Do you think Murray feels challenged by Raonic?

First topic message reminder :

We have heard this line of reasoning about how there are no quality youngsters, how in two or three years all the fans will leave tennis, how the big 4 are not being challenged, and that furthermore there isn't much there after the top guys. Well I don't mean to pick on people but fundamentally I believe that all of these statements are wrong and mistake cause with effect. I believe Raonic at 21 at least 3-4 years away from his prime has a winning head to head against a current big 4 member at his absolute peak. The puncher scored a late round knockout over the counterpuncher winning it 7-6. Frankly, if the Missile wasn't 21 some odd years old the score wouldn't be so close but the result would stay the same. Milos played brilliant attack tennis with quite a few approaches to net.

For his part murray didn't play poorly he made some sparkling shots that did credit to all that talent that oozes from his slightly goofy looking visage. Still he couldn't stem the tide. I am calling my shot right now, BARRING SERIOUS INJURY ISSUES Milos will win more than one slam. As I have been saying people will see that on the modern tour players need more time to gain the proper seasoning for how fit, smart, strong, and consistent they have to be. These things don't favor the youngsters but at the same time it doesn't preclude them from raising up like Raonic is slowly doing when they have the ability. He is still very much a work in progess his returning is way too inconsistent a small but significant improvement in his returning will see him become untouchable by pretty much everyone on a fast court. The modern game is a return dominated game look at the players in the top 5 the best returners in the game. This is one part of the game that takes players a while to adjust to the ATP's big servers. It isn't like you are going to be able to play against the John Isners or Federer type serves in the juniors and futures that often.

I hate to be right this often but it is a curse. The fact remains there is plenty of young talent they just can't bomb their way to the top on big shots alone, eventually some will rise to the top and when they do they will be better all around players for it.

lydian wrote:What I say might be seen as antiNadal but guys like Nadal and Murray learnt their game in different conditions - they have a broader skill set as a base compare to younger guys coming through. However, they have also succeeded in slower conditions, so talent is arguably talent. However, why can't new talent break through now like Nadal, Djokovic or Murray did?

1. Fundamental lack of talent in the game? Perhaps but the fact no-one is breaking into top 400 is a huge concern...it's not all about the top 4.
2. There are no "transitional" (faster to slower) players to overcome anymore? Nadal, et al, broke through against Agassi, Blake, Loober, Hewitt, etc...guys who couldn't succeed post-slowdown. The breed we have now are much harder to break down for up and comers. They are suited to slow conditions but have a broader skill base too.

I just don't lose sleep about what is going on at rank number 400 lydian. Just because someone reaches 389 at 16 doesn't mean that at 26 he won't be completely out of the game, or the converse that the player can be no where in the rankings at 16 and at 19 can be a grandslam champ. That is part of my problem is that you seem to be over analyzing and weighing the problems of depth in the hinterlands of the tour and assigning those problems to the tour. The fact is your examples are too remote to what actually will happen when you start overanalyzing guys who aren't even ranked high enough to get entry into challengers.

Also I think you fail to appreciate the way the modern tour is resulting in the window of the tennis prime being pushed back. In the 80s if you were 28 or 29 you were ancient on tour. As i explained but no one on the opposing side addresses the nature of the modern tour requires more seasoning. For example the emphasis on returning at the highest levels. You simply can't prepare for returning the biggest serves on tour till you get a number of looks at their serve. And in an era where arguably returning is for the first time more important than serving this favors more established players and not the young guys who will need a couple years at the least to adjust.

Do you see how pointing out Djokovic & Del Potro you completely destroy your argument that we can't have teen champs now because of the need for 'seasoning'?

Yes but socal everything has swung to the ralleyer. Not just racquet tech but the courts...even if racquets went back to 90s standards the conditions are much slower so it wouldn't be the same anyway. No-one is advocating a return to the 90s ace-fests but we don't want the opposite - ralley-fests either. It's just as boring and takes longer to watch a match. At least faster conditions resulted in greater variety because you still had clay...but what you got was genuine contrast.

Speeding conditions up is a generalisation. It's about speeding up SOME conditions to bring back more VARIETY. And it's not about "banning" racquet tech...just stopping it taking over by putting in place limits that give those players who arent baseline huggers a chance.

My opinion is that Nadal would have been a multi slammer in any era...ok he would have struggled more on 90s grass but not on AO courts, and he could have adjusted to USO. Talent is talent, despite people screaming he has none which is crazy. But the counter argument is that Federer himself would have had it harder in the 90s too with more variety. More variety means more specialists which means its harder to dominate all slams. It becomes the true test it's always been in the Open Era before they slowed it all down. For 40 years no-one could win all 4, now we have nearly 3 guys doing it in the space of 3 years.

Wanting more variety is not self-serving. It's about securing the future of the game by ensuring all facets of how tennis can be played are represented and continue to be coached to tomorrow's players rather than nailing them all to the baseline and drilling their DTL shots to death. Can't you see slower conditions is breeding a narrowing of the skill base in the game?

But focusing the argument on the top 4-5 players doesn't really help this discussion because the issue is much broader. Much much broader.

Socal, the anomaly to your argument is Agassi. A player with genuine broad base skills, and immeasurable talent. Agassi survived through the 90s into the 2000s even pushing the modern breed of Nadal, Federer. Sampras only declined quicker than expected due to his thalassemia...yet he played top tennis from 19-31.
Players in the 90s tended to play a a high level, ie top 50 and above, from 19-30yo on average.
Now they're doing that from perhaps 23-32yo...so the window is pushed back alright but its getting smaller not bigger.

The fact you think what's going on down the rankings isn't important is worrying. The evidence of lack of emergent youth means the game is struggling to embrace the skills that youth brings. Young players bring explosive movement and reflexes...skills that shine more in quicker conditions. Pushing the window back due to slower conditions kills the attributes that youth brings...and allows the fitter older guys to reign on.

That's why the young players are struggling more across the board.

bogbrush wrote:Do you see how pointing out Djokovic & Del Potro you completely destroy your argument that we can't have teen champs now because of the need for 'seasoning'?

Always will be exceptions to the rule, that is why I said teenage slam champions are anomalies. By the way Roger was just a couple of weeks shy of 22 when he won his first slam, hardly young for a first slam win, older than both Nadal and djoko.

And of course the existence of del po doesn't damage my argument in the least the guy is going to be around and winning for a long term barring unforseen injury. My point is simple Lags stated we don't have teenage slam winners anymore with the list she posted. I stated that teenage slam winners are an anomaly to begin with. But furthermore if del po and djoko were just a few months younger both would have cracked the list of teenage slam winners. So even if this teenage slam winner argument has any weight, which I frankly doubt that it does, this last few years isn't out of the standard deviation for lacking in that category.

Chang was 4 years and 9 months younger than fed when he won his first and only slam. Which player did more for tennis? Younger is not necessarily better.

Federer is an anomaly also because of the way he straddled fast to slower conditions. As conditions underwent massive change from 2001-2003 he had to remodel his game from a fast S&V based game he started out with to a more baseline oriented approach. Because of this he had to get massively fitter too. It's took until 2003/2004...then he was ready to win slams. Chang won in very different conditions, and a different era where the strong clay beasts (Lendl, Wilander) had subsided leaving a temporary gap (Gomez in 1990 anyone?) before Courier and Bruguera came along.

The teenage slam argument is an extremity, an extrapolation of the argument that doesn't invalidate the issues with young talent breaking through. This isn't about teenage slammers but teenage talent breaking through, or not. What is out of deviation is the complete and utter dearth of 18-19 talent in the upper echelons of the game.

lydian wrote:Yes but socal everything has swung to the ralleyer. Not just racquet tech but the courts...even if racquets went back to 90s standards the conditions are much slower so it wouldn't be the same anyway. No-one is advocating a return to the 90s ace-fests but we don't want the opposite - ralley-fests either. It's just as boring and takes longer to watch a match. At least faster conditions resulted in greater variety because you still had clay...but what you got was genuine contrast.

Speeding conditions up is a generalisation. It's about speeding up SOME conditions to bring back more VARIETY. And it's not about "banning" racquet tech...just stopping it taking over by putting in place limits that give those players who arent baseline huggers a chance.

My opinion is that Nadal would have been a multi slammer in any era...ok he would have struggled more on 90s grass but not on AO courts, and he could have adjusted to USO. Talent is talent, despite people screaming he has none which is crazy. But the counter argument is that Federer himself would have had it harder in the 90s too with more variety. More variety means more specialists which means its harder to dominate all slams. It becomes the true test it's always been in the Open Era before they slowed it all down. For 40 years no-one could win all 4, now we have nearly 3 guys doing it in the space of 3 years.

Wanting more variety is not self-serving. It's about securing the future of the game by ensuring all facets of how tennis can be played are represented and continue to be coached to tomorrow's players rather than nailing them all to the baseline and drilling their DTL shots to death. Can't you see slower conditions is breeding a narrowing of the skill base in the game?

But focusing the argument on the top 4-5 players doesn't really help this discussion because the issue is much broader. Much much broader.

Excellent post by the way lydian we have to chat more often. But while much of what you say I agree with I disagree that everything is working towards the rallier or counterpuncher. In fact one important factor that you are
missing in my opinion is the unprecedent physical advancement of the human body in the last 50 years. This is a fact 100 years ago in the states the average height of a man was 5 foot 7, now just 100 years later it is 5 ten and half. Man has been getting taller since he first went up right but this last 100 years has been unprecedented. The human animal is bigger, stronger, and faster than what he was 100 years ago. And as technology has advanced the fusion of technology and the human body has also advanced the physical capabilites of man. I don't mean Peds, but things as simple as modern surgeries, vitamins, and knowledge about the body.

Now what does this remote scientific argument have to do with tennis. Simple, as players get bigger, stronger, and taller it will help their serving to the point that unless you place a governor on the modern male player no one will be able to break. It would no longer be tennis, it would be the equivalent of watching penalties kicks to decide every football match. The best player is whoever gets closest to 100 percent serve percentage. Lets say we banned return favoring strings and racquets, sped up the balls and courts just a little; and then watched Raonic play Isner at wimbeldon. What do you think would happen in that match you tell me?

In fact in 15 years from now as the boys get bigger stronger and more bad ass they will have to slow the courts again. Just let the coaching and athletes catch up to the conditions they will and fast mark my words.

Cheers socal, always good to have a debate.

The human growth argument one is interesting. We are undoubtedly getting bigger due to better nutrition. But there is a major fly to your ointment by way of the very thing you mention...increased height.

Raonic and Isner are tall, very tall. Strange how in the 80s or 90s players above 6'2 were a rarity.
Why were there no Isner or Karlovic's during the fast 90s who blew people away by serving alone?
Why did a 6'1 guy who wasnt the fittest or most powerful athlete dominate the fast conditions?

The answer is that massive height = poor movement. And nothing exposes poor movement like faster conditions. So the oxymoron is that the really tall powerful guys (beyond 6'6) who can serve out of trees actually need slower conditions to thrive.

If conditions were faster, not back to 90s conditions, it puts the onus on the explosive movers and players with hand skills. The talented guys can return serve come what may...service speeds won't change hugely with different tech (Phillopousis showed that with wooden racquet tests), but we could stop each slam match becoming 3-5 hours by helping winning shots actually be winners. Conditions now mean that winners are harder to hit than ever so matches just go on and on. A better balance has to be found. Not 90s, not current. Maybe the speeds/conditions around 2001/2002 were ideal looking back, even if the players themselves were not the best due to the transitional nature of that period.

All I see in future if nothing changes is slam finals going to 7-8 hours, the skill level on display lower than ever and someone having a heart attack on court because unlike height and stamina, our hearts haven't evolved to cope with that type of stress. Ask Mardy Fish.

Excellent points. In the 90's it wasn't Goran winning those Wimbledon finals, it was Pete, and even Andre, who kept beating him.

Today we see Isner doing very well playing a rallying game.

Yes, despite all the growth increases the past 40 years or so if you look at the guys who have held the #1 ranking in the Open Era they're nearly all between a narrow height window of 5'11 to 6'2.
More recently Sampras-Federer-Nadal with 42 slams between them have been 6'1.
This narrow range is clearly the ideal size for court coverage, explosive movement, speed and power.

Slower conditions may allow the larger slow moving but powerful dinosaurs to have their place but they won't dominate. The question is where is the next dominating 6'1/6'2 guy coming from in future? Well nowhere if the current tour persists as it'll let in more and more Isner's who can flourish in slower conditions that allow their serve to dominate but have the time to lumber and reach any returns or winning shots coming back. A tour that rewards size not skill?

lydian wrote:Yes, despite all the growth increases the past 40 years or so if you look at the guys who have held the #1 ranking in the Open Era they're nearly all between a narrow height window of 5'11 to 6'2.
More recently Sampras-Federer-Nadal with 42 slams between them have been 6'1.
This narrow range is clearly the ideal size for court coverage, explosive movement, speed and power.

It's not just that 6'1" is the optimum height 85kg is the optimum weight. There are a lot of amazing stats associated with a certain two players but I find these particular ones amazing in their own way...

I reckon Sampras was also probably nearer 85kg...there is no way he was 77kg, as ATP listed, with that frame.

lydian wrote:Yes, despite all the growth increases the past 40 years or so if you look at the guys who have held the #1 ranking in the Open Era they're nearly all between a narrow height window of 5'11 to 6'2.
More recently Sampras-Federer-Nadal with 42 slams between them have been 6'1.
This narrow range is clearly the ideal size for court coverage, explosive movement, speed and power.

Slower conditions may allow the larger slow moving but powerful dinosaurs to have their place but they won't dominate. The question is where is the next dominating 6'1/6'2 guy coming from in future? Well nowhere if the current tour persists as it'll let in more and more Isner's who can flourish in slower conditions that allow their serve to dominate but have the time to lumber and reach any returns or winning shots coming back. A tour that rewards size not skill?

Yes lydian but the optimum like the age of prime is subtley moving upward both in terms of weight and in size. It isn't just that these players will be taller they will be just as fast and as coordinated or more so then the little man. You can really see what I am talking about in American sports because power, height, and speed are at such a premium in the US team sports. Follow this analogy although I know basketball may not be your favorite. Lebron James at 6 foot 8 inches is the average size of what an NBA center was in the late 60s. Centers are the biggest position on the court. And Lebron is heavier and stronger than those centers. But here is the kicker Lebron is a forward and not a big forward he is a small forward who really plays more like a guard. Not only is he bigger than the average NBA center of the 1960s, but he is faster, quicker, and more coordinated than many of the smaller men who play the guard positions or the speed positions in basketball.

Taller does mean clumsier and slower, but gradually players are not just getting bigger they are more dramatically mixing size and speed. Tsonga is 215 pounds and the way he moves, do you think he would have a problem in a foot race against the smaller quicker guys of the tour 40 and 50 years ago? While the average height of tennis champions has been 6 foot 1 to about 5 ten that is gradually changing. And they are not just getting taller but mixing height with speed, coordination, and power in what will become ever more mind boggling combinations. Safin in many ways was the precursor of the big man who moves like a little guy but hit huge. Although injuries and focus were his problems even in slower conditions when he was on and focused he could hit through the court and almost any opponent.

As of yet what you talk about in regards to a narrow skill set is not correct. The top guys all are complete players and have to be. One has a few relative stengths better or worse than the other but nothing has changed about one thing. To be the best you have to be a complete player and now maybe more so than ever. Does murray the ultra retriever have a problem at net, does Nadal, or even Djoko, hell does ferrer? Everytime I see them volley they make great volleys often on passing shots that the volleyers of the past could never even comprehend facing. Do these players lack slice backhands, drop shots, are they just arming their serves in? I don't get what narrowing of skill set that you are talking about.

If anything the power game narrows the skill set, see Roddick, see Isner. If it is easier to bash the ball through the court well then more players will just bash the ball through the court, much easier than being not only varied but as fit as an iron man. At this rate technology is still in my opinion having a positive impact, that may not be the case in the future. But I do not believe that a good case exists for radical or immediate changes.

You didn't just suggest today's players are volleying better than some from the past did you?

No I said the players today have to deal with passing shots that would have been incomprehensible to the volleyers of 25 and 30 years ago or even 15 years ago.

That's why they hardly volley any more.

I think I heard during the USO final that Djokovic had serve / volleyed about 5 times in the whole tournament.

Now they do net put-aways. A very different thing.

Yes BB, I don't think that stat is accurate first of all about Djoko volleying at the open. But as for the putaways that depends how you classify a net approach. Some are one volley put aways but sometimes players do come in on a constructed approach and then the other guy comes up with a mystifying pass forcing them to still show they have hands and dig it out, and usually if they get a racquet on it they still execute those tougher volleys on those tougher passes. The ball is dipping and swerving much more, it is much easier to volley sliced shots and flat balls as well. Volleying is still an important variation but player's are just not going to be able to run as a defacto course of action on the first ball. That has been losing ground as a playing style for 30 years and even radical action might not bring it back. But players still at the elite level have to be competent in that phase of the game as important variation.

socal1976 wrote:
If anything the power game narrows the skill set, see Roddick, see Isner. If it is easier to bash the ball through the court well then more players will just bash the ball through the court, much easier than being not only varied but as fit as an iron man.

socal1976 wrote: At this rate technology is still in my opinion having a positive impact, that may not be the case in the future. But I do not believe that a good case exists for radical or immediate changes.

The first sentence is what I'm saying...less variety! But then you add the 2nd sentence about positive impact and no need for changes even though you yourself say the skill set is getting narrowed.

carrieg4 wrote:Haven't seen the match yet but have to agree re racquet breaking - I never like to see it. Hopefully he is not slipping back into bad habits, I have been enjoying new, positive on court Murray. I guess we will find out at Shanghai.

He was defending champion in Tokyo, as he is in Shanghai. It would be good to see a better balanced Murray emerge from this match.

socal1976 wrote:Yes BB, I don't think that stat is accurate first of all about Djoko volleying at the open. But as for the putaways that depends how you classify a net approach. Some are one volley put aways but sometimes players do come in on a constructed approach and then the other guy comes up with a mystifying pass forcing them to still show they have hands and dig it out, and usually if they get a racquet on it they still execute those tougher volleys on those tougher passes. The ball is dipping and swerving much more, it is much easier to volley sliced shots and flat balls as well. Volleying is still an important variation but player's are just not going to be able to run as a defacto course of action on the first ball. That has been losing ground as a playing style for 30 years and even radical action might not bring it back. But players still at the elite level have to be competent in that phase of the game as important variation.

Virtually nobody will come in unless the ball is forcing the opponent into a distressing position; the volleys they then execute are almost always straightforward, or failed. This isn't a volleying game, it's a conclusion to a backcourt game.

Again, result is a narrower skill set.

lydian wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
If anything the power game narrows the skill set, see Roddick, see Isner. If it is easier to bash the ball through the court well then more players will just bash the ball through the court, much easier than being not only varied but as fit as an iron man.

socal1976 wrote: At this rate technology is still in my opinion having a positive impact, that may not be the case in the future. But I do not believe that a good case exists for radical or immediate changes.

The first sentence is what I'm saying...less variety! But then you add the 2nd sentence about positive impact and no need for changes even though you yourself say the skill set is getting narrowed.

No what I am saying is that the changes you favor is favoring the power game, we are mixing up our terminology. I do not believe the modern game narrows the skill set of the modern champion. In fact it puts an onus on all the best guys to be both fit and complete players. By limiting racquet face size in particular you are giving the POWER server a structural edge in all tournaments and making it much more difficult to return. Same thing with banning string materials, again the power server benefits more than any one else. The game is already overly reliant on big serve and big forehand tennis these changes you purpose would in fact further the trend.

Narrowing of skill set depends on what skill set you are talking about. In the past you could win on tour with a noticeably weaker wing off of the ground, you could get by also without being as physically fit, and speed was also in the past not quite as important although again it was a big plus to be fast. Therefore the skills favored in the modern game are no more narrow than what they were before. In fact I would make the argument players today have to be more complete players and more complete athletes. A big serve and nice hands will get you to the challenger level if that is all you got. A big serve and a big forehand will maybe get you top 50 today if that is all you got for the most part. So if anything the modern game has a broader skill set requirement than the past.

The changes you propose would favor even more big serve and big forehand tennis than what we see today. The bigger stronger male players would to easily hit through the court.

Good nite leave your responses will answer them when I wake up.

Nishikori has a better return than Djoker.

Well for the first time in the history of the sport you don't need a volley. Nor does timing into a small sweet spot matter.

Not sure how either of those developments require a broader skill set, sounds like a paradise for a very limited game backed up by running a lot.

I disagree with a number of those points socal.

1. Are you calling Sampras, for example, slower in the 90s - did you ever see him move at Wimbledon? I still maintain I've never seen a higher level of tennis played than Sampras vs Agassi at Wimb99.
Are you saying Djokovic is a better athlete than Borg? Did you ever see him move, the speed his feet could move, almost a blur, I've never seen anything the like of since.
It's not just about speed either but agility. I don't see how today's players are any more agile than the 80s or 90s. Running backwards and forwards on the baseline does not, IMO, compare with guys who had to volley aggressively from all possible angles whilst also trying to hit winners on the run from faster surfaces. Sure the guys today are fit, but it's no wonder is it. You have to be to grind away for hours.

2. Increasing stamina is not increasing skill set. I don't see how fitness is related to skill. It's just more of a base pre-requisite for all players now. Becoming a more complete athlete doesn't mean they are any more skilled. Arguably hand skill has been sacrificed to fitness. But is Djokovic any fitter than Borg or Lendl? I would say not.

3. 20 years ago you had a tour that rewarded baseline play (clay, medium hard) and volley play (grass, carpet, indoors, fast hard)....to succeed across all those areas and be #1 you had to be able to excel at the back and forecourt. Now you only need go to the net to shake hands at the end. How is the tour more skilled now?

Federer is one of last players able to truly mix it up...but all the newer guys who were coached through the 90s including Djokovic, Murray and Nadal at least have a modicum of all round play - albeit not as much as players from yesteryear. The up and comers now are purely coached on baseline play, nothing else. Their skill set is reduced and this combined with the need for stamina is why they can't break through. They can thank the wisdom of the ATP 10 years ago and it's ensuing pleiotropic effects as to why they can't cut it against the "old guard" now...but even comparing the under 20s now to the over 25s seems ridiculous consider they themselves are much less skilled across a tennis court than their forebears of just 15 years ago.

Well lydian I frankly disagree with the last paragraph in particular. Look at the young players coming up. Harrison has very solid hands at net far superior to the hands Roddick had when he first started. Tomic he has come in for a lot of justified criticism, and I have criticized him as well. But his feel and touch are probably the best parts of his game. Raonic serves and volleys probably among the most of any players on tour. How about Nishikori I love his variety I just don't see this narrowed skill set you are talking about. In fact, these guys at young ages all are better volleyers than Djokovic or lets say Roddick where when they started on tour, or berdych for that matter. So I don't see support for your argument that these youngs are not coached to be varied or to volley. In fact the one thing I will give them while they are clearly INFERIOR in talent to the golden class of Djoko, Nadal, murray, and later Del PO that in terms of volleying at a young age (not right now mind you at the start of their careers) the new guys are better at it then the class of guys that are now currently dominating.

lydian wrote:but all the newer guys who were coached through the 90s including Djokovic, Murray and Nadal at least have a modicum of all round play. The up and comers now are purely coached on baseline play, nothing else.

Can you name anyone in particular?
Who is 'young' (and for me that is 21 or younger) and fits your description?

By the way when we are talking about comparing technical ability or tennis skill set v. tennis skills set in discussing the modern game when compared to lets say the 80s and 90s you take a very narrow look at the issue Lydian. You look at one aspect the volleying and even that has a lot of variables involve.

For example, modern style vs classical or earlier modern: The modern player on the whole uses way more advanced and intricate manipulation of grip changes during the course of a point then what had been the case in tennis for generations. To illuminate the case take Mac. He played the whole match with basically one grip. In order to impart spin or slice he would just subtly change the racquet face. Even Sampras was pretty much straight eastern for the whole match. Modern players often have to switch between 3 and 4 different grips over the course of point. Is this not a technical skill set?

As for groundstrokes have you seen connors and mac's groundies. These guys could pull off that abysmal grandad style at a high level because they were magnificent talents. But any coach who teaches that to any player today should be shot. The Mac and the connors forehands in particular are laughably crude. The modern forehand has so many more working parts to it and I think you know that Lydian then what those guys did. Don't get me wrong I am not downplaying their talent or brilliance. But if you are talking tennis technique and skill set no one would teach that technique and it is outdated and anitquated at best. Like flying in a propeller plane as opposed to flying in a jet.

lags72 why is it a fact that young players can't come through like they used to?

Murray managed to come through to join the likes of Federer,Nadal and Djokovic (who had't exactly been around the top of the game for that long either). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in this present era of such dominance by four players it's hard to break through especially since quite a few "older" players are still hanging around the upper echelons of the game.

Whether or not this a temporary "blip" which will disappear once Roger's arm has had enough and Rafa's knees totally give way remains to be seen.

Hmmm, socal can't believe you're trying to educate me on use of tennis grips.
The variance of grips hasn't changed much since the 80s and is an irrelevance to this discussion.

You also have Sampras's technique all wrong. He served with continental grip, not Eastern. His forehand was Eastern or semi-western depending on the chosen shot...he could impart huge spin when he needed to.

But just about all players since the 80s use continental for serves (some vary to Eastern for kick serve as 2nd), volleys and backhand slice. Forehands and backhands vary...sure we see more transition from Eastern to Western over time but the vary of grips is the same as before. What's different is that the actual range of strokes used is much lower. The players less slice now, less volleying, and more use of Westernised grips to increase spin. However, thankfully most kids are still taught semi-western grips (same as Federer) once thy get to 10-11yo which is the best balance. Increased use of westernised grips also reflects kids starting tennis at earlier ages now...it's an easier stroke to swing the racquet with when you start out. Then as they get older coaches tend to move them to SW.

But you mention Sampras...he had different grips on serve vs ground strokes. Just as Federer does, or any other player. So where's the increased difference in grips used? Are you saying Djokovic's FH is more technical than Agassi's? Please don't tell me you think it is.

All the volleying samples you give aren't true aggressive volleying. We're hardly talking Llodra or Stepanek ability but those guys are almost relics now the surfaces have slowed down. Modern guys are skilled, of course, but nowhere near as true all court players of the past. They don't have to be anymore because conditions on tour are more convergent/uniform. How many times do you see guys use slice now for instance? Or the overhead backhand volley? Or the cross court running forehand which Sampras or Agassi were deadly at? Or the drive volley? Etc, etc.

I am not talking on the serve I know they used continental on the serves Sampras was eastern on forehand, my point is not that the older players have less talent that obviously isn't the case. My point is that the techniques in grips, and swings are advancing and it is a more refined and complex often then what we saw in the past. YOu don't address comparing for example the classical old school groundstrokes to the shots we see today. Certainly, the players are aided by the technology, but my point is that coaching techniques are advancing and not going backwards or stagnating as it seems that at times you seem to think. Harkening back to the ancient history of the game topspin was invented relatively recently in the 140 year history of lawn tennis. The idea that today's players are lacking in technique and skill set is unfounded in my mind. They have in fact had to add more tpes of shots then ever before.

Just compare Nadal's technical evolution of his forehand to lets say even a guy like lendl who had a monster forehand and was the man in the late 80s and into the early 90s. The technology if anything is encouraging these guys to play around and invent shots more than ever before. Its cool seeing people have the technology to pull off tweeners, squash shot forehands, and these ridiculous passes. Yes the technology is there to support it but a technique is developed for all of these shots. Like hardware and software for a computer, the racquets and strings give you the juice but you got figure out how to master and use it best. That is still a skill set, just it doesn't seem to be a skill set you value. The playbook and the recipe book is only increasing so far it hasn't headed backwards at all.

The playbook and the recipe book is only increasing so far it hasn't headed backwards at all.

That is why none of the young players can volley or play drop shots from a neutral angle well the only 2 players with the sort of all round skill set would be Nishikori and Harrison Raonic has better results than Harrison that doesn't suggest he has more skills just that he's better at being aggressive. Raonic is a younger mould of Del Potro with no volleying/dropshot credentials where Nishikori is another Djokovic fast around the court comfortable returning powerful opponents likes to force the opponent into shortening the point.

I would like to see more players with a diverse set of plays than another smash and grab player like the Sampras cloned Raonic!

Raonic is no clone of Sampras. Nowhere near. Just because he has a big serve doesn't make up for loads of relative weaknesses in other areas...fundamental movement and agility being key areas for a start.

Socal, as you're talking about advancing FH technique can you specifically tell me how Djokovic's technique is more advanced than Agassi's who learnt the shot in the "ye olden days" of the 80s? Let's stop talking about Connors and Mac, they do come from a much older generation. We're talking the immediate modern game here - guys who learnt their tennis in the 80s not the 70s. The discussion centres on how the game has changed in the past 20 years otherwise we might as well compare Federer to William Renshaw! BTW, Nadal's technique is completely unique, practically uncoachable, so we can't look to that one as an example.

Oh come on Socal I was not a Sampras fan but you cant speak of him in the same breath as Raonic... it seems to me that Milos the great has problems with "little" players.. H 2 H with Ferrer he is 0.4. now being bagelled by another tiddler i.e. NishikoriI never saw the match with Nish the great but I can imagine if it was anything liker Ferrer. Milos is a big man, with a big serve but he is not exactly nimble round the court and both Nishikori and Ferrer can run anything down. I really have not seen him live up to the hype that he has had thus far. He has time yes but a long way to go before he can be compared to Sampras imo

Don't know what you mean H-n

Just fourteen Slams to go .... and he's right up there up with Pistol Pete, surely !!

Well I suppose if you put it like that !! absolutely but then what do I know lol

Wrong lags. Raonic will only need 1 slam to be compared with Sampras, just like Murray got 1 slam and is compared with Connors and McEnroe!!

laverfan wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Haven't seen the match yet but have to agree re racquet breaking - I never like to see it. Hopefully he is not slipping back into bad habits, I have been enjoying new, positive on court Murray. I guess we will find out at Shanghai.

He was defending champion in Tokyo, as he is in Shanghai. It would be good to see a better balanced Murray emerge from this match.

Absolutely Laverfan, let's hope he regroups and sorts his mindset out for Shanghai.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh come on Socal I was not a Sampras fan but you cant speak of him in the same breath as Raonic... it seems to me that Milos the great has problems with "little" players.. H 2 H with Ferrer he is 0.4. now being bagelled by another tiddler i.e. NishikoriI never saw the match with Nish the great but I can imagine if it was anything liker Ferrer. Milos is a big man, with a big serve but he is not exactly nimble round the court and both Nishikori and Ferrer can run anything down. I really have not seen him live up to the hype that he has had thus far. He has time yes but a long way to go before he can be compared to Sampras imo

I don't Haddie, you are misunderstanding my posts. I have never said Raonic is anything of the quality of Sampras, mac, or Connors. The point is that overrall on the whole the younger players are not losing and becoming less skilled as a whole then in the past. These examples i provided were used to illustrate the point that coaching and technique in tennis as a whole is moving forward not backward.

For example Nadal's forehand is a completely different shot that didn't exist really quite to that form and degree 15 years ago. Someone had to do it first and then everyone learned it. Same as the jumping two handed backhand. First rios had to do it and then guys like Mayer copied it. Gradual addition of skills and shots to the modern players handbook not a case of the modern player just losings his skill set.

lags72 wrote:Don't know what you mean H-n

Just fourteen Slams to go .... and he's right up there up with Pistol Pete, surely !!

Again this pisses me off where did I say Raonic compares favorably to Sampras?

lydian wrote:Raonic is no clone of Sampras. Nowhere near. Just because he has a big serve doesn't make up for loads of relative weaknesses in other areas...fundamental movement and agility being key areas for a start.

Socal, as you're talking about advancing FH technique can you specifically tell me how Djokovic's technique is more advanced than Agassi's who learnt the shot in the "ye olden days" of the 80s? Let's stop talking about Connors and Mac, they do come from a much older generation. We're talking the immediate modern game here - guys who learnt their tennis in the 80s not the 70s. The discussion centres on how the game has changed in the past 20 years otherwise we might as well compare Federer to William Renshaw! BTW, Nadal's technique is completely unique, practically uncoachable, so we can't look to that one as an example.

Nadal's technique is not uncoachable I think Andreev has pretty close to a right handed version of Nadal's forehand. What one man can do so can another, a good line from an Anthony hopkins movie but I think it is to the point . One area is the wrist snap and the FFS stuff you talk about how the modern shots are advancing. In the last 15 years I agree the techniques haven't changed that much except that we are seeing players use more extreme grips and generate much more torque generating swings. It isn't just Nadal who is doing it Novak's forehand is quite a bit heavier than Agassi's in terms of spin Andre was better at taking it earlier. I would in fact rate Agassi's forehand as better. But Novak's is a heavier and probably more western forehand then the Agassi I remember although both guys played in similar eras in terms of technology. I would rate Novak as much better hitting on the run than Agassi though off of both wings.

Agassi was SW, Djoko is W.
Djoko's FH is actually an old fashioned shot compared to say Nadal's. Novak doesnt use stretch shortening cycle technique. I dont think Novak hits the FH harder than Agassi to be honest...do you not remember the amazing way he clobbered it at Wimb1992 when he first appeared there. Left the crowd in gasps.
Andreev's FH isnt really similar to Nadal - it has nowhere near the whip on it. No-one on tour can get near the 5000 rpm Nadal generates. Federer uses huge spin but he's only up to around 3000 rpm. Federer has tried to copy Nadal's forehand in recent years believe it or not, he finishes the stroke much more often above his head now and has increased use of spin over the years too.

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:Don't know what you mean H-n

Just fourteen Slams to go .... and he's right up there up with Pistol Pete, surely !!

Again this pisses me off where did I say Raonic compares favorably to Sampras?

If you're upset then it can only be as a result of your own choice of words. In your post you refer to, quote, "the Sampras cloned Raonic"

My own dictionary (Oxford English) defines "clone" as : a person or thing regarded as identical with another

Wonder what your dictionary says .....

I think Raonic will win as many (if not more) Grand Slams than Sampras in Roland Garros.

I know it's a pretty bold claim, but I'll stick by it

lydian wrote:Agassi was SW, Djoko is W.
Djoko's FH is actually an old fashioned shot compared to say Nadal's. Novak doesnt use stretch shortening cycle technique. I dont think Novak hits the FH harder than Agassi to be honest...do you not remember the amazing way he clobbered it at Wimb1992 when he first appeared there. Left the crowd in gasps.
Andreev's FH isnt really similar to Nadal - it has nowhere near the whip on it. No-one on tour can get near the 5000 rpm Nadal generates. Federer uses huge spin but he's only up to around 3000 rpm. Federer has tried to copy Nadal's forehand in recent years believe it or not, he finishes the stroke much more often above his head now and has increased use of spin over the years too.

Is that when he uses it in defence lydian? I think the first time I saw that come to fruition was in that epic aussie open match of '09, he used it really well.
Or is it something else, please teach me

Just to follow up on some of the technique side, they measured Sampras's first serve topspin at 2,500 average rpm. That's as big as Federer's average forehand spin level. His second serve rpm was 4,900...as big as Nadal can spin his forehand at peak. Those are simply staggering numbers and higher than other players. This is why Raonic doesn't even come close to Sampras on serve, never mind anywhere else. Is it any wonder Sampras serve was so lethal with that amount of spin AND pace? And yet he played with gut at high tension, can you imagine the spin rate had he used modern strings like RPM Blast, or slack tension Luxilon like Raonic uses.

Socal, Djokovic plays at about 2500 rpm FH, Agassi was around 1700 which correlates with using a flatter grip (semi-western - Djoko's grip is actually more extreme than Nadal's who is nearly a SW too). This would make Agassi's shot flatter and faster off the ground. On average. Also, as above, don't forget today's guys get to play with poly strings which massively ups spin-rate. Because of these strings they also play with much lower tensions so they get massive power boosts. Raonic plays in the low 40s lbs tensions. Sampras was up around 75-80 lbs. So today they get massive spin, and massive power boosts because they can reduce tension knowing the spin will bring the ball down. So it's not so much technique that's changed as technology allowing the guys to play with more spin and power.

lags72 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:Don't know what you mean H-n

Just fourteen Slams to go .... and he's right up there up with Pistol Pete, surely !!

Again this pisses me off where did I say Raonic compares favorably to Sampras?

If you're upset then it can only be as a result of your own choice of words. In your post you refer to, quote, "the Sampras cloned Raonic"

My own dictionary (Oxford English) defines "clone" as : a person or thing regarded as identical with another

Wonder what your dictionary says .....

Except that I didn't say that!!!! for the 1000th time. Will you people stop espousing statements to me and then attacking me for statements I have not made. Josiah M. talked about Raonic and cloned Sampras. I never made the statement in anyway that you claim I made. I did not say Raonic was better or more talented or even remotely comparable to sampras. The only comparison I made to sampras was in the grip he used on his forehand compared to the more western forehands today.

I think you have been buddying up with BB so much lately that he has given you whatever disease he has that has destroyed his reading comprehension ability. Do I have to teach the bloody english how to read bloody english?

Lags, when did Socal say that Raonic is cloned Sampras?

lydian wrote:Just to follow up on some of the technique side, they measured Sampras's first serve topspin at 2,500 average rpm. That's as big as Federer's average forehand spin level. His second serve rpm was 4,900...as big as Nadal can spin his forehand at peak. Those are simply staggering numbers and higher than other players. This is why Raonic doesn't even come close to Sampras on serve, never mind anywhere else. Is it any wonder Sampras serve was so lethal with that amount of spin AND pace? And yet he played with gut at high tension, can you imagine the spin rate had he used modern strings like RPM Blast, or slack tension Luxilon like Raonic uses.

Socal, Djokovic plays at about 2500 rpm FH, Agassi was around 1700 which correlates with using a flatter grip (semi-western - Djoko's grip is actually more extreme than Nadal's who is nearly a SW too). This would make Agassi's shot flatter and faster off the ground. On average. Also, as above, don't forget today's guys get to play with poly strings which massively ups spin-rate. Because of these strings they also play with much lower tensions so they get massive power boosts. Raonic plays in the low 40s lbs tensions. Sampras was up around 75-80 lbs. So today they get massive spin, and massive power boosts because they can reduce tension knowing the spin will bring the ball down. So it's not so much technique that's changed as technology allowing the guys to play with more spin and power.

Again for the 100th time never said Raonic is bettter than or comparable in anyway to Sampras. You keep ducking the Nadal comparison but actually Andreev is very close in terms of RPM. When he was at his peak he got nearly as much explosion off the court. A lot of other players like Gasquet as well get up to and probably over 3000 rpms regularly. A large number of players from the juniors up are adding the Nadal lasso forehand to their arsenal. That is whether you like to admit it or not players advancing a new technique YES using the new technology that didn't exist 15 years ago.

Another shot that will gain in importance and you will see more and more players using will be the leaping two handed backhand that is another shot that has been invented. I think you are missing the plot with my comparisons. In no means are these comparisons to say the players today are more talented or more accomplished. These examples to show that the players of today are adding new shots that didn't exist before to the game. That contrary to your conclusion that the players of today are not narrowing their skill set in fact they have to continually update their software so to speak in order to get the best use out of the juice provided by the technology.

On Agassi v. Novak you are saying the same thing I said. I rated Agassi's forehand better but Novak's heavier. But I think Novak is more skillful and adept at hitting on the run and hits with more spin.