Opinion about the homogeneous courts on the tennis scene now?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

For those who watched 1990s and early 2000s tennis, do you dislike how tennis has become a lot slower and all the surfaces play nearly identically. Back in the day, grass and hardcourts were crazy fast compared to the clay at the French Open. Now it's a lot less noticeable. :(

[bdreason]

I think, in general, its leads to more exciting rallies. However, at some point it takes away from the integrity of the game. I prefer to see a Tennis match won by hitting winners, as opposed to unforced errors. When you slow the courts to the point where it's almost impossible to hit the ball past your opponent, you take away the skill part of the game, and replace it with a battle of athleticism. I don't want to watch a 4-5 hour tennis match that is decided by who is willing and able to run longer. Tennis is supposed to be a game of skill, not an Ironman competition.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I think, in general, its leads to more exciting rallies. However, at some point it takes away from the integrity of the game. I prefer to see a Tennis match won by hitting winners, as opposed to unforced errors. When you slow the courts to the point where it's almost impossible to hit the ball past your opponent, you take away the skill part of the game, and replace it with a battle of athleticism. I don't want to watch a 4-5 hour tennis match that is decided by who is willing and able to run longer. Tennis is supposed to be a game of skill, not an Ironman competition.

Beautifully said.

[9erempiree]

The game is all about the serve now.

There are some great rallies but I do miss the serve and volley game.

[sundizz]

I was going to get back into watching tennis - thanks for dissuading me.

I watched and played a lot of tennis from 96 to 2004. Sampras with the serve and volley etc...loved watching it on the different courts.

Hitting winners is what makes tennis exciting. That unexpected shot down the line. It shouldn't be an ironman. Frustrating.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I was going to get back into watching tennis - thanks for dissuading me.

I watched and played a lot of tennis from 96 to 2004. Sampras with the serve and volley etc...loved watching it on the different courts.

Hitting winners is what makes tennis exciting. That unexpected shot down the line. It shouldn't be an ironman. Frustrating.

I miss people like Safin and Henman a lot also when Roddick used to hit 140 mph serves like they were nothing and he hit the crap out of his forehand. Hitting 100mphs+ on the regular.

[bdreason]

I was going to get back into watching tennis - thanks for dissuading me.

I watched and played a lot of tennis from 96 to 2004. Sampras with the serve and volley etc...loved watching it on the different courts.

Hitting winners is what makes tennis exciting. That unexpected shot down the line. It shouldn't be an ironman. Frustrating.


There are still a few big servers on tour, and the serve and volley game is slowly returning as well. Federer has actually morphed his game the past couple years to become the best volley player on tour (IMO). Federer has always been a delight to watch, but even more so over the past couple years, as he's become more aggressive with the volley in order to stay competitive against elite baseline players like Djoker, Murray, Wawrinka, Nadal, etc. In return, you've seen these players also incorporate more volley attempts into their games.

[Smoke117]

I think, in general, its leads to more exciting rallies. However, at some point it takes away from the integrity of the game. I prefer to see a Tennis match won by hitting winners, as opposed to unforced errors. When you slow the courts to the point where it's almost impossible to hit the ball past your opponent, you take away the skill part of the game, and replace it with a battle of athleticism. I don't want to watch a 4-5 hour tennis match that is decided by who is willing and able to run longer. Tennis is supposed to be a game of skill, not an Ironman competition.

Pretty much. A guy like Sampras wouldn't be close to as good as he was because of how they have made the courts slower. The courts should be different and play to separate strengths...but instead it's just easier for defensive players and tougher for offensive players now. They've basically taken the serve and volley out of the sport...as there's not much reason to volley regularly when these athletic players can come back from 25 feet to save it on these courts.

[9erempiree]

Volleys, the classic slice backhand and the drop shot are all extinct.

Nobody is finesse enough to do the drop shot.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

When Wimbledon was fast (2004)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOoKecF7Kzo

Side note, Federer won the match. 2nd and 3rd set were very close. He ran away with the 4th. Almost as entertaining as the 09 match.

This match is also what I consider peak Roddick.

[BigBoss]

OP is a homogeneous

[Dresta]

I think, in general, its leads to more exciting rallies. However, at some point it takes away from the integrity of the game. I prefer to see a Tennis match won by hitting winners, as opposed to unforced errors. When you slow the courts to the point where it's almost impossible to hit the ball past your opponent, you take away the skill part of the game, and replace it with a battle of athleticism. I don't want to watch a 4-5 hour tennis match that is decided by who is willing and able to run longer. Tennis is supposed to be a game of skill, not an Ironman competition.
All of this.

Barely watch tennis any more for this reason. Tennis died for me with the emergence of Nadal, a guy who should never have been winning slams on 3 different surfaces, and who some dumbasses consider the 'GOAT' simply because the changes to the courts just happened to coincide perfectly with his career, in the way that most benefits a player such as him.

[Dresta]

When Wimbledon was fast (2004)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOoKecF7Kzo

Side note, Federer won the match. 2nd and 3rd set were very close. He ran away with the 4th. Almost as entertaining as the 09 match.

This match is also what I consider peak Roddick.
:roll:

Poor Roddick: one slam to your name, and in the Wimbledon final at the age of 21. . . except that was about as good as it got his whole career. Could have been a completely different career without all the needless changes (wooo, long rallies!! - there was already women's tennis for that, thanks).

[NBAplayoffs2001]

:roll:

Poor Roddick: one slam to your name, and in the Wimbledon final at the age of 21. . . except that was about as good as it got his whole career. Could have been a completely different career without all the needless changes (wooo, long rallies!! - there was already women's tennis for that, thanks).

Without Federer, he wins 4 wimbledons too and another US Open :hammerhead:.

Pretty much if Federer never existed, Roddick would have 6 or 7 slams (possibly wins 2007 AO or 2007 US Open) and be considered possibly a top 20 player all time (He's like top 50-70 now).

Roddick's power was smoldering in 2004. Too bad the game changed way too much for him to keep it up.

Roddick vs. Federer rivalry could have been amazing if the courts never changed and both played similarly (well Federer never really changed his game until around the early 2010s, Roddick made massive overhauls of his game as early as like early 2005)

[enayes]

All of this.

Barely watch tennis any more for this reason. Tennis died for me with the emergence of Nadal, a guy who should never have been winning slams on 3 different surfaces, and who some dumbasses consider the 'GOAT' simply because the changes to the courts just happened to coincide perfectly with his career, in the way that most benefits a player such as him.

As a player all you can do is play on the courts available to you. That's what Nadal has done. Don't hate on him because you don't think he should be as good of a tennis player as his slams show you.

I agree that serve and volleys are an exciting play to watch when thrown in here and there, but matches back in the day used to be 90% serve and volley, that would end up being just as boring as watching long rallies all day.

And :wtf: to anyone that mentions not seeing players hit winners anymore, Nadal always has more winners then errors and you can't watch a Nadal v. Fed or Nadal v. Joker match for 5 mins without seeing at least one awesome winner.

Most of you sound like you simply don't watch tennis. Which is fine, but don't pretend like you do.

[ArbitraryWater]

All of this.

Barely watch tennis any more for this reason. Tennis died for me with the emergence of Nadal, a guy who should never have been winning slams on 3 different surfaces, and who some dumbasses consider the 'GOAT' simply because the changes to the courts just happened to coincide perfectly with his career, in the way that most benefits a player such as him.

:roll:

[AirFederer]

I think, in general, its leads to more exciting rallies. However, at some point it takes away from the integrity of the game. I prefer to see a Tennis match won by hitting winners, as opposed to unforced errors. When you slow the courts to the point where it's almost impossible to hit the ball past your opponent, you take away the skill part of the game, and replace it with a battle of athleticism. I don't want to watch a 4-5 hour tennis match that is decided by who is willing and able to run longer. Tennis is supposed to be a game of skill, not an Ironman competition.

:applause:

[Dresta]

As a player all you can do is play on the courts available to you. That's what Nadal has done. Don't hate on him because you don't think he should be as good of a tennis player as his slams show you.

I agree that serve and volleys are an exciting play to watch when thrown in here and there, but matches back in the day used to be 90% serve and volley, that would end up being just as boring as watching long rallies all day.

And :wtf: to anyone that mentions not seeing players hit winners anymore, Nadal always has more winners then errors and you can't watch a Nadal v. Fed or Nadal v. Joker match for 5 mins without seeing at least one awesome winner.

Most of you sound like you simply don't watch tennis. Which is fine, but don't pretend like you do.
So the fact lots of people disagree with you, and are fed up with the growing monotony of Tennis, means they don't watch/ haven't watched Tennis over the past decade?

Clown. Maybe you're simply too young to recognise how drastically the game has changed? If you're going to throw out unjustifiable nonsense like that, then i shall do the same.