Mens Tennis Forums banner
141 - 160 of 161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
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.
Thats not true right? If one of the two surfaces which are similar anyway disappears the effect is very small - and should not have material effect on player's results -- unless you had players who were very good on one of the surface and poor on the other -- and vice versa.

For a contrary example, we know clay and hard courts play quite differently. If clay disappears then yes, you could say homogenization has happened.
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
Thats not true right? If one of the two surfaces which are similar anyway disappears the effect is very small - and should not have material effect on player's results -- unless you had players who were very good on one of the surface and poor on the other -- and vice versa.

For a contrary example, we know clay and hard courts play quite differently. If clay disappears then yes, you could say homogenization has happened.
Sorry but your argument is entirely dependent on calling things "like" that are actually unlike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 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.)
Do not see how two observations about slight surface changes 40 years ago is connected with surface homogenization in recent period (15-20) years.
About Wimbledon grass change, there is not a slightest evidence that it has affected the game. What is happening the to the modern game at grass courts is happening also to hard and clay courts, so the change in modern game are not about courts, but about other aspects of the game (racquets/strings/player fitness/training program/finding more effective tactics...).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
Do not see how two observations about slight surface changes 40 years ago is connected with surface homogenization in recent period (15-20) years.
About Wimbledon grass change, there is not a slightest evidence that it has affected the game. What is happening the to the modern game at grass courts is happening also to hard and clay courts, so the change in modern game are not about courts, but about other aspects of the game (racquets/strings/player fitness/training program/finding more effective tactics...).
First and foremost, we have now moved from a situation where you denied that homogenisation existed to one in which you acknowledge its existence.

You have also abandoned your eccentric demands for "proof".

Now your ploy is to claim that the homogenisation that has occurred (as you now acknowledge) has had minimal effect in each individual case (and we haven't listed them all yet).

What you are failing to realise is these changes have the effect of homogenising the tour.

Therefore, you have already lost the argument.

There is nothing more to discuss, unless of course you want to pursue a different argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
First and foremost, we have now moved from a situation where you denied that homogenisation existed to one in which you acknowledge its existence.

You have also abandoned your eccentric demands for "proof".

Now your ploy is to claim that the homogenisation that has occurred (as you now acknowledge) has had minimal effect in each individual case (and we haven't listed them all yet).

What you are failing to realise is these changes have the effect of homogenising the tour.

Therefore, you have already lost the argument.

There is nothing more to discuss, unless of course you want to pursue a different argument.
It’s clear that you feel you are unable to defend your theory, that’s why you are not even listing your “homogenization cases”. The 2 examples you gave we have been able to argue they don’t have much affect. So you are now just terminating your argument — which perhaps we should assume means that you yourself no longer believe in your theory.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Phillo

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
It’s clear that you feel you are unable to defend your theory, that’s why you are not even listing your “homogenization cases”. The 2 examples you gave we have been able to argue they don’t have much affect. So you are now just terminating your argument — which perhaps we should assume means that you yourself no longer believe in your theory.
Oh, we haven't even got started.

But at this juncture, I simply note that you've already conceded that the homogenisation has happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
Oh, we haven't even got started.

But at this juncture, I simply note that you've already conceded that the homogenisation has happened.
I did not. The question is not whether homogenisation happened -- its whether its substantial enough to cause substantial effects on the tour and the ability to win slams and create records. If you were thinking of a different question, lets change it.

Also can you state your case in one post please -- we have exchanged 20+ messages and you have not even made your case yet :)
 

·
God loves a trier
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
I did not. The question is not whether homogenisation happened -- its whether its substantial enough to cause substantial effects on the tour and the ability to win slams and create records. If you were thinking of a different question, lets change it.

Also can you state your case in one post please -- we have exchanged 20+ messages and you have not even made your case yet :)
The debate all along was about whether surface homogenisation happened.

I'm not even part way through my examples and I've already established that it has.

If you want to have some other random argument, fine, but find somebody else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
The only reason we feel less difference between surfaces is that 90% of Tour play their unchanged hardcourt game on all surfaces without bothering whatsoever to adjust. That's why in Monte Carlo Rublev beats Nadal and Edmund beats Djokovic. Because the first two just keep on playing like it's hardcourt which gives them early advantage over those actually adjusting to clay. Then of course the first two are gone in the first round of RG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
First and foremost, we have now moved from a situation where you denied that homogenisation existed to one in which you acknowledge its existence.

You have also abandoned your eccentric demands for "proof".

Now your ploy is to claim that the homogenisation that has occurred (as you now acknowledge) has had minimal effect in each individual case (and we haven't listed them all yet).

What you are failing to realise is these changes have the effect of homogenising the tour.

Therefore, you have already lost the argument.

There is nothing more to discuss, unless of course you want to pursue a different argument.
Sorry, there is only a blurred difference between the proof or the evidence.
Maybe you have not noticed, but I said would like to see some facts that the surfaces have homogenized, not because I need a proof or evidence, but because I know surfaces had not been homogenized, just wanted to expose your words as simply not true, because you state them with such unbacked arrogance :).

Regarding tour homogenization, yes it did happen of course, but it was not because of the surface homogenization, but because a tennis game advanced over time in many aspects:
  • Technology improvements in racquet/strings
  • Players are now much more professional and have better/more training
  • Players now practice more their worst shots, while they used to train more their best shots in the past, making their game more all-round (ask Federer how much more he practiced his backhand after Rafa started to play on it, or ask Rafa how much he practiced his backhand when Novak started to play on it, or ask Novak how much he practices his serve and volleys and drop-shots)?
  • Players found new, more effective and efficient ways to win points, games, sets and matches, tactically, technically and mentally. It is not a coincidence that today we see a lot of players employ aggressive baseline game or develop an ubiquitous serve, its because that way of playing tennis is simply MORE EFFECTIVE!

Please see the Stats Timeline on UTS, and you will see how much tennis game had been improved only since 1990!
  • Ace % has improved from ~5.5% to 8%
  • Double faults % has decreased from ~4.3% to ~3.7%
  • First serve % has improved from ~60% to ~62%
  • Service points won % has improved from ~61% to ~63.5%
it is advancements in the tennis game overall that transcended the surface diversity and had influenced that the tour had been homogenized, it has nothing to do with SURFACE homogenization, as surfaces are today relatively different from each other as they used to be 30-40 years ago.

Simply surface diversity was more exposed in the past, because tennis game in the past was not on the today's level (today's, I mean 2005-2019, not counting 2020 and 2021 where level dropped because of COVID).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
So, the reason why Federer has so much more wins than Djokovic, but still the same amount of Top10 wins is because of homogenization and not because he had easier draws and sucked against Top10 once proper opposition appeared? Riiiiiggghhttt 😐

Let's even check who was beating him when he entered Top100 in rankings (since 2000) if you say that poor Fed had to endure all kinds of specialists... He was losing matches to:
Enqvist - not a surface specialist
Ferrero on hardcourt - definitely not a hardcourt specialist
Clement - not a surface specialist
Rosset on hardcourt - not a hardcourt specialist
Larsson - not a surface specialist
Zabaleta on hardcourt - definitely not a hardcourt specialist
Jiri Novak - not a surface specialist
Bruguera - OK, he was a clay specialist
Andrei Medvedev - not a surface specialist
Pavel - not a surface specialist
Hantschk - WTF???
Corretja - OK, he was a clay specialist
Chang on grass - definitely not a grass specialist
Fromberg - WTF???
Kafelnikov on grass - definitely not a grass specialist
Hewitt - not a surface specialist
Clavet - who???
Sekulov - WTF???
Henman on hardcourt - definitely not a hardcourt specialist
Kucera on carpet - hmmm, was he a carpet specialist?
Hrbaty - not a surface specialist
Vinciguerra - not a surface specialist
......................
The list goes on and on in the same style. Where are those specialists you were talking about? 🤔

Just face it, he made the best out of weak fields and crap opposition to vulture majority of his career and titles. It has nothing to do with homogenization or any other crap.
Medvedev was a clay court specialist with 4 masters on clay and a french open final
Karol Kucera was best on indoors carpet, he was a top player for a couple of years before getting injured.
Many of these losses of Federer happened because Federe in the 90s grew up knowing Sampras was number, there were a lot of serve volleyers around, and Federer was mostly playing serve and volley on fast surfaces. He even won his first wimbledon in 2003 mostly playing serve and volley.

Federer became a dominant number 1 when he became mostly a baseliner, he had to transition his game from the 90s to the modern period. The serve volleying of Federer is the reason why Nalbandian beat him in juniors and in their first 5 matches as pros.

federer playing serve and volley in his first grand slam final
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
"Borg and Nadal have 5 "

Well, here's a harmless stat that still gives credit to Borg legacy who spent 8 seasons among the elite from 74 to 81
By never playing more than 3 slams per season except 1974, at 17 ... and even only 2 in 1977 (Wimbledon and US Open).

Never forget
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
"Borg and Nadal have 5 "

Well, here's a harmless stat that still gives credit to Borg legacy who spent 8 seasons among the elite from 74 to 81
By never playing more than 3 slams per season except 1974, at 17 ... and even only 2 in 1977 (Wimbledon and US Open).

Never forget
His main competitors also skipped AO often, so it doesn’t matter for this statistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
His main competitors also skipped AO often, so it doesn’t matter for this statistic.
Of course, these are the "poor" seasons of the AO, however, among his main competitors from 74 to 81, some are not negligible ....
Connors (74 V - 75 F),
but it's fair to say that Connors didn't play RG in those years

Vilas (77 F - 78V - 79V - 80 1 / 2 - 81 3R)
Tanner (77 V).

And TBH, Connors and Vilas, before McEnroe in 1979 .. were .. Borg's main competitors in this area .. 😐
 
141 - 160 of 161 Posts
Top