Djokovic ponders ball sizes

That got your attention

http://www.tennishead.net/news/on-tour/2012/07/17/djokovic-schedules-matter-a-lot

I posted this on socal's cupcakes thread, after seeing it linked on another forum, but wondered if it wasn't worth highlighting aside from Djokovic. It is an article about how gruelling the tour is, the hope that the ATP will be able to find a two month break in the schedule but also Djokovic ponders on how physically demanding tennis is becoming and mentions that issues are being tentatively discussed to bring more variety to the game and to spend less time on court - ball sizes being one (settle down at the back please! )


" [Rafa Nadal and I] played for almost six hours in Australia. We can’t say that is where tennis is going, that we will always play for that long, but we have longer rallies, less serve-and-volley. Maybe some variety would be better so there is less time spent on the court.”

He added: “There has been a lot of talk about where tennis will go from here. It’s become so physical, so many rallies. Technology has advanced so much, what is the next step? It’s interesting to talk about it. We don’t know what to predict, but there are talks about making the tennis balls smaller so there can be shorter points, which will release the pressure from a physical point of view.”"

He also talks about hard courts having a more flexible top coat nowadays which relieves a lot of strain on the joints.

Perhaps this is a big clue about what is being chewed over during the Competition Committee meetings?

It's good to know that the players are talking about ways to introduce a bit of variety and speeding up some aspects of the game.

Flexible top-coats is a nice bit of sticking plaster, but Djoko appreciates that there are more fundamental matters needing to be addressed. Good for him.

Interesting comments, there is variation in what they can do with balls as ITF have 3 sizes they can use. Hopefully a smaller ball (as it used to be) would help with speed and touch.

But it needs to go further than that in my opinion...racquet and string tech needs to have limits placed on them...smaller balls cant do it alone given other advances in the game.

Racquets need to be smaller, strings more taut and less use of poly, banning of silicon spray, weight needs to go up to a minimum, etc.

Then there are the seasons, scheduling, preponderance of hardcourt, etc...

Alot for the ATP committee to chew on but its good that Djokovic is starting to speak out about this...and the fact he is perhaps shows the strain the tour is taking on him which speaks to some of his more lacklustre performances of late against the big guys.

Very interesting. I think this carries a lot of weight coming from Djokovic. He's the player who took endurance to new levels and if the last man standing is saying "enough's enough", then it must be time for a change.

It's good to see that the players are open to the idea of such changes. But part of me does also think that nobody is forcing them to stay on the baseline and rarely serve-and-volley...

No-one is forcing but even Federer has said coming into the net on S&V type game is a waste of time now...strings/racquets and improvements in stroke techniques make passing shots really easy now. The players can easily take out net rushers...its become too easy actually and has taken all risk in coming forwards out of the game. Shame.

They also need to make changes because young players are simply not breaking into the game anymore and we have the same 3-4 people winning all the tournaments because they dont have to vary their games much from week to week....something has to give.

lydian wrote:They also need to make changes because young players are simply not breaking into the game anymore and we have the same 3-4 people winning all the tournaments because they dont have to vary their games much from week to week....something has to give.

I think that is the most crucial thing lydian. If you take away the four top guys, and the charismatic few like Tsonga, Dologopolov, Gasquet and most of the French guys on their day, you are left with not so charismatic guys all playing the same attritional baseline tennis and the ATP tour looks about as inspiring as the WTA.

Something is clearly wrong. separate rant, but it is ridiculous that there isn't a standard racquet size - can you imagine baseball or cricket or table tennis doing going this way?

Completely agree...tennis is lagging behind in terms of equipment specs, even in golf they limit techology to a degree. One issue is that racquet manufacturers want to sell new racquets every year with seemingly new technologies. And I say fine, let racquet tech continue, but within some basic limitations around head size, weight, frame beam, length and string tech (only use Poly as mains or crosses, not both).

Otherwise the mens game is surely headed in the direction of the WTA?

Seems ridiculous to me that they have increased the size of the balls AND racquets in recent years. Just how easy do they want to make it for the players??!!

The other day at my parents'home, I found my first Cambridge wooden racquet that I had at the age of ten - compared to my son's at similar age it is ridiculously small, and much heavier!

My children think it is very quaint indeed!

If you have Raonic train in Spain on Clay and play attritional Tennis on an HC against Giraldo, it should be blamed on his coach, Blanco, who insists on a non-surface specific style.

Yesterday, 205 minutes in Bo5, for 5 63/64 sets.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day8/1124ms.html

I prefer the Dolgo-Levine match.

laverfan wrote:If you have Raonic train in Spain on Clay and play attritional Tennis on an HC against Giraldo, it should be blamed on his coach, Blanco, who insists on a non-surface specific style.

Yesterday, 205 minutes in Bo5, for 5 63/64 sets.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day8/1124ms.html

I prefer the Dolgo-Levine match.

To me a good teacher/coach/instructor helps tweak and polish natural style, and doesn't try and interfere too much with natural rhythm. I didn't see the match, but it is very strange that any coach of Raonic should head down the non-surface specific route when honing his natural weapons would seem an easier and more effective game plan.

He should be emulating Sampras not Ferrer!

It was obvious at Estoril that he would be very heavily influenced by Clay, despite the match against Federer @ Halle.

Some might argue the conditions are forcing Raonic to have to emulate Ferrer because they dont reward Sampras-type play. Not that Raonic is a patch on Sampras mind.

There is come conscious decision-making involved though. Dimitrov and Dolgopolov are counter-examples. A single factor may be become a tie-breaker in the choices, rather being the primary factor.

It is also a problem if you learn to play one way, and once ingrained, try to change during a professional career, unless one has the genius of Sampras or Federer.

Well I don't think much is wrong with the game that we need making drastic changes. People make the argument about injuries and shortening the careers if anything the players are lasting longer and playing longer. Now maybe some tinkering around the edges to give some variety at a few tournaments is fine. But i like the modern tour and modern game. I don't know much about golf and don't really like the sport so i don't know if I would follow their example. The question when it comes to technology is if it is hurting the quality of the game, creating injuries, causing the sport to lose fans? I think alot of change proponents make bold assertions on these fronts with little real proof, I would do some minor tinkering and experimentation in a couple of events first and see how those tournaments play out and are received, just tweaking things Ion tiriac style wholesale and then figuring out you made a wrong move is what I would oppose.

Perhaps we should just let them play with 200sq in. racquets with composite developed to still weigh 300 grams so they never miss another ball, and with strings that practically stick to the ball to create 10,000 rpm spin? Then eventually when a player can ralley from any position and return every serve no matter how fast and matches never end then perhaps we'll realise the game went too far? Or perhaps we try to stop that extrapolated evolution now before it kills off the game? 6 hour, 30 shot ralley every point matches will kill off the game. And surely longer ralleys must lead to more wear and tear? So better tech > longer ralleys > more wear and tear? Or is there a disconnect?

Where should tech stop socal? Sampras called Luxilon strings "Cheat-a-lon"...I agree (even though I use them myself!). Kuerten switched from gut to Luxilon in 1997 (first player to do so) and then won 3 French Opens. Agassi switched to Lux in 2002 and in 2003 he got to #1 in world again. Federer started using Lux in 2004 and we saw there...

Guys like Sampras battled on with gut but they couldnt keep up in the face of strings that blunted the skill of their game, and left them floundering at the net as shot after shot whizzed past them by guys who wouldnt have got a look in a few years previous.

Luxilon is a very stiff string, it doesnt bend so all the energy goes back into the ball...or the arm. It also adds weight to a racquet...around 8-10 grams. Its why we're seeing more and more arm issues in club players, you need to be a pro to use these things properly, if you have poor technique these strings will kill you. But for the pros they give more spin, power, etc...so ralleys go on more, killing net rushers and turning matches into battles.

So yes I see these strings are detrimental to the game...as I say where does racquet tech stop....? Never?

Lydian I don't have a set threshold for when things must stop. All this talk about super light racquets and huge heads is a bit overblown. The larger the racquet head at some point you lose feel and control and the head will wobble in your hand. If a 200 sq. in. racquet made you play better people would use it. Most pros don't play with that light of racquets, in the marketplace they even make full size racquets that are 5 or 6 ounces unstrung. Not a lot of people under 50 or of the male gender ever by those racquets. Generally, a slightly oversized head around 100 sq. in. is the biggest face we see on tour the smallest is around 85 squ inch. You are talking about a 15 percent difference and the most successful player in the tour's history plays with among the smallest faced racquets of all time. Just like lendl did. I don't see racquet tech changing that dramatically and as I stated the proponents of drastic change overstate the case. 85-100 sq in. covers about 99 percent of the racquets on tour, and 10-12 ounces is about the racquet weight that covers 99 percent of the tour. This is hardly earthshakingly different than what was used 10 years ago.

The big change has come with strings and again I have seen nothing but anectodal evidence that it creates injuries or slower conditions as a whole have shortened careers. In the past when I first started watching tennis in the 80s it was not uncommon for a serve and volleyer to emerge in his teens and completely fizzle out by his 25 or 26th birthday, Mac and Becker to a lesser extent had similar career trajectories. Why because it is an internet myth that serve and volleying is easier on the body. I challenge anybody to play their next match and run in 90 percent of the time, then play a couple of days later and play the match 90 percent from the baseline and see after which day your body is howling. Serve and volley tennis is brutally physical on the joints. Ankles, knees, backs, and hips. Much worse than wrist or shoulder pressure of hitting loopy forehands from the back of the court. Playing baseline points is cardiovascularly tougher but if you don't believe me about the traumatic effect on joints of S and V tennis take my challenge.

lydian wrote:But it needs to go further than that in my opinion...racquet and string tech needs to have limits placed on them

I think attempts to significantly change equipment specs in tennis could run into similar issues I have seen mentioned in golf. Both sports are quite difficult to play. The same advances in equipment that lead to some excesses on the pro circuit make the game much easier to play for regular population. So the sport faces a choice from among three unpalatable options:

1. Place restrictions on equipment. This will make it harder to play for the “masses” and may result in reduced interest in sport.

2. Keep it as is. This is arguably making pro tennis less entertaining.

3. Put some restrictions on the pro equipment but not on the equipment played by regular population. This is not desirable because it is good for the popularity of the sport if average person can feel they play the “same” game as pros (no matter how different those games really are).

In other words, I do not think it is that easy to find a win-win solution.

Besides I think we need to give new tactics and strategies time to catch up to the technology. This year I have noticed that both fed and Djoko are coming in more in fact all the top players have worked on their variety, the slice backhand and volleys and are employing as a major variation in an all court playbook. It is correct S and V is dead, but volleying isn't, it just requires a more advantageous position to approach the net and be successful than it 25 years ago. Also in the modern game it is just a lot easier to hit the short forehand off the court than it was 25 and certainly 30 years ago. So should we punish the guys who have big forehands and are retrievers in order to favor a different set of players? I don't know, I don't think so, but if some of the traditionally faster tournaments want to speed up that is fine, if they think it makes them more marketable they will. But we can yell and scream all we like but if the tournaments think that there is more money in a baseline game they will favor the baseline game. Lets remember tennis was losing ratings and viewers precisely because many had the view that the power serve was taking over the game and that wimby in particular was darn near unwatchable, I agreed with people back then. I think they made the right call in slowing the game down. The male players are just getting too big and powerful to give any kind of an edge to the big servers.

I mean the conditions are fair enough where we get a top ten with a guy who is 5 foot 8 and a guys who is 6 foot 9. You can win today and many players do with out and out attack and many because of their body type or physical skill set play a more defensive style. But to win at the top you need to be competent in both areas. I enjoy it have no complaints.

Good points socal and summerblues. As mentioned on the other thread this is a really complex discussion once you balance in all factors.

S&V is dead...because of conditions. Should conditions come back to allow that? Maybe yes....but there is a risk of serve-fests again. What we all want is a happy middle ground where baseliners can do well, but net rushers, point-killers, can do well. Some of it is semantics as to how you feel the game should be played too. Personally I prefer a much more attacking style of tennis where points are more so won from the foreground, or inside the basline, than outside of it. The way the game was devised to begin with really.

But how do we get to a better middle ground? I agree limiting racquet tech is problematic but surely it depends on how that is done. I'm not saying we go back to 85 sqin racquets, wood, gut, etc. But surely limits on tech have to be applied at some point before the game becomes the ralley-fest its turning into? I dont see why some sensible limits to the pro-game couldnt be applied, the public can already buy racquets that are 115sqin with 25mm frames...too powerful for the pros to use but they're there. The issue is that creeping tech on same sized frames is also making the game more powerful, easier to pass, more spin, etc. Each 1-2% increase in racqurt head size makes a big difference to sweetspot area and size of face available to play spin. Likewise weight differences of a few grams make big changes too. And string tech has made it easier to ralley further...the pro's are even spraying silicon onto their string bed now to increase RPM - should this be allowed to continue? That is almost like PED-use for those that do it! I just feel its too easy for current players to knock the top off the ball versus a few years back...and slower conditions mean they have even more time to get to the ball to extend ralleys. It makes for more boring tennis in my opinion.

We have seen the game headed into 5-6 hour marathons...is this what we want to see happen all the time? If not, how do we reduce it?

There is precedent on banning technology. IIRC certain types of strings and stringing patterns have been made illegal in the past.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There is precedent on banning technology. IIRC certain types of strings and stringing patterns have been made illegal in the past.

Nastase's Spaghetti comes to mind.

I am waiting for computer-controlled technology in the racquets, where the coaching staff with a myriad of super-computers would remotely program the racquets using wireless technology on court and we could have our centennial slam where each match lasts a month.

US NFL and NBA coaches are plan individual plays. Wonderful.

Do we really need human players? Does anyone watch Caprica in the US?

Is there a computer that needs to replace Picasso or Monet or Van Gogh?

Thanks to human life span, I will not be around to see such travesty.

Well, lydian I agree with a lot of what you say. It is about finding a happy middle ground. But lets say you speed up the conditions a little bit and bring back smaller balls and ban luxis. So now Raonic goes from holding 93 percent of the time to holding what 99 or 98 percent of the time. Is that how tennis was intended to be played. No its not, there is no set way of what is right for the modern game. But I tell you what you give John Isner a match at wimbeldon where everyone is limited in racquet head size, can't use luxis, playing on a quick grass court with smaller balls and I will show you the world's first ever unfinishable tennis match. We have already had a scoreline 71-69 do you want a scoreline 271-269.

When tennis first became a major sport they could never of imagined players almost seven feet tall who could move. What fast court proponents do not acknowledge is that the male tennis player and female tennis player today is nothing physically like the players of 60 or 70s hell physically these guys are even more developed than the guys in the 90s. And the human species is evolving to be taller, and taller, and is getting bigger physically. I don't even want to think about how god awful every Isner and Karlovic match will be when they hold every single time or pretty much every time. I mean we may see one of the big servers go an entire YEAR WITHOUT BEING BROKEN (off the clay) IS THAT HOW TENNIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED?

To go back to Djoko's point "Maybe some variety would be better so there is less time spent on the court.” It's hard to argue against that.

We've already had a 6 hour final - does anyone want to see an 8 hour final?

Yes, it's about finding the middle ground - which is pretty much what most posters here, and Djoko, are asking for.

JuliusHMarx wrote:To go back to Djoko's point "Maybe some variety would be better so there is less time spent on the court.” It's hard to argue against that.

We've already had a 6 hour final - does anyone want to see an 8 hour final?

Yes, it's about finding the middle ground - which is pretty much what most posters here, and Djoko, are asking for.

I am so sick of that 6 hour final being the reason we need to change. The ratings were up for that final over the year before, the fans were on the edge of their seats, the commentators loved it. I personally thought it was a great match. But it was one match between the two best retrievers playing on a slow hardcourt. Why should that be the battle cry of change? Should we slow down wimby further because Isner and Mahut played one match that lasted 11 hours, 3 days and a fifth set in 70s? Because of that one match I move that we should slow wimbeldon down to the point where John Isner can break serve. The AO final was a great match, people loved it, there has been an online attack campaign on that match ever since. Why not make the cause celebre the unbreakable John Isner on grass? Which of the two matches is a bigger aberration of the game? In fact, I think the tour is very close to the right mix of conditions, why? Precisely because at one tournament you can have 6 hour baseline virtuoso performance when two great defenders play on a slow court, and ALSO JUST a few months earlier you have two attackers playing on grass and playing 11 hours of out and attack tennis where no one can break. IS THAT NOT VARIETY, OR DOES THIS KIND OF VARIETY NOT COUNT?

socal, perhaps you should speak to Djoko about it - he's the one who's suggesting more variety. I'm simply agreeing with him.