The Tennis Thread

[Paddingtonwolf]

All this with the net been discussed a million times at Wimbledon. They even changed the pressure in the balls to take the huge server advantages away. And looked at the grass composition on the court.

Now look at the list of Wimbledon winners

Of those that I can remember (and I watched Borg play) only Ivanisevic and Krajicec join Sampras in the HUGE serve weapon stakes. Nadal isn't. Federer isn't. Murray isn't. Djokovic isn't. Becker had powerful serve and played serve and volley but it wasn't a siege gun. Edberg wasn't. Cash wasn't. McEnroe wasn't. Connors wasn't. Borg CERTAINLY wasn't.

 

[Freddeno]

Muller only served 6 more aces than Nadal. He served 30 aces in the match, from 29 service games.

Much more to his game also than just his serve. The likes of Karlovic and Isner I get your point, but Muller today was more than just bang down ace after ace.

Look at post 3083

 

[Freddeno]

All this with the net been discussed a million times at Wimbledon. They even changed the pressure in the balls to take the huge server advantages away. And looked at the grass composition on the court.

Now look at the list of Wimbledon winners

Of those that I can remember (and I watched Borg play) only Ivanisevic and Krajicec join Sampras in the HUGE serve weapon stakes. Nadal isn't. Federer isn't. Murray isn't. Djokovic isn't. Becker had powerful serve and played serve and volley but it wasn't a siege gun. Edberg wasn't. Cash wasn't. McEnroe wasn't. Connors wasn't. Borg CERTAINLY wasn't.

Different times Paddy..people are taller now too..

 

[Trips]

Look at post 3083

Missed that, apologies.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Karlovic, Anderson and Isner I'll give you as serve machines. Chairman Rao to an extent too. Would not put today's match in that category.

Don't even think this was a big shock, as I say it's six years since Rafa made a QF at Wimbledon and Müller has been in rare form lately.

 

[Freddeno]

Raovic too

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Krajicek is 6 foot 5
Ivanisevic is 6 foot 4.

Who is winning the slams from this land of the giants monster server types then? Not seen Isner (never past the 4th round at Wimbledon for Mr 6 foot 10), Karlovic (1 Quarter Final at Wimbers for the 6 foot 11 giant) picking up a trophy yet.

Don't blame player builds. Don't blame nets. Blame racquet manufacturers. It is what it is. Maybe they should all have to use wooden racquets again.

 

[Freddeno]

Missed that, apologies.

No worries

 

[Freddeno]

You are missing the point Paddy..boring to watch..make talent more important than smashing a serve in..

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

But if you raise the net you give the advantage to the baseliners, which is what clay is for.

 

[Trips]

You are missing the point Paddy..boring to watch..make talent more important than smashing a serve in..

But players nowadays have been forced to have more of an all-round game.

Take Raonic as an example. 20 years ago he would of coasted along on being a big-server. He can't do that now though, which is why he has to have more to his game. A big serve is an advantage, obviously, but you need more than that to win things now.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

No way would I class that match today as boring.

As a wider point I would say watching say, Anderson vs Isner is boring. But those players are few and far between, it's very rare that they face each other in the latter stages of major tournaments. Watching the likes of Murray deconstruct the game of a big server is good to watch.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

As soon as the siege gun comes up against a top four player with more all round talent they lose more times than not.

 

[Freddeno]

But if you raise the net you give the advantage to the baseliners, which is what clay is for.

I give up, you have made the correct career choice though

 

[Freddeno]

No way would I class that match today as boring.

As a wider point I would say watching say, Anderson vs Isner is boring. But those players are few and far between, it's very rare that they face each other in the latter stages of major tournaments. Watching the likes of Murray deconstruct the game of a big server is good to watch.

They are closer though..almost never lose their serve so sadly they can get the win with less ability..im fine that nobody agrees with me

 

[Freddeno]

The point is that it is boring to watch..didnt say this match was....

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

As soon as the siege gun comes up against a top four player with more all round talent they lose more times than not.

Murray is immense at it. You simply don't get many aces past him and then he just gets to work with wearing them down.

Since the courts have slowed down you really don't get ace-fests. Today wasn't one of those, not by any stretch - think there was an average of 1 ace per game in the fourth set, for instance (going off memory from when they flashed the stats up) - so I'm not sure why this is being raised. It's a discussion I'd have expected to have in 1995! (And then I'd wonder why 14 year old me was using the Internet to discuss a fairly obtuse point about tennis)

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The point is that it is boring to watch..didnt say this match was....

But it rarely even happens now.

One dimensional players don't win anything and don't get very far. Müller is more than a big serve.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

As I say, the change in ball pressure was to combat the Sampras game, which was frighteningly dull to watch EVERY year.

 

[Freddeno]

But it rarely even happens now.

One dimensional players don't win anything and don't get very far. Müller is more than a big serve.

I know they will rarely win tournaments and such but read my last post please