Mens Tennis Forums banner
121 - 140 of 161 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,050 Posts
Says somebody who started watching tennis in 2011.
For my part, I was watching tennis from 1988-2000, then took a long break... till 2011. Never really felt that I missed some epic matches. There were much better clay battles e.g. in the 90's.
Just mostly the overhyped Fedal rivalry which was as unfavorable as it gets and Nadal was extending his clay domination gradually to grass over Federer which I found at that time, even by not watching the matches (just reading about it) as those outcomes were getting a bit more predictable by Federer's choking, very boring and unexciting.

So I always chuckle when people accuse me or any other Djokovic fan that we started watching tennis in 2011.
Many of the older guys here absolutely NOT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
Yep. Homogenization.

That's why Nadal has 13 French Opens but only one Australian Open.

That's why Federer has 8 Wimbledons but only one French Open.

Because homogenization.

It takes a special kind of stupid to somehow try to turn yet another Novak's achievement against him.
Homogenization does not only includes the courts speed and bounce but also raquets and balls used in the big tournaments. If it were not the case, A 55kg screaming skull would not be able to generate such power. Federer has wide shoulders/dense bone structure , Nadal has more than enough muscle mass and looks like someone who could easily excel in basically every other sport, and Djokovic has no excuse, other than having found a miracle of the gluten-free diet.

Also, Djokovic had to go almost every final or SF against other BIg3+Murray+ Wawrinka, while even the same other names reached always QF and 4R. Djokovic had only to figure out his 2 main rivals in order to dominate the tour, taking advantage on one for being too old, and the other for having much more mileage (although being only 1 year older in comparison).
Federer and Nadal also benefited from homogenization, but at least "even" Nadal had an important chunk of his career where you had true HC specialists and he played early on more than a few times true 100% clay specialists. Djokovic career is basically 95% of achievements post 2011, and almost 3/4 of his slams won since Wimbledon 2014... where he had to beat mostly generation useless players, we are speaking about the Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of this world, they make the definition of what hopeless means. Other than that, Fed who already led the slam race for so many years and had 17+ slams, and nadal who was falling apart physically and also had at some point a huge lead over Djokovic (just before Wimbledon 2014 he was 14 - 6 over him on the slam race),were not the same anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,050 Posts
Enough of this mumbo-jumbo. Court homogenization didn't happen in late 2010, but as early as 2004-06. So all this trying to prove that Nadal and Federer were doing so well back in the day againt some kind of surface players... Federer was doing well for 3 years... at Masters level too, Nadal on clay for couple of years... but where have been real grass or hardcourt players after 2003??
Strangely it moreover seems like more players just gave up on being surface specialists, long before the real homogenization took place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,368 Posts
Perennial ryegrass change from meadow grass in 2001 & ‘homogeneous’ resurfacing of USO in particular followed a few years later.
The least altered major is obviously FO/RG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
Neither.

It's neither statistical nor personal, but historical.
OK, but history is about some evidence of the past. What is the evidence that surfaces had been homogenized?
Obviously, there is no evidence about surface homogenization, hence only logical conclusion is that surface homogenization is one big MYTH, that really should be busted!
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
I don't care about any of that. I just wanted to know what it had to do with Djokovic (since "homogenization king" was how this discussion even got started)

If nothing, then that's the end of our discussion.
Just address your concerns to the right person instead of shouting random things.

And yes, we're done.
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
OK, but history is about some evidence of the past. What is the evidence that surfaces had been homogenized?
Obviously, there is no evidence about surface homogenization, hence only logical conclusion is that surface homogenization is one big MYTH, that really should be busted!
Lol, no.

There's the historical evidence.

And for that, you just need to know a little about tennis history.
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
For my part, I was watching tennis from 1988-2000, then took a long break... till 2011. Never really felt that I missed some epic matches. There were much better clay battles e.g. in the 90's.
Just mostly the overhyped Fedal rivalry which was as unfavorable as it gets and Nadal was extending his clay domination gradually to grass over Federer which I found at that time, even by not watching the matches (just reading about it) as those outcomes were getting a bit more predictable by Federer's choking, very boring and unexciting.

So I always chuckle when people accuse me or any other Djokovic fan that we started watching tennis in 2011.
Many of the older guys here absolutely NOT!
There are exceptions, but it's conspicuous how many Djokovic fans not only know nothing about the history of tennis, but are completely contemptuous of the greats of the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
Lol, no.

There's the historical evidence.

And for that, you just need to know a little about tennis history.
Whats the historical evidence?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
Really? We've come to this?

OK, let's walk through this step by step ....

1) So, what surface did there used to be, but which has disappeared from the tour?
Only facts about surface changes through Open Era history are:
  • They used to play more on Clay and Grass in '70-ies and '80-ies. However, already starting with 1988, percentages of matches played on different surfaces on ATP Tour are pretty much constant: Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Surface Timeline
  • Carpet is replaced with Indoor Hard. Not a big difference between Indoor Hard and Carpet, maybe Carpet is little faster, but not that much to be a big difference.
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
Only facts about surface changes through Open Era history are:
  • They used to play more on Clay and Grass in '70-ies and '80-ies. However, already starting with 1988, percentages of matches played on different surfaces on ATP Tour are pretty much constant: Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Surface Timeline
  • Carpet is replaced with Indoor Hard. Not a big difference between Indoor Hard and Carpet, maybe Carpet is little faster, but not that much to be a big difference.
Ah, I see. So previously you were denying any homogenisation at all.

And now you're acknowledging it.

That's a start.

But you've omitted the significant change made to the grass at Wimbledon.

(And that's not all either, but as I said, let's go step by step.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
Ah, I see. So previously you were denying any homogenisation at all.

And now you're acknowledging it.

That's a start.

But you've omitted the significant change made to the grass at Wimbledon.

(And that's not all either, but as I said, let's go step by step.)
Carpet played almost like indoor hard. Do you have examples of specialists on carpet who played poorly on indoor hard or vice versa?
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
Carpet played almost like indoor hard. Do you have examples of specialists on carpet who played poorly on indoor hard or vice versa?
That's neither here nor there. When it boils down to it, any surface X can be said to play "almost like" another surface y.

The point is: Less variety of surface = greater homogenisation.
 
121 - 140 of 161 Posts
Top