Is the art of tennis dying?

[DaveArneRiise]

Have been giving this much thought throughout RG. Mostly thanks to Courrier whose insight I thought was enlightening. I've never heard anyone be able to articulate this particular problem in tennis as well as Jim did.

So thought I'd just try and summarise what he has been saying and add my own two pennies.

A brilliant phrase Jim used was "ball machine tennis."

Emphasising that there seems to be an increase amount of this "ball machine tennis" style on tour these days. Like a new breed of player. Robot tennis. Line to line hitting. So back to the title which Jim picked up on expressing that it seems as if the art of tennis is a thing of the past. This generic new breed of ball machine tennis makes it pretty much impossible to execute real tennis art. What I mean by that is players who use their brain out there, and show real skill, touches of skill, angles... lots of volleys. That is real tennis art.

Problem is now it seems the skill element is being taking out the game.

Arguably it takes more skill to play like Llodra than say Ferrer. Even Nadal. However new racket technology, court adaptations make it impossible to execute the tennis art.

Jim mentioned that last year I believe Paris experimented by making their indoor surface more suited to serve and volley play. Needless to say Llodra made the final.

Sad thing is Wimbledon over the past few years has become more like a hard clay court. It's not even grass anymore. So how are players supposed to try and deliver the art of tennis? And why did Wimbledon have to adapt it self to "ball machine tennis?"

Answer is pretty obvious because of players like Nadal, who attract such global support which in essence equals capital.

Players like Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Llodra who are great volleyers are hesitant to to try and S+V anymore at Wimbly, because of the reasons stated above. Also the new racket technology. Jim calls it "strings on steroids." Which play right into the hands of "ball machine tennis."

I find it sad that the skill element seems to be taken away these days. Something has got to give IMO. They need to change something.

In the past clay court specialists didn't bother playing Wimbledon because back then it was actually grass and so suited to the art of tennis style. Serve and volleyers excelled. Sampras, Goran, list is endless.

If Nadal for example was playing in the era with the likes of Sampras etc. With no "strings on steroids" technology. An actual level playing field where wimbledon for example wasn't a hard clay court. Where it was actually grass! Then Nadal would have had no chance of winning Wimbledon.

It's why extremely talented players, who play with such beauty touch and skill struggle these days, because of this generic robot ball machine tennis which seems to be here to stay sadly. IMO Andy Murray is the most talented player in the world but because of the ball machine tennis era he can't seem to win a Slam. And that's why. If the playing ground was level and fair and the skill element factor wasn't so outweighed then Murray would be a multiple slam winner. It's as simple as that.

What do you all think?

[davech]

Surely the art of tennis is all about variety, so the ideal conditions would be those that forced players to win points in a lot of different ways - whether it's serve/volley, drop shots, lobs, different spins and pace, angles that send the opponent wide - ideally you want players to have to use most or all of these. I don't think serve/volley is any more the art of tennis than slugging it out on the baseline.

Having said that, I agree that modern racquet technology has skewed things in favour of power hitting, which does mean it's more difficult for players with a more variety in their game to perform as well as they could. I'm not sure there's an answer to this - racquets will keep getting more powerful, making it harder and harder to play anything but a particular style of tennis.

BTW, this is an excellent idea for a new thread and well worth debating!

[Linda]

I agree that tennis has changed but don't agree with your conclusions.

Years ago a lot of people preferred to watch women's matches because they played longer points. The majority of people watching tennis like to watch long rallies containing a variety of shots, the advantage in the rally switching from one player to the other with clever play, and some amazing 'gets'. Most people do not want to watch a load of unreturnable serves or one-two punches - it is incredibly boring. That was what it was like watching Sampras - I and many others were turned right off tennis during his era. It's sometimes claimed that surfaces have been slowed down in order to facilitate longer points and so keep audiences happy, but others say they haven't changed. But certainly the majority of men's matches now involve longer points, which is much more entertaining for the crowd and TV audience. There are a few players with big serves and not much game otherwise, and generally people aren't interested in watching those players. The majority of the male players now, though, play the type of game that fans like to watch.

Probably the main factor in the evolution of the game is racquet technology. After that, it is the superior fitness of the players compared to years ago - the players have to be super-fit to keep playing long points.

However the women's game has changed for the worse. The majority of them no longer play varied points but just keep hitting the ball back to each other as hard as they can until one of them dumps it in the net. Not many of them vary their game or even try to work their opponent around the court. This makes for boring tennis.

So overall, I think that the men's game has become much more interesting to watch but the women's game unfortunately has become less interesting.

[MurrayAOne]

Very interesting debate. I also really enjoyed Jim Courier's - and Mark Petchey's - commentary and I enjoyed reading your comments on the matter. It is an excellent point regarding the influence of technology on the power game. My favourite style of play has always been skill and touch. You can keep your power game as far as I'm concerned as I don't find 'relentless' particularly entertaining. However, I think that seems to be what we've got and I'm not sure there is a way of ensuring one particular style of play. Anyway, I always have a tendency to resist prescriptive measures in anything really and prefer things to evolve naturally. It seems rather futile to expect the sports world not to embrace the power of technology and the advantages it offers; even though I am totally with you in wishing it would!

With regard to Andy I agree he is the most talented player in the world and an absolute joy to watch. I have said many times he need fear no-one when on song. It is for this reason then that I think his game is still adaptable to regularly beating those above him even as things stand and whilst I agree with your last statement, the fact is we do have a power game and he must deal with it. I think he is well capable of doing so. 'Murray- multiple slam winner' ?- I should say so!

[MurrayAOne]

I have just realised I did not answer the question on the thread. I think the art of tennis is suffering but as long as there are players like Andy about I am hopeful that it will re emerge. This is yet another reason we should be thankful we have him! GoAndyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!....seems fitting to end on a cheer...!!!

[MurrayAOne]

I agree that tennis has changed but don't agree with your conclusions.

So overall, I think that the men's game has become much more interesting to watch but the women's game unfortunately has become less interesting.

What do you think of the power versus touch side of the issue though?

[Linda]

Well, I think it's the power bit that has ruined the women's game, because the style most of them play now is all about power and no touch. But I think that a lot of the male players have a varied game with both power and touch, so I don't think it's had a bad effect on the men's game. There are so many interesting players to watch - most of the French players, for instance. It seems that the men can play a power game but still play a varied game, but if the women play a power game then they forget all else.

[DaveArneRiise]

It has had a bad effect on the mens game because it's not a level playing ground anymore. Just plays right into the hands of baseline slashers like Ferrer and Nadal. I mean even Federer the most talented player of all time who is excellent at serve and volleying doesn't do that anymore. You know why because he can't? The steroids strings the courts just all becoming the same make it impossible. So it evidently has had a bad effect on the game and it's no surprise that legends are starting to speak out about it. The element of skill is being taken out the game.

It takes more skill to play varied tennis like Murray, Federer, Tsonga Llodra to name a few are capable of. If for example Wimbledon was actually grass and not a hard clay court then the skilful varied players who actually use their imagination, angles, slices, serve and volleying would be doing very well there. Players like Nadal and Ferrer wouldn't stand a chance. Wimbledon should go back to his roots, it's ridiculous it just changed it's court to suit Nadal so they would make more money. You could arguably say tennis is in a way corrupt!

[RoastLamb]

How do you explain the likes of Justine Henin, who was the opposite of the power player, doing so well at her 5'6" height. The women aren't all ball bashers like Azarenka, Serena and Shrieky. But in general I do believe the power hitters have killed the art of tennis.

[Linda]

You are doing Rafa a disservice. Against some players, such as Federer and Andy who have such great passing shots, he sensibly does not often approach the net, but against other players he plays quite differently and has a great net game, being also a very good doubles player. And of course he uses angles and slices, as do most of the other players. He constantly changes his game according to the game of his opponent.

[DaveArneRiise]

You are doing Rafa a disservice. Against some players, such as Federer and Andy who have such great passing shots, he sensibly does not often approach the net, but against other players he plays quite differently and has a great net game, being also a very good doubles player. And of course he uses angles and slices, as do most of the other players. He constantly changes his game according to the game of his opponent.

I'm not doubting the fact he is a phenomenal athlete and one of the best clay court tennis players of all time. Probably the best ever. Fact of the matter is though that Wimbledon isn't the same as it used to be. It's effectively a hard clay court, which is deliberate. Organisers want to see Nadal do well there, he is a global name which will bring in a lot of capital. It's just a shame for the rest of the players. If Nadal was around the era where Wimbledon was actually grass and a serve and volley surface like it used to be Nadal wouldn't stand a chance of winning it. He would have been like the other clay court specialists Muster etc who didn't bother turning up.

[Linda]

Well, they don't have the option of not turning up now as it's a compulsory tournament, so all the clay courters have had to learn to play on grass - some with more success than others. Ferru, for example, has not managed to change his game enough to play well on grass. Wimbledon say they haven't changed the surface. And although Fed says it has slowed down, I think that's just his perception as he's not done as well there the last couple of years as previously - other players say it hasn't changed at all.

[RoastLamb]

Really don't agree with you, Dave, on your Rafa thoughts. I give him enormous credit for winning two Wimblys despite being the King of clay.

[DaveArneRiise]

Well, they don't have the option of not turning up now as it's a compulsory tournament, so all the clay courters have had to learn to play on grass - some with more success than others. Ferru, for example, has not managed to change his game enough to play well on grass. Wimbledon say they haven't changed the surface. And although Fed says it has slowed down, I think that's just his perception as he's not done as well there the last couple of years as previously - other players say it hasn't changed at all.

It has changed. Did you not listen to Courrier and Petchey throughout the week? Clearly stating it is more like a hard clay court and becoming further away from a traditional grass court every year.

[Maza1987]

Rafa is as talented as any player in the history of tennis.
That's all I have to add.

[RoastLamb]

Johhny Mac said today that Rafa may well go down as the best player in history. And he knows a thing or two about tennis.

[super8]

Johhny Mac said today that Rafa may well go down as the best player in history. And he knows a thing or two about tennis.

But this thread is not about talent or who is the best, surely? Talent comes in many shapes and forms.

My take on it is that it is about the ability of the game to reward players' games with success, where artistry is featured in their talents.

Players will generally look for competitive advantage to win wherever possible within the rules of the game.

It is clear that, at the moment, that it is not in players' interests to use deft touches, netplay to win matches. The balls bounce too high on the courts, and the bounce is also too slow. Also, players also have racquets with bigger sweet spots to hit more effective returns/ passing shots, therefore killing off S&V/ net approaches too.

It's now mainly about power-baseline tennis. Battles of physical and mental strength. Currently the most effective skill is pinning your opponent to the baseline, moving them around to create an opening to hit into the open court - and using volley only to finish off the point when the player is already on the ropes.

Safety-first tennis, with very calculated risks, relatively predictable, and brutally effective.

The art of tennis is perhaps not dying, but it is certainly in stasis. It can return. A solution is needed tip the balance more to reward those who can demonstrate deftness of touch, variety in their play - perhaps take more risks in their game, and increase unpredictability. Racquet technology probably won't change - lower-bouncing, slightly faster courts could perhaps help. This would include changes to the balls, as well as the courts.

I would also like to see courts regaining more of their distinctive characteristics, rather than becoming increasingly like each other.

[Linda]

I would also like to see courts regaining more of their distinctive characteristics, rather than becoming increasingly like each other.

Yes - bring back grass for AO and USO!

[super8]

Yes - bring back grass for AO and USO!

I am also also a big fan of the natural surfaces - including clay.

I like the fact that their differences used to force players to change their styles of play. In that way, at least you got to see different aspects of their games - for better or for worse!!

[Linda]

Exactly. The clay and grass seasons are confined in such a short period of the calendar, whilst all the rest of the year is on hard courts. :sad:

[super8]

However the women's game has changed for the worse. The majority of them no longer play varied points but just keep hitting the ball back to each other as hard as they can until one of them dumps it in the net. Not many of them vary their game or even try to work their opponent around the court. This makes for boring tennis.

So overall, I think that the men's game has become much more interesting to watch but the women's game unfortunately has become less interesting.

I would say that whilst both women and men play the power game, the women are unable to do so as effectively.

The reason for this is mainly strength. The WTA players are not strong enough to take full advantage of the racquets, particularly relating to generating of spin.

They don't have enough wrist strength generate the racquet head speed to do this. They cannot play powerful top spin, so cannot bring hard-hit shots into court as effectively via that way. This also explains why very few of them can do kick-serves.

Therefore, generally, they play flatter shots (including serves). Flatter shots have a higher scope for error, particularly when all of their strength is geared towards that aspect.

The better sweet spot encourages harder hitting though. it is hard to move away from that on either the WTA or ATP side because it is such a strong competitive advantage to have, especially amongst the taller players.

A notable exception to strength aspect is Sam Stosur who does have the physical strength to do use heavy topspin, and kick serves.. It is unsurprising that Dom Cibulkova referred to her has playing like a man (but not in a *****y way a la Hingis about Mauresmo a while back, I think..).

[super8]

Ah.. I noticed that my use of the word *****y went against board rules re: language use..

Is it ok to use the word catty instead, I wonder? Only one way to find out, I guess... ;)

[MurrayAOne]

those who can demonstrate deftness of touch, variety in their play - perhaps take more risks in their game, and increase unpredictability.

Who does this remind you of?

[RoastLamb]

I am also also a big fan of the natural surfaces - including clay.

I like the fact that their differences used to force players to change their styles of play. In that way, at least you got to see different aspects of their games - for better or for worse!!

It's funny, I was having this discussion with my hubby this morning about having more surfaces than just hardcourts two thirds of the year. We really need to lengthen the grass season, maybe have a month between RG and W. And have a masters grass.

Doesn't anyone (except Linda because she already does) find it interesting that the French players have so much versatility in their games? Yet, the top French player is arguably a power player.

[DaveArneRiise]

But this thread is not about talent or who is the best, surely? Talent comes in many shapes and forms.

My take on it is that it is about the ability of the game to reward players' games with success, where artistry is featured in their talents.

Players will generally look for competitive advantage to win wherever possible within the rules of the game.

It is clear that, at the moment, that it is not in players' interests to use deft touches, netplay to win matches. The balls bounce too high on the courts, and the bounce is also too slow. Also, players also have racquets with bigger sweet spots to hit more effective returns/ passing shots, therefore killing off S&V/ net approaches too.

It's now mainly about power-baseline tennis. Battles of physical and mental strength. Currently the most effective skill is pinning your opponent to the baseline, moving them around to create an opening to hit into the open court - and using volley only to finish off the point when the player is already on the ropes.

Safety-first tennis, with very calculated risks, relatively predictable, and brutally effective.

The art of tennis is perhaps not dying, but it is certainly in stasis. It can return. A solution is needed tip the balance more to reward those who can demonstrate deftness of touch, variety in their play - perhaps take more risks in their game, and increase unpredictability. Racquet technology probably won't change - lower-bouncing, slightly faster courts could perhaps help. This would include changes to the balls, as well as the courts.

I would also like to see courts regaining more of their distinctive characteristics, rather than becoming increasingly like each other.

Great post that is indeed what this thread is about and the debate I wanted to initiate. I probably shouldn't have brought Nadal into it. I forgot he had such a massive fan club on here :facepalm:



Doesn't anyone (except Linda because she already does) find it interesting that the French players have so much versatility in their games? Yet, the top French player is arguably a power player.

He would be even more of a top player if the playing ground was more even. Tsonga is one of the best volleyers out there on tour but because of reasons stated numerous times previously in this thread that weapon has been stolen from him. Sad but true.

[SamP]

I think the answer to solve this problem is create more varied court conditions. Like in Cricket, where wickets are becoming more and more similar all the way round the world, surfaces in tennis are going the same way.

This is the first time in a while where I feel a bit bored about a Grand Slam final. Yes, Djokovic and Nadal are relentless and incredible athletes, but I feel theres something lacking about there matches now. When there was those great matches at Wimbledon a few years back between Roger and Rafa, we were in awe at the shot making and drama. The Aussie Open Final this year, was dramatic because it just went on forever. There was great shots, but nothing spectacular, it was just relentless hitting, and whoever made the mistake first, lost.

I feel these are the first signs that this 'golden generation' could be evolving into the 'marathon generation', where its all physicality, and less craft. Tennis will badly need some new names at the top of the game in a few years, and if Del Potro, Raonic, Harrison etc are the future of tennis, its going to be seriously dull. Sure, whilst theres still a little variety in the game today, big hitters are great to have around, but if they're ALL theres going to be in the future, tennis might be in trouble. Similarly I think Rugby has lost a lot of its charm in the last ten years, because its all about physicality now, the fat guys in the scrum are no longer fat, and matches are rarely open and free flowing.

Players like Goffin, Dolgopolov & Dimitrov play a more exciting brand of tennis, but its no surprise that they're all shorter framed guys, and its no surprise how massive Del Potro and Raonic are. I think its a slightly concerning time for tennis.

P.S. As a side note, the womans tournament, Razzano match aside, has been absolutely ATROCIOUS. Courier said it himself, theres just no tactical element to the game anymore, its bish bash bosh, and I think we'll be lucky if we see a rally of 15 or more shots today. Again, its all about the physical element of the game.

[Linda]

Interestingly, I read an article in the New York Times yesterday which said that it is clay that has changed, and is now more like a hard court!

[dewster99]

Interestingly, I read an article in the New York Times yesterday which said that it is clay that has changed, and is now more like a hard court!

that's what they said earlier this week, and explains Sharapova's success. She is not a typical clay courter she is just playing like it's a hard court. Errani is probably the best 'clay court' style women's player

Rafa does have the variety of other players he just chooses not to use it so much cos his power groundys work so well. At wimbly he does slice and use the drop shot a lot more though.
Look at the world number 1. Nole is essentially a better version of andy he has all the shots and variety as well as the talent of chasing down balls and hitting winners from defensive areas. He does have massive groundys too but can mix it up with slice, net play and lobs, spin etc. If Andy could play that game consistently and master his forehand, especially the down the line one that courier has been on about all tourney, he and Nole would be 1&2 in the world. At the moment though he lacks the consistentcy to challenge the top 3 over 5 sets and that's why there's a gap. There's no doubt he's as talented, if not more, than the other 3 but it's the consistency. If Andy can find that he and Nole will create a rivalry similar to that of Rafa and Fed's with them both sharing slams and swapping the no1 spot.
Unfortunately no matter what the conditions it will never all be about talent. Gasquet is arguably the most talented player in the world but he can't master that talent and he's so up and down he'll never go to the latter stages of a slam. That is why Ferrer has done so well. He is nowhere near as talented as alot of other players but he has maximised what he's got. He can not get anymore out of his game. For Andy there's alot more to give he just needs to find it

[DaveArneRiise]

Good post Dewster.

I very much agree with certain posters who have mentioned they would like to see the Grass court season expanded. I mean surly they could have at least 1 grass court masters series event no? Also would be good to have more indoor tournies.

[Jan]

definitely should have one grass court masters tournament.

[Linda]

Yes, there ought definitely to be a grass masters! But I wouldn't like more indoor tournaments - it's just not the same indoors. I like to see tennis played outside in the sunshine.

[RoastLamb]

They could make Halle into a grass masters seeing as Hamburg was downgraded a few years ago. And it has a roof which is an added bonus.

[DaveArneRiise]

Agreed.

[supergran]

Yes, there ought definitely to be a grass masters! But I wouldn't like more indoor tournaments - it's just not the same indoors. I like to see tennis played outside in the sunshine. I agree, but there ain't much sunshine around...in this country anyway.:lol:

[david1610]

They could make Halle into a grass masters seeing as Hamburg was downgraded a few years ago. And it has a roof which is an added bonus.
Well they would have to move it not to class with Queens I would have thought and do they have enough courts for everyone?

[JAMES4578]

Good thread and many good points made here! The game has obviously changed a lot over the years with technolology playing a part. I think tennis is more exciting when we see different styles and whilst great that tennis has different surfaces we could do with more variety and of course the hardcourts dominate nowadays. There certainly should be a Masters on grass but in the current set up can't see it happening. Whilst at times I'd liked to see more volleying of course thee were times when the serve was too dominant,the 1994 Wimbledon final with Sampras/Ivaniesvic springs to mind. Still think it's possible to combine power with creativity and whilst it's a tough era think it's possible for Andy to win a slam but in particular he needs more consistency on the serve and more pop on the forehand. others have mentioned the french players who can be very flashy and entertaining,even if most other than Tsonga who is explosive are not going to be right at the top. Much comment has made that the technology helped the smaller players also and in the women's event Erani certainly made a name for herself even if Sharapova's power won convincingly in the final, when there isn't a top player such as Henin atm who can counter react.

[RoastLamb]

Well they would have to move it not to class with Queens I would have thought and do they have enough courts for everyone?

I don't know about the other courts there, because I don't really watch it as it's the same time as Queen's. But it has a roof which is a huge bonus and it's in a different country to GB where W is. I think they need to have a month between RG and W then they could fit in a masters and Queen's as the main warm-up events.

[Linda]

Have been searching everywhere for this thread - didn't think it would be in 'Andy Rules'!

This piece by Steve Tignor has a section which is relevant: http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/06/you-know-its-grass-season-when.html


The lament arises: The “new” grass at Wimbledon is too slow
When will we stop thinking of Wimbledon’s current grass, which has been in use since 2001, as new? As I wrote at Wimbledon last year, it’s past time. The current rye turf is better—less bumpy, less easily shredded—than what they used to use. It’s true that the tennis played on it doesn’t involve much old-fashioned serving-and-volleying, and doesn’t differ radically from what you see the rest of the year. But it does reward big serves, as well as variety. Grass keeps a slice low, and forces players to move well.

Has it had a hand, as so many former players believe, in the decline of serve and volley tennis? On the one hand, when Pete Sampras was young, he and his coach changed his two-hander to a one-hander and made him a net-rusher with the specific idea that that’s what it took to win Wimbledon. A young player who dreams of winning Wimbledon today (as every young player does) doesn’t have to make that change. On the other hand, Nadal, Djokovic, and most of the rest of the Top 20 wouldn’t serve and volley even if Wimbledon were played on glass rather than grass. Blame two-handed backhands, Western grips, and bigger racquets for the shift before you blame the “new” surface at one tournament.

[DaveArneRiise]

You can argue it from all angles really, people will have varying opinions but the fact of the matter is that ATP stats monitors show that the Wimbledon surface is slower than the US Open. The person who wrote that happens to be a journalists but you have ardent professionals and former professionals such as Courrier who will tell you otherwise. I know who I would trust more. Also because there is no bumps and so forth anymore that's not a good thing IMO. Plays right into the hands of the baseline players like Nadal because the surface is so perfect now.

[super8]

You can argue it from all angles really, people will have varying opinions but the fact of the matter is that ATP stats monitors show that the Wimbledon surface is slower than the US Open. The person who wrote that happens to be a journalists but you have ardent professionals and former professionals such as Courrier who will tell you otherwise. I know who I would trust more. Also because there is no bumps and so forth anymore that's not a good thing IMO. Plays right into the hands of the baseline players like Nadal because the surface is so perfect now.

Agreed.

Also, the way that grass courts play changes as a tournament progresses. Whilst grass courts usually become a little harder and bouncier towards the end of a tournament, the courts at both SW19 and Queen's are much bouncier towards the end of the tournament than they should be - they are certainly bouncier than at Halle. There is a point that I remember in the Kvitova v Serena semi final 2 years ago when the court seemed bouncier than a hardcourt!

As a result, the slice is more effective earlier in the tournament, but much less so, towards the end of the tournament. It also explains a little why Rafa can struggle in the early rounds because the courts don't take his spin quite so well.

Also, SW19 have definitely changed the balls so that they go slower through the air. I recall Tim Henman being quite angry about this.

imo grass courts should have a lower bounce, with possible quirks of the surface (less perfect) - just as clay courts can have their quirks. The faster, lower bounce, with possible unpredictability rewards the more instinctive, more attacking player.

The scope for this has been significantly reduced by the changes over the last 10 years.

[cazza99]

They could make Halle into a grass masters seeing as Hamburg was downgraded a few years ago. And it has a roof which is an added bonus.

I think that they cannot have a masters event the week following a grand slam. They would need to add an extra week between Roland Garros and Wimbers to have a grass masters.

[RoastLamb]

Yes, they need to have four weeks between the two grand slams but that'll never happen.

[Sallydaisy]

Thread moved because the discussion is about a general tennis subject and not an Andy match or tournament.