Safin as "the future of tennis". On one level he was wrong but on another, he was completely right about the types of guys who are coming out on tour. Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Istomin, Gulbis -- they're straight out of the Safin mold of a power baseliner who will never come to net unless threatened with imminent death. Ok, Tsonga volleys sometimes but for the most part it's baseline bashing.

manadrainer
02-20-2012, 07:47 AM
The article states valid points. This surface homogenization is disgusting. At least Federer is the only one who admits he's achieved a lot on different surface because of that, while others still say that Wimbledon is "super-fast" and surfaces play different...

It's a disgrace to the sport that grinders are allowed to win Wimbledon and other suppposedely fast tournaments playing like on a clay court. (i.e. Nadal is probably the greatest clay court player ever, I don't mind him winning 10+ RG, but making 5 straight wimbledon finals shows something is wrong...)

Timariot
02-20-2012, 08:24 AM
To be honest, I find Wimbledon's slowing of surfaces atrocious. Lleyton Hewitt getting dumped out in the first round of Wimbledon by Dr. Ivo when he was defending champ was probably one of the reasons why they slowed it down but I also think the tournament directors were so eager for the second coming of Borg and McEnroe they decided to push for a super slow surface in '08 so they could get their dream final, sell it to the public and make millions out of a "rivalry" that never would have existed if they'd kept the grass the original speed.

No, the slowing down of Wimbledon began in 2001 when they changed the grass. That year was still pretty fast as it was very very rainy, and Goran set the new ace record. 2002 was first really slow Wimbledon, I remember BjŲrkman complaining about that when he was beaten by Hewitt. In fact, slow courts probably helped Karlovic in his defeat of Hewitt 2003. Lleyton was a great fastcourt player and hated when surfaces became so slow.

Surface homogenization was a concentrated effort by the powers of the game (ITF, tournament directors, the Tours). It was talked about in the early 2000's but we didn't realize they would really do it.

ossie
02-20-2012, 08:36 AM
Winners mean nothing, just stats.

1 winner over Djokovic or Nadal = 10 winners over Roddick or Blakethis

Arakasi
02-20-2012, 08:45 AM
http://i39.tinypic.com/axb15i.png

:o

LisaKoh
02-20-2012, 08:50 AM
That's a pretty deceptive sample. Three out of those finals feature defensive players versus defensive players (USO 2010 Nadal Djokovic AO 2011 Djokovic-Murray, W 2011 Djokovic-Nadal ) whereas last year's French Open final had Federer in it who likes to play offense on clay. I'm not saying the results are incorrect, I just think the author should have looked at the overall Winners to Errors ratio in each slam rather than just the finals.

ballbasher101
02-20-2012, 08:53 AM
I'm not gonna bother to read the article because it is gonna tell me what everyone on this site already knows. The topic is getting boring. The ATP and ITF are not gonna change things so why bother.

scoobs
02-20-2012, 08:58 AM
I don't consider just 1 slam final at each major to be enough of a statistically sound sample to draw big conclusions, though the article is interesting and suggestive. They should have used at least a couple of years worth of stats though.

Sophocles
02-20-2012, 10:19 AM
A very sad state of affairs.

BodyServe
02-20-2012, 11:39 AM
surface speed is a red herring for the most part. itís the strings which have radically altered how the game is played. banning luxilon and allowing only natural gut is the real answer for those who bemoan homogeneity. obviously that will never happen.

Completely agree, it all started here. If you actually tried gut strings and luxilon, you can clearly see the difference, it doesnt add power by any mean but the control you can get on slices and topspin shots is ridiculous.

FedvsNole
02-20-2012, 01:32 PM
This is what the us open courts were supposed to be like before they changed everything after 2000. Check it out.. Would nadal ever have a chance on this type of court? Would novak get back even half the shots he can get to now?

Safin vs sampras us open 2000 final below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5r-sB75us

Pirata.
02-20-2012, 02:59 PM
I'm not gonna bother to read the article because it is gonna tell me what everyone on this site already knows. The topic is getting boring. The ATP and ITF are not gonna change things so why bother.

That's the spirit.

:o

TBkeeper
02-20-2012, 05:51 PM
Winners mean nothing, just stats.

1 winner over Djokovic or Nadal = 10 winners over Roddick or Blake

Ask Davydenko about winners against Nadull :wavey:

MaxPower
02-20-2012, 07:14 PM
No news really. I do like that the article writer recognizes both the bounce and the ball. Often this discussion gets locked on "slowing down" which is kinda irrelevant but what matters is the overrall effect on the game and the effective styles to play.

What annoys a knowledgeable tennis fan isn't so much lack of ace fests and serve & volley exhibitions but the fact that one style rules them all. Players don't need to change jack shit between the supposedly fastest slam and the slowest.

Why even bother with different surfaces (especially expensive ones like grass) if everything is made to play roughly the same.

I'm sure with todays technology you could make Wimbledon play slow (which is acceptable) but then make the ball bounce remain low so slices, certain serves and volleys also remain effective.

I'm fine with playing AO on sandpaper but then maybe don't use a ball that fluffs up so much it becomes a parody. They should use a special resistant ball if they want to play on that type of surface.