Spurs in Turmoil, the Dutch Are On Life Support -- The Other Teams Thread (R)

they slowed down the courts.

the grass and hardcourts slowed down tremendously in the early 2000s and its encouraged a more well roudned game than what took place in the big serve era of the mid to late 90s. No one will admit the change in the court speed, but the game is a lot slower now than it was back. Players still kill the ball, but you cant just ace players to death anymore.

How do you "slow down" hard courts? Different composite materials? Did they just mow the grass courts differently? Now, I'm curious.

the story is they added some composite materials to slow down the hardcourts and grass.

I dont know for sure, but we dont see those big boomers like we did in the mid to late 90s who just killed the ball on their first serve.

They don't cut the grass as short at Wimbledon

The other part of the answer is racket technology. The new rackets have, in some capacity, allowed for the combination of insane amounts of top speed AND power on the same groundstrokes, which have allowed for the rise of players like Federer and especially Nadal. It used to be that you could really only get one or the other out of a groundstroke; not anymore.

I personally agree with Prince; I think, at least in the men's game, tennis is much more entertaining than it was 10-15 years ago. There are a lot more credible good players, and the current top three players are all top-10 players all-time for me. I hate clay court play, but I think that hard and grass courts are still allowing for a decent amount of shot variety, and it doesn't seem like players are blasting each other off the court with power like they were in the Sampras era.

What's funny is that if Murray played in any other era, he'd probably already have 4-5 grand slams in the bag.

The women's game is a different story. I find it borderline unwatchable.

It's official. Tennis has taken this thread by storm. Not saying or implying whether it's good or bad but I'm crowning the sport's new achievement.

Oh good, tennis talk! So I contend that, over all, Fed is better than Sampras. My friend vehemently argues the opposite. Please help us resolve our dispute.

Punch your friend in the crotch. Wont win the argument but it will shut him up.

No, the faster the court, the better for power players. That's why serve-and-volley players like Sampras, Henman, Rusedski, Krajicek, Ivanisovic etc reigned supreme during the late 90s, early 2000s.

Slower courts do make for more baseline bashing, because when they bounce the ball slows down and bounces up, compared to a grass court where it almost skids off the surface, going faster and lower (relatively speaking). But the baseline groundstroke-types are not the prototypical power players. We think of them that way now, but the real power guys were the ones with the massive serves.

U still had baseline players then like agassi, hewitt etc and to say rudeski reigned is a slight exaggeration lol serve volley is a valid style of play and it sucks that it has been phased out....in my opinion

Ha, what I meant was that serve and volleyers reigned supreme. Not Rusedski particularly. Maybe should've spared a thought for Phillipousis too.

I mean, serve and volley is actually pretty fun to watch. It's just the volley part is infinitely more entertaining than the serve part. And it was getting to a point where the serve meant there was no volleying necessary afterwards.

IMO the most entertaining player to watch of that era was Patrick Rafter.

Yeah, he was finesse rather than power. Wanted him to win 01 but goran deserved it

Yeah, Super Llama has what I'm thinking down. Serve and volley tennis is why I am still a massive Sampras supporter and think he is still a better grass court players than Federer (I concede Federer is better). Sampras held serve 90% of the time at Wimbledon. That's incredible. Sampras was great coming to the net and had a lot of variety to his game. Great shot maker and could cover the entire court because he was so long. And even though Sampras' serve was powerful, he had great direction and spin on it. It's the Rusedski-types that annoyed me (he got to #4 in the world, ffs). They didn't have much to their game except that powerful serve and it turned me off to men's tennis for a while as the women had the better game.

Didn't know about the racket changes. I know it was talked about but wasn't sure how much they made much changes at all.


Also, I don't know if Murray has the mentality to win the grand slams. I know he has the game to do it, but bs capitulates very quickly. He isn't Henman bad, but it was tough to see him fall apart yesterday the way he did.

Lastly, even though Federer is most accomplished I think Joker is the most talented tennis player I've ever seen. More than Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Federer, Nadal (didn't see the 80s players altho Lendl was pretty bad ass). Sometimes he just lapses tho, and you end up seeing him lose a set or match he shouldn't - like against Federer on Friday in the semis.

Idk, I think Rafter was very powerful. He just had a lot more to his game than guys like Goran and Philipousis.

I understand the distinction between "greatest" tennis play of all-time and "most talented" player of all-time, but even so I don't understand how you can say Djokovic was more talented than the other guys you mentioned.

Ditto for Roddick. Dude's lost four finals to Federer.

I haven't really watched men's tennis since the wooden racket days and Bjorn Borg. My wife is really into women's tennis so I really don't mind watching just for the eye candy factor.

djok is a bit mental and loses due to not beliveing in himself sometimes, he could do federer shit in his career but to call him the best ever is premature when nadal and roger are around

sampras was a beast because he served basically 1 first serves, had a good baseline game when needed, especially those clubbed singl handed backhands down the line as well as an amazing touch at the net

Yeah, during the late 90s, early 00s they moved from trying to use metals (Ti, Al, that kinda stuff) to using carbon fiber and other composites. The benefits being a stiffer, stronger frame that can take more head tension when being strung. So while a stiffer racket means more power, higher tension strings equals more spin and better control. In the short-term, the advances favored the power serves, but as people started using higher tension string in their heads, it helped players place returns of serve better. Thus the baseliners caught up in the arms race.

It's so hard for me to say which of Nadal or Novak or Federer is the most talented...I would say that during his most dominant period, Roger had the one single shot (forehand) that was the most dangerous the game has ever seen. But again, you watch any of the three guys playing at the top of their game and it is an awesome sight. I think both Rafa and Novak have stronger backhands than Roger, but neither are as accomplished at the net. Rafa has the weakest serve and Novak is the best at returning. Until recently Rafa was the most difficult to play physically, but now Novak's speed is matched with serious power, and finally (thanks to gluten-free dieting) endurance too.

As for Rafter, he just had all of the shots. Every single one. So much fun to watch!

Well, that alone makes him a legend.

Is Vertonghen a good defender? And they kept Bale lol.. most overrated player in the Premier League, whose reputation is based on a hat-trick against Internazionale.

I would trade any number of Wimbledons for that.

Vertoghen doesn't start over Vermaelen so...

Bale is a good player. But he flatters to deceive. He isn't Messi, Ronaldo etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

nah, I disagree about Roddick. He could only play one way and is lazy and mental. He annoyed the hell out of me because he was in that Rusedski, Phillipousis, Goran mode when he did not have to be.

that Sampras overhand smash

I said Joker is the most talented I have seen, not that he is the most accomplished.

great great post, thanks man.

I fear Rafa is about to decline too.