Groundhog tennis

First topic message reminder :

I dont know about anyone else (?) but for me tennis is getting a bit...er...a lot, dull in general in current times.

Ok I'm a keen player and that will never change, so my interest can never truly go, but an insidious feeling of negativity has been creeping up on me the past few months. And when I read all the tennis forums I think its mirrored all across them too - the men's pro game just isnt firing people up like it used to. Something is going badly wrong. Its nothing to do with Nadal being AWOL, or Federer mopping up, or Novak dipping, etc. But therein lies the clue. The turgidity, for that is the only word for it, of the game revolving around the same 3-4 players is making the game a snooze-fest. When you combine that with no variety and ralley-fests its a complete turn-off. Tennis is more than just 3 players + 1 - surely? But it doesnt feel that way.

And now we see Tsonga and Berdy both eulogiseing what we all know yesterday. That basically the top 3 (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic) are unbeatable at slams rendering everyone else as also rans. This is from 2 of the only guys who have a chance of really beating these guys at slams. So if they feel this what must the guys ranked 40 and below think? In effect they're just fighting for non-podium positions. How dispiriting must that be.

And how dispiriting as a spectator. For all the talk of dark horses, deep runs and shocks the game has become as predictable as the jetstream sat on top of the UK. You may as well skip the events and turn on the TV on the 2nd weekend (1st weekend for Masters) and watch the same semis between the top 4 (assuming Nadal was present). Its permanent GroundHog Day and I'm tired of it.

Its getting to the point where forums are starting to run out of things to discuss - when there are no other realistic winners of slams or Masters what else is there to discuss that isnt fluff/window dressing? So the usual negative topics percolate around to fill the vacuum of interest in the actual play...PEDs, MTOs, physicality, is Novak the same as 2011, is Nadal the same as 2010, is Federer playing better than ever, cupcakes, rigging, etc, etc. Ok, they're interesting topics per se, but not ad infinitum. More recently its a clamour for changes in the game because we all know the game is becoming a Formula 1 procession....and now the ATP realise this too. Where are the discussions we could be having about some unknowns breaking through, or a new slam or even Masters finalist. I switch on the TV for tennis and like Bill Murray I feel like its any part of the year just a slightly different coloured backboard behind the court with the same players on it.

So ATP - please, please, please do something before the game gets permanently wounded. The procession of 3-4 guys from Jan to Dec is getting boring no matter how big a fan of one player you are. Where is the competition, where are the young players, where is the variety, the shocks (ok, Rosol aside), the genuine interest in who might win a slam....its all so predictable. I was watching USO last night and I was thinking, yep not a bad match but these guys have NO chance of getting to the semis...and so the first 10 days are window dressing for the main event, i.e. the semis and final, and that is sad really.

Rant(ish) over. Anyone else feeling similar?

bogbrush wrote:Oh, and regarding Novaks charisma; have you really looked at that hairstyle?

Zack had the style, Slater had the muscles but it was Screech who became the star of the show!

One man's radical is another's tweak.

If the gravity was lowered to be the Moon's, that would be radical.

A 'Moon'ball to Venus and back to the Moon.

PS: I know there has been advocates of court size change as well. (on the original 606 - one guess allowed on who it is/was).

I did a few calculations to distract me from my real work. Decided to analyse each decade of the open era in chronological order for their number of different slam winners, and then combined that with the number of slams contested for a 'slams per winner' average; being the number of grand slams required for a new winner to emerge if these new winners were spread evenly throughout the decade:

1968-1972
No of slam winners: 8
No of slams contested: 18
Slams per winner: 2.25

1972-1982
No of slam winners: 16
No of slams contested: 41
Slams per winner: 2.56

1982-1992
No of slam winners: 14
No of slams contested: 39
Slams per winner: 2.79

1992-2002
No of slam winners: 18
Slams contested: 40
Slams per winner: 2.22

2002-2012
No of slam winners: 10
Slams contested: 40
Slams per winner: 4

As we can see, the figures show that the past decade has indeed been the decade of 'groundhog tennis', as the OP suggested; being by far the most homogenous in it's grand slam champions.

If we believe that the ATP in it's infinite wisdom has had a hand to play in this (less court variety, bigger balls, larger prize money disparity, no regulation of string technology, [draw rigging?!?]) then we can perhaps see a reason in the stats: Prior to the most recent decade the period from 1982-1992 was the least diverse for grand slam champions. This is also an era that many fans hark back to. A time with a multitude of great champions and even greater characters; J Mac, Jimbo, Boom Boom, the ice man Lendl, the Swedish boys and the new American blood all managed to get their names inscribed on tennis' grandest cups. After this time came the '90s; a slightly odd period of Sampras dominance mixed with a range of slam champions seemingly fired at random from the pages of the ATP rankings (with a some Agassi thrown in).

So perhaps what we have witnessed in the 2000s is the fruit of a concerted effort to bring back the glory days of the '80s, except the formula used has actually swung the balance so far the other way that it bears no comparison (or indeed aesthetic resemblance) to the tennis we saw up to this point.

Topical update from Greg just now on Sky;

"It's not like the past where you could break through on some surfaces if you were a serve & volleyer, everything's the same these days, everyone plays the same and the guys at the top just play it a little bit better"

Honestly is the domination that bad.

People love seeing Federer, Nadal play; and they have enthralled us with some stunning tennis matches (including the Wimby 2008 final which in my eyes is the greatest match in the history of tennis).
Murray has finally given Great Britain something to cheer for in the realistic hope he can win a Grand Slam, while Djokovic is slowly winning fans as he cements his place in the scene.

People are forgetting, we really have had some brilliant matches in recent times. Some people might not like the Djokal matches too, but none can say there was no drama at 5-5 in the AO final, or Djokovic 5-6 match point down in the French Open final!

http://www.latimes.com/sports/tennis/la-sp-dwyre-us-open-20120830,0,7473489.column

I'm confused; one minute you don't see the problem, the next you think a Slam is flat without one player.

Isn't the truth that you just like big matches Nadal wins and that dictates your assessment of the period?

Lydians a Nadal fan & I'm a Fed fan yet we both find this period - where our favoured players are hugely successful - unsatisfying.

IMBL - I agree with your sentiment but that LA Times article contains some of the most irritating Rafa mythology:

The U.S. Open swallows up much of a tired field in its parched August and September days, with its unrelenting rock music and carnival-barker atmosphere. Nadal is swallow-proof. He was made for this ...huge and unruly crowds and a stadium court built in the image and likeness of the Grand Canyon.

Actually, just one title and two final appearances at this event.

He was made for this, for mentally handling the challenges of bad weather

Losing 8 straight games in the rain at the French? Getting beaten by Fed in the wind at IW?

If he hits 500 ground strokes in a match, he hits each one with power and aggression.

Unless it's on the backhand.

There are few surprises. His opponents know what is coming. They just can't do much about it.
He is the bombast in a tournament, the street fighter, the guy who gets off the canvas, time after time, bloodied and battered, and still lands the final haymaker.

So the opponents can't do much about it but somehow they put him in a position where is bloodied and battered on the canvas? And when exactly were these great comebacks?

I do like Rafa but the guff that gets written about him drives me mad!

bogbrush wrote:I'm confused; one minute you don't see the problem, the next you think a Slam is flat without one player.

Isn't the truth that you just like big matches Nadal wins and that dictates your assessment of the period?

Lydians a Nadal fan & I'm a Fed fan yet we both find this period - where our favoured players are hugely successful - unsatisfying.

As a period of tennis (last few years or so) I think we have had some brilliant matches. Wimby 2008, AO 2009, USO 2009 etc.
Also I agree with Lydian, that under the surface, below the top 4, there isn't that much briilliance. If the top 4 were not so good, then we wouldn't be saying that though.
Which begs the questions: Is the top 4 that good, or are they lucky there is not much strength in depth. My article I showed said that without Nadal there the Open is missing something, but maybe that shows a clue as there is no one to fill Nadal's gap really. It's not like everyone is like, 'brilliant David Ferrer now has a chance to shine).
So yes, I think it's a mixed bag. Apart from Del Potro 2009, we haven't had a surprise winner in a Grand Slam for years.

btw I am writing a draft copy of TWS edition 8, which contains a top secret conversation between Roger and Mirka (obtained by undercover media), they talk a bit about this era, perhaps when it comes out you will agree with Roger's point of view let's see.

HM Murdoch wrote:IMBL - I agree with your sentiment but that LA Times article contains some of the most irritating Rafa mythology:

The U.S. Open swallows up much of a tired field in its parched August and September days, with its unrelenting rock music and carnival-barker atmosphere. Nadal is swallow-proof. He was made for this ...huge and unruly crowds and a stadium court built in the image and likeness of the Grand Canyon.

Actually, just one title and two final appearances at this event.

He was made for this, for mentally handling the challenges of bad weather

Losing 8 straight games in the rain at the French? Getting beaten by Fed in the wind at IW?

If he hits 500 ground strokes in a match, he hits each one with power and aggression.

Unless it's on the backhand.

There are few surprises. His opponents know what is coming. They just can't do much about it.
He is the bombast in a tournament, the street fighter, the guy who gets off the canvas, time after time, bloodied and battered, and still lands the final haymaker.

So the opponents can't do much about it but somehow they put him in a position where is bloodied and battered on the canvas? And when exactly were these great comebacks?

I do like Rafa but the guff that gets written about him drives me mad!

1/ We hear how amazing Djokovic is on these hard-courts. Nadal's record in USO is as good (so far).
2/ The rain at the FO? It's not like it got in his eyes It made the court bounce lower, which suited Novak's game. It's not like the rain directly affected Nadal, more indirectly affected the bounce of the court, which in turn gave Djokovic an advantage. Fed would have won at IW, wind or no wind he played better. Remember IW final against Murray 2009 Nadal can play in wind, but if he doesn't play well and gets out-played by his opponent he's not going to win, is he?
3/ Nadal hits his backhand with aggression and power. It's not as good as Djokovic's DHBH but it's still pretty damn good.
4/ Well I disagree with the journalist here. Clearly some can do something about it, or he would be unbeaten.
By 'on the canvas' he doesn't mean 2 sets down. It's when he is constantly out of the point, but somehow manages to fight back from nowhere. Nothing to do with scorecard comebacks.

Murdoch, obviously written by a Rafalito. If this is the guy they can't do anything about, why has he never retained a title away from clay, won only 4 Slams off clay, and is #3?

bogbrush wrote:Murdoch, obviously written by a Rafalito. If this is the guy they can't do anything about, why has he never retained a title away from clay, won only 4 Slams off clay, and is #3?

Well obviously something can be done about it Hyperbole journalism, nothing new tbh.

People probably write the same thing about Federer, yet he can't beat his main rival even 3 times in 11 attempts in majors.

bogbrush wrote:Topical update from Greg just now on Sky;

"It's not like the past where you could break through on some surfaces if you were a serve & volleyer, everything's the same these days, everyone plays the same and the guys at the top just play it a little bit better"

He does irritate me.

It doesn't speak well for players incapable of in the past adapting their game to the surface.

He had a game made for Grass and he played like a bag of crap on it.

It Must Be Love wrote:1/ We hear how amazing Djokovic is on these hard-courts. Nadal's record in USO is as good (so far).

It's actually a little worse - Novak has made 3 final to Rafa's 2. And let's not even bother comparing the record of the current world #1 who has won 5 in a row here!
It's Rafa's third most successful slam, so to claim he was "made for it" is clearly nonsense.

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:1/ We hear how amazing Djokovic is on these hard-courts. Nadal's record in USO is as good (so far).

It's actually a little worse - Novak has made 3 final to Rafa's 2. And let's not even bother comparing the record of the current world #1 who has won 5 in a row here!
It's Rafa's third most successful slam, so to claim he was "made for it" is clearly nonsense.

I never said he was made for it I'm not sure what that comment even meant. I think he was talking about how he controls the crowd rather than his play on the surface, but not really sure.
Hyperbole journalism=

Anyway if you think this piece of journalism is shocking, prepare to faint this weekend as I reveal the full details word for word of Roger and Mirka's secret conversation, which so far has been hidden from the press

IMBL - I shall await on the proverbial tenterhooks!

Nice analysis spdocoffee

At the end of the day the results speak for themselves and we have never seen a top 4 this dominant before and yet none us can say they are the best 4 of all time.

Tennis is relatively simple. Surfaces, balls, racquets, movement and technique.

However these variables allow the game to change from one era to another. But you do have to wonder about the wisdom of ATP when they allow balls to get bigger, surfaces to slow down, racquets to get bigger, strings to get stiffer and all whilst players move better than ever with technique dictated more and more by conditions. They clearly wanted slow conditions...they felt it was what the public must have wanted.

But as the game goes past a tipping point when do they move some of e variables in the opposite direction before ralleys last all day. Many sports have had to have their equipment curtailed - motor sports, skiing, golf, baseball, cycling, squash, even swimming. And yet tennis carries on regardless. No constraints applied even in the face of the game having changed out of all recognition the past 10 years. And quite simply the ATP sends a clear signal it doesn't care about the health of its players when they make conditions suit long ralleys.

Kids with sporting talent are going to face a dilemma in future. Do I pursue a sport where you have to play week in, week out for 11 mths a year, often for hours on end each day or succeed in another well paid sport where you get long breaks, shorter matches, and probably have a longer career. We don't need 4 hour matches, we want contrasting styles. That's why the Federer-Nadal rivalry is so good. But it's going to be Nadal-Nadal only soon....or Djokovic-Nadal rather and I don't believe that match up excites the general public, and when that becomes the only show on tour, post Fed, then revenues will start to drop IMO. These conditions have ensured we now have another 10 years of players ahead of us brought up in ralley extending conditions.

The current top4 were brought up under different conditions but once they have moved on I don't see where the contrast of styles will come from...and it's not as though Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are really varied in their play.

So I'm firmly of the opinion that you either speed up surfaces/balls or reduce the impact of racquet tech before its WTA slugfests week in, week out. Other sports have had to do similar, but tennis seems stuck in denial. So far. But when guys like Djokovic are crying out for more variety then you know the game is up...he realises what it has took to compete at the highest level under current conditions and suspect does not want to have to push himself as hard as he had to for the success of 2011 again.

Yes, good post by SPDOcoffee there is a desire in the game for the great stars to dominate. But we can overstate this whole talk about homogenized results due to homogenized surfaces. Why have the same balls, same strings, same racquets, and same conditions not resulted in homogenized results in the women's game? Why is it that from week to week you have no idea who is going to win the next women's tournament. I go with Occum's razor despite all the eloquent ANECTODAL and unsupported arguments that slow conditions are creating homogenized results, increasing injury, and chasing fans from the game the real reason the top 4 win so much is because they are better and special. That is it, as simple as that. The young guys aren't winning because they aren't good enough yet, doesn't mean they will always be in that situation.

socal1976 wrote:I go with Occum's razor despite all the eloquent ANECTODAL and unsupported arguments that slow conditions are creating homogenized results,

I don't think that's the main argument though. The main argument is that homogenized (not slow) conditions have created a homogenized style of play. We see that in both the men's and the women's games. Hence Djoko, among others, is talking about trying to get more variety back. In the past, that variety came from less homongenized conditions.
I do however, understand that many people, like yourself, prefer the current style of play, and would like to see as much of it as possible, with no desire to return to the days of, say, surface specialists - and you're prefectly entitled to stick to that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I do however, understand that many people, like yourself, prefer the current style of play, and would like to see as much of it as possible, with no desire to return to the days of, say, surface specialists - and you're prefectly entitled to stick to that.

I think you should understand though socal that Djokovic is saying that players will not last as long unless conditions do change slightly because it is not always possible (he makes that point quite strongly) to always play 6 hour matches and when you have two of the best retrievers going head to head on slow court, after slow court, they will be able to get to every ball and it will go on as long.

You wonder what is wrong with your boy - he can't do another 6 hour match this year, and that is causing him mentally to hold back slightly in key moments.

time please wrote:You wonder what is wrong with your boy - he can't do another 6 hour match this year, and that is causing him mentally to hold back slightly in key moments.

I think there is some truth in this. Post-2011 he is one of the favourites for every tournament, in big finals regularly, where he is usually playing an opponent who is either in inspired form or willing to lay everything on the line to beat him. I'm sure there have been occasions where he just hasn't had the energy to go to war again.

I think it happens to all players at times. Rafa fought so hard to win the 3rd set at USO11, he just had nothing left for the 4th. Once Fed went two sets down at RG this year, you could see he didn't have the inclination to fight to a 5th set.

I actually quite like it when Fed gets in one of his moods where he appears to think "win or lose, I'm getting off this court quickly", and just swings at everything! Maybe that's what Novak should try!

This is another anecdotal comparison, purely subjective,

Match #1 - Bjorn Phau v Roger Federer - 90 mins, 3 sets, Average rally length 3, some rallies were up to 15 strokes.

Match #2 - Jimmy Wang v Gilles Simon - 181 mins, 5 sets, Average rally length 22 (unverified) strokes.

The same surface, very similar court conditions, very similar weather.

The key here is a choice that players make, the technology is very similar, for all four players.

Yes, I know Federer is an aggressive player, while Simon is the archetypical Counterpuncher, but I watched both matches simultaneously, and my preference was the Federer-Phau match.

The AO match between Federer and Simon was good, by contrast.

If Tennis becomes an attritional sport, as it is progressing inevitably so, it will die by attrition, of the audiences. One benefit of the no more Tennis scenario, is the GOAT debate can be settled once and for all.

Average rally length 22 strokes - that can't be right, can it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Average rally length 22 strokes - that can't be right, can it?

Thats what I was thinking. US Open Final 2011 was 8 strokes per rally and the Australian Open 2012 Final had 9 strokes per rally

The 22 strokes is one of the sets, not the match, IIRC, from the USOpen.org stream. (It could have been an error in the video stream). I will try and find a screen shot.

Also... http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/rally_count_ms.html

Simon-Wang appear five times in this list.

http://heavytopspin.com/2011/06/06/fun-with-french-open-rally-length/

This is specifically on clay.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I go with Occum's razor despite all the eloquent ANECTODAL and unsupported arguments that slow conditions are creating homogenized results,

I don't think that's the main argument though. The main argument is that homogenized (not slow) conditions have created a homogenized style of play. We see that in both the men's and the women's games. Hence Djoko, among others, is talking about trying to get more variety back. In the past, that variety came from less homongenized conditions.
I do however, understand that many people, like yourself, prefer the current style of play, and would like to see as much of it as possible, with no desire to return to the days of, say, surface specialists - and you're prefectly entitled to stick to that.

Homogenized conditions creating the same style of play, well that is one way to look at it. The way I look at it is that two factors have made S and V die as an outright playing style. One is that with the modern racquets and tech it is easier to produce power and finish shots with the short forehand and it is infinetly less risky. Also the conditions and tech produce better returns and passes than in the past. In my opinion, the bigger male players need a governor of slower conditions to maintain any semblance of a real tennis match.

All I want is for you guys to get your wish. I hope that they speed up the grass, ban luxis, limit racquet head size, and juice the balls. Then I will sit back and laugh hysterically when Milos Raonic plays Isner at wimby and the match 296-294 in the fifth set. The athletes aren't the same as 20 years ago. Speeding up conditions will lead to a buttload of fast court ace fests I mean snooze fests. The modern male player is too big for significantly faster conditions than what we are witnessing. And you can't go back to your nostalgic childhood by just banning technology and messing with conditions. Like I said I can't wait for Isner's opponents to return his serve with no luxis, a smaller ball, and a tiny racquet head. Conversly, I also would love to watch John Isner try to return his opponents serve with the same handicaps. The top male servers are holding 90 percent of the time, does it really make the game better if we had a handful of players holding at 95 plus percent of the time with faster conditions? The game will suck, that is why they slowed things down in the early 2000s to begin with, and the strategy has worked.

Socal, yet again, you seem to think that the only way to change homogenized conditions is to speed everything up. But if you speed everything up, it would still be homongenized. So clearly those people, such as Novak Djokovic, who want to see more variety in the game don't want to see everything speeded up, they want to see a bit more variation in conditions between tournaments, with perhaps other small tweaks e.g. should spraying strings with silicon be banned? Is that a recent step too far in technology?
I'm pretty sure I've pointed that out in the past. Either you think that many posters are calling for 'drastic changes', which they're not, or you are aware that only 1 or 2 posters are calling for drastic changes and you only respond to them.

Yes Julius and the type of changes I would support would be incremental, and experimental at first, which frankly is what Djokovic seems to be saying. I don't have a problem and have said it before that if they want to play a little with the ball and courts at the faster court tournies I don't mind as long as the changes are not drastic and wholesale. I want to see how these changes impact the quality of play. So in that respects we are all in agreement. But my arguments aren't just directed at you I think there is a big overstating of the socalled "problems" with the modern style. I also think people underestimate the big impact that all of these wholesale changes that some are calling for. (not you or me) Remember there was a reason that all the tourney's slowed down 10 years ago, they didn't just wake up one morning and all decide to throw some sand in the concrete and change the grass and balls.

Petchey just mentioned enforcing 20 seconds between points.

In his words "you simply couldn't play 30 stroke rallies all the time with that rule in place".

bogbrush wrote:Petchey just mentioned enforcing 20 seconds between points.

In his words "you simply couldn't play 30 stroke rallies all the time with that rule in place".

Actually, can agree with this. We don't need to tweak any technology or conditions. Why don't we just enforce the rules that already are intended to speed up play first and then talk about wholesale overhaul of the game, and then lets see what happens. Some of the faster tourney's taking a look at quicker balls and mildly quicker courts is another thing that we could try and see how it is received and how it plays. If it produces great matches and great fan support great maybe we can then think about going a little further. I don't like radical change without testing and proper groundwork of getting everyone onboard and making any type of transition somewhat gradual and fair.

Whoa is me tennis is so dull and boring and awful right now. A record number of 5 set matches, a record number of come from 2 sets behind to win, the GOAt playing well, two other young greats, and the best player to never win a slam. Whoa is me, Whoa is tennis. This thread becoming a bit out of place with all these complaints, yet not a single person acknowledging the great competive matches in the first two rounds of this tourney. But I forgot we don't like 5 set matches that take over 3 and half hours on this site, according to the purists they are evil.

bogbrush wrote:Petchey just mentioned enforcing 20 seconds between points.

In his words "you simply couldn't play 30 stroke rallies all the time with that rule in place".

Ha ha! If this is meant to be a dig at Nadal Petchy will be very disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATP are already in secret talks with Rafa offering him extra time between points so that he can rearrange his water bottles as well as wipe the sweat from his brow in an attempt to persuade or rather beg him to come back...

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Petchey just mentioned enforcing 20 seconds between points.

In his words "you simply couldn't play 30 stroke rallies all the time with that rule in place".

Ha ha! If this is meant to be a dig at Nadal Petchy will be very disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATP are already in secret talks with Rafa offering him extra time between points so that he can rearrange his water bottles as well as wipe the sweat from his brow in an attempt to persuade or rather beg him to come back...

Petchey has been banging this drum for some time. As discussed before Nadal isn't the only culprit.