The (Unofficial) French Open Thread

[MphsBlues]

Do you have any evidence that it's changed since 2001?

And why is it a travesty? Should tennis players who can serve really really hard, but do nothing else well on a tennis court be winning majors? Really...were Goran Ivanisevic* and Richard Krajicek any good at tennis? Was it really that awesome that Mark Phillipoussis -- an abject scrub by all accounts -- made it to the finals? Do you enjoy each point ending after one or two shots? Do you think there is something noble about a match where half the sets go to a tiebreak?

I think Wimbledon needed some slowing down. At the end of the day, it's shortly cut grass on hard pressed dirt. It's always going to be a fast, low-bouncing surface. it isn't like the surfaces are conspiring to join together at a standardized speed. The US Open are fast hard courts. The Aussie are slower hard courts. Roland Garros is clay, which is obviously really slow. And Wimbledon is going to be the fastest, because it is going to be the lowest bouncing**


*Ivanisevic's serve was a thing of beauty. I'd pay to watch him serve. Sampras' serve was better because it was more dependable...it was always there for him. But when Ivanisevic had that serve going, I don't know that I've seen one better.

**The "speed" of a court is dictated by how much pace the ball loses when it bounces and also, how high up it bounces. Wimbledon might be "slower" than the US Open in that the surface absorb's more of the ball's energy when it bounces. But that isn't as significant as the fact that ti bounces lower. That's what makes the court seem fast to the players.

There's no question that it's slower. As a result, how many serve and volleys do you see nowadays? This has always been a tourney that encouraged that. Personally I loved seeing the likes of Mac, Edberg, et al do their thing. So what the points are shorter? It's a style that is disappearing, and I, for one, miss it.

 

[DyronNix]

History will remember Fedsmug as having 16 GS titles.
Fedsmug knows how lucky he is that the tendons in Nadal knees betrayed him in 2009. Fedsmug knows that he is only two sturdy knees removed from finishing his career with one fewer major than pistol pete.

Sometimes people catch breaks.

Instead of thanking Ralph's traitorous knees, Federer should thank Nadal's parents for their lack of commitment. Nadal missed that part of 2009 because he was a headcase over his parents' divorce. Nadal is catastrophically injured as a convenience.

We can go back and forth with the luck game all day long. For instance, Nadal is lucky that he is 4 or 5 years younger than Federer. He's also lucky that, being a dirt-ball pusher and moonballer, he came along in an era in which all the slam surfaces took steps towards homogenizing the way the game is played on those surfaces. No fault of Nadal's mind you, he took care of business as it presented itself. Doesn't change the fact that the surface changes allowed a dirtballer to win two W and steal a USO.

And, by using your own logic, Nadal is lucky that Federer was diagnosed with mono at the beginning of 2008. Federer basically missed no tennis during that period of time and had the worst run of his career as a result. That, coincidentally, is when Nadal began his historic tear through professional tennis. Mono is the same affliction that has recently taken Soderling out for most of his year and maybe Ancic out for 6 or 7 months not too long ago. See how that works?

 

[DyronNix]

Do you have any evidence that it's changed since 2001?

And why is it a travesty? Should tennis players who can serve really really hard, but do nothing else well on a tennis court be winning majors? Really...were Goran Ivanisevic* and Richard Krajicek any good at tennis? Was it really that awesome that Mark Phillipoussis -- an abject scrub by all accounts -- made it to the finals? Do you enjoy each point ending after one or two shots? Do you think there is something noble about a match where half the sets go to a tiebreak?

I think Wimbledon needed some slowing down. At the end of the day, it's shortly cut grass on hard pressed dirt. It's always going to be a fast, low-bouncing surface. it isn't like the surfaces are conspiring to join together at a standardized speed. The US Open are fast hard courts. The Aussie are slower hard courts. Roland Garros is clay, which is obviously really slow. And Wimbledon is going to be the fastest, because it is going to be the lowest bouncing**


*Ivanisevic's serve was a thing of beauty. I'd pay to watch him serve. Sampras' serve was better because it was more dependable...it was always there for him. But when Ivanisevic had that serve going, I don't know that I've seen one better.

**The "speed" of a court is dictated by how much pace the ball loses when it bounces and also, how high up it bounces. Wimbledon might be "slower" than the US Open in that the surface absorb's more of the ball's energy when it bounces. But that isn't as significant as the fact that ti bounces lower. That's what makes the court seem fast to the players.

It's a travesty because it is no longer the same game by which W gained its reputation. Serve and volley is an afterthought there. It was once the way to play there if you wanted to win.

And I think we all know what it means that the surface plays slower. Evidence? Not personally as I've never been there myself. However, I'll take the word of the multitude of players, commentators, and even grounds crewman that state W is slower and the ball bounces higher than ever. Each year many players make the comment that W has never been slower. That's year after year.

Not only is the proof there in the player's perceptions of speed and bounce, but it's clearly evidenced by the almost universal abandonment of the serve and volley game. The strings, equipment, and surface change puts the advantage in the baseliner's pocket. Whether you agree or disagree with the surface change, it really isn't up to debate that the change exists.

Many also say that the USO is the fastest surface there is in today's game. Even faster than the grass at Wimbledon. Again, I can only go on the anecdotal evidence of player's statements.

But there's no need to even compare the slowness of the different surfaces. Just compare the AO v. AO, W v. W, and USO v. USO. They've all slowed down within themselves. Not even up for debate. The change favors the baseliner on all surfaces.

 

[kidbourbon]

There's no question that it's slower. As a result, how many serve and volleys do you see nowadays? This has always been a tourney that encouraged that. Personally I loved seeing the likes of Mac, Edberg, et al do their thing. So what the points are shorter? It's a style that is disappearing, and I, for one, miss it.

I'm not convinced court speed killed the serve and volley.

 

[kidbourbon]

I

For instance, Nadal is lucky that he is 4 or 5 years younger than Federer.

Not following you here.

Are you saying that Nadal benefitted from Fed getting old more than Fed benefited from Nadal not being around the first three years of his prime? If so, that's just silly. Pleasey pretty please tell me you're not saying that. There's no way you actually believe that.

Federer prays nightly to his Deity of choice, and profusely thanks said Deity that he didn't make Nadal 2 or 3 years older.

You could take Mark Phillipoussi, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Marcos Baghdatis, Marat Safin, and 35 year old Andre Agassi. Pick and choose their best tennis attributes, throw away their worst, and meld them together into a bionic superplayer....and the superplayer would promptly lose 3-6, 4-6 to Nadal on any surface.

EDIT: Safin was legitimately legit when focused. I'll take him out of it.

 

[kidbourbon]

See how that works?

Mono? I had it in college and was sick for a week. If Robin Soderling actually has Mono, it is the world's worst case. Ever.

 

[kidbourbon]

Not only is the proof there in the player's perceptions of speed and bounce, but it's clearly evidenced by the almost universal abandonment of the serve and volley game. The strings, equipment, and surface change puts the advantage in the baseliner's pocket.

.

Abandonment of the S&V game doesn't count as evidence of a slower Wimbledon court. By this rationale, players of old would have only served and volleyed on grass courts. They would have ditched the S&V on hard courts.

But that's not how it worked. Serve and volleyers -- Mcenroe, Edberg, Henman, Rafter -- served and volleyed on every surface. And now nobody serves and volleys on any surface. So you can't blame the decline in the S&V game on slower courts at Wimbledon. One doesn't flow logically from the other.

I tried to write the above without coming across as a dick or a huge nerd.

 

[kidbourbon]

But there's no need to even compare the slowness of the different surfaces. Just compare the AO v. AO, W v. W, and USO v. USO. They've all slowed down within themselves. Not even up for debate. The change favors the baseliner on all surfaces.

I'll buy that Wimby is slower, but I'm not buying the rest. It sounds very conspiracy theory-ish. And these conspiracy theories are often diametrically opposed to one another from year to year.

Open Book: Court-speed conspiracy theory - Tennis - ESPN

 

[kidbourbon]

Just an interesting article on court speed.

Jonah Lehrer on the effects of different tennis surfaces - Grantland

 

[MphsBlues]

I'm not convinced court speed killed the serve and volley.

After I posted that, I told my wife I made a silly argument because Mac and Stefan played the same at the French as they did at Wimbledon. But the faster the court, the more serve and volley is present, which was the point I was trying to make. I just feel like it was always great to see that at least once a year. It seems to me that if the court in at least one major was lightning fast, we would see more players play serve and volley, which I've always had an affinity for.

 

[MphsBlues]

Mono? I had it in college and was sick for a week. If Robin Soderling actually has Mono, it is the world's worst case. Ever.

Mono ruined Ancic's career. I had it for about a week in grade school myself, but it can be devastating for some.

 

[DyronNix]

Mono? I had it in college and was sick for a week. If Robin Soderling actually has Mono, it is the world's worst case. Ever.

How much time did you lose off the pro tour?

 

[DyronNix]

Not following you here.

Are you saying that Nadal benefitted from Fed getting old more than Fed benefited from Nadal not being around the first three years of his prime? If so, that's just silly. Pleasey pretty please tell me you're not saying that. There's no way you actually believe that.

Federer prays nightly to his Deity of choice, and profusely thanks said Deity that he didn't make Nadal 2 or 3 years older.

You could take Mark Phillipoussi, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Marcos Baghdatis, Marat Safin, and 35 year old Andre Agassi. Pick and choose their best tennis attributes, throw away their worst, and meld them together into a bionic superplayer....and the superplayer would promptly lose 3-6, 4-6 to Nadal on any surface.

EDIT: Safin was legitimately legit when focused. I'll take him out of it.

Ha ha. This is fun and quite possibly the nerdiest pissing contest this side of a Dungeons and Dragons convention.

Yes, I'll put 2004-2007 Federer up against anyone in the history of the game and he'll whoop their ass with a smirk on his face. While debatable, it's certainly not silly.

Look, I've followed pro tennis for nearly 3 decades. I've seen the ebb and flow of great careers. It's inevitable that the young eat the old and makes the young look greater in the present day. Some day soon Nadal will start losing before the quarters if he sticks around the game to players that couldn't earn a break of serve off him in his prime. Someday soon fans of player x will be saying Nadal ain't all that he can't even beat player x. It won't be a fair comparison, but it is what it is.

I'm certainly not saying that Nadal only got to play Federer when RF was a washout. Not at all. But it simply is crazy to overlook the difference in age and call it a non-factor. You can't tell me that you put Federer and Nadal at the same age from 2004-2007 and Federer doesn't beat him unmercifully with the greatest forehand around everywhere except RG.

I must say you had a valid argument up until I read that last paragraph in which you name MP, LH, AR, MB, MS, and a 35 year old Agassi as some dream meld of a tennis supergod. What? I guess Jay Berger and Todd Martin didn't make the cut. Anyway.

 

[kidbourbon]

How much time did you lose off the pro tour?

Kidbourbon cannot recall the exact time frame, but he can confidently assert that no more than two weeks were missed off the professional kidbourbon tour. And that, more than likely, kidbourbon was actually back to 100% -- in mind, body, and sex appeal -- in about 12 days.

 

[kidbourbon]

I must say you had a valid argument up until I read that last paragraph in which you name MP, LH, AR, MB, MS, and a 35 year old Agassi as some dream meld of a tennis supergod. What? I guess Jay Berger and Todd Martin didn't make the cut. Anyway.

That was heavy sarcasm. I was taking a jab at the pre-Fed level of men's tennis.

 

[kidbourbon]

After I posted that, I told my wife I made a silly argument because Mac and Stefan played the same at the French as they did at Wimbledon. But the faster the court, the more serve and volley is present, which was the point I was trying to make. I just feel like it was always great to see that at least once a year. It seems to me that if the court in at least one major was lightning fast, we would see more players play serve and volley, which I've always had an affinity for.

Question to all:
Is it easier to control a volley when the ball is coming at you at 75mph or when the ball is coming at you at 105mph?


Where am I going with this ridiculously obvious question?

Eventual Conclusion:
string technology was the final straw in the extinction of the serve and volleyer.


How I arrive at that conclusion:
1) Racquet technology helped the server
2) String technology helped the returner, and thus allowed the returner to get back on an even plane with the server.

2a)
Case in point: remember back in the 90s when a 128mph serve was either: (a) an ace, (b) a service winner, or (c) an exceptional exceptional return, probably only pulled off by Agassi?

Why is this not the case anymore? When did this stop being the case?

Admittedly, I never really thought about this until today when I was in the gym, but it's definitely the strings. Racquet technology has essentially stayed the same since the early 90s. It's the strings that have represented the more recent technological advancement. This allows the ball to be struck with greater spin, which benefits the return more than it does the serve.

So one of the many consequences of the improved spin technology is that returns of serve are moving faster than ever. The ridiculous velocity of the serve -- which used to be exceptionally difficult to control -- is now simply resulting in a faster return of serve.

I have no idea what the average speed on a return of serve in 1980 was. I have no idea what the average speed on a return of serve is now (though I could probably look the latter up). But you have to think that the latter is a good 15-20mph faster than the former. Easy.

And just like in baseball where there is a clear breaking point such that a 93mph fastball is standard operating procedure while a 99mph fastball is virtually unhittable. Right? It just so happens that humans can't react from 60 feet away to a ball moving that fast in time to make contact with it with any degree of consistency.

I think the same happened in tennis. The normal speed on a service return -- because of the string technology -- passed over a threshold that made it really difficult to consistently react to and controllably strike the ball from 40 feet away. As such, the S&V'iers "batting average" has been reduced enough over the long haul such that it is simply no longer an advantageous strategy to come in off the serve.

It is now better to get your opponent in a position of identified weakness before moving forward and taking the net.


Thoughts?

 

[kidbourbon]

You can't tell me that you put Federer and Nadal at the same age from 2004-2007 and Federer doesn't beat him unmercifully with the greatest forehand around everywhere except RG.

This is a fundamental disagreement.

I fundamentally, comprehensively, wholeheartedly disagree with the quoted assertion. What rational basis do you have for believing that 2004-2007 Fed would unmercifully beat a 22-25 year old Rafael Nadal when he couldn't even unmercifully beat an 18 year old Nadal?


No. Year Tournament Surface Round Winner Score Length (H:MM) Sets Federer Nadal
1. 2004 Miami Hard R32 Nadal 6–3, 6–3 1:10 2/3 0 1
2. 2005 Miami Hard Final Federer 2–6, 6–7(4–7), 7–6(7–5), 6–3, 6–1 3:43 5/5 1 1
3. 2005 Roland Garros Clay Semi-final Nadal 6–3, 4–6, 6–4, 6–3 2:47 4/5 1 2
4. 2006 Dubai Hard Final Nadal 2–6, 6–4, 6–4 1:53 3/3 1 3
5. 2006 Monte Carlo Clay Final Nadal 6–2, 6–7(2–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–5) 3:50 4/5 1 4
6. 2006 Rome Clay Final Nadal 6–7(0–7), 7–6(7–5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(7–5) 5:05 5/5 1 5
7. 2006 Roland Garros Clay Final Nadal 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4) 3:02 4/5 1 6
8. 2006 Wimbledon Grass Final Federer 6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3 2:58 4/5 2 6
9. 2006 Tennis Masters Cup Hard (i) Semi-final Federer 6–4, 7–5 1:53 2/3 3 6
10. 2007 Monte Carlo Clay Final Nadal 6–4, 6–4 1:35 2/3 3 7
11. 2007 Hamburg Clay Final Federer 2–6, 6–2, 6–0 1:55 3/3 4 7
12. 2007 Roland Garros Clay Final Nadal 6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 3:10 4/5 4 8
13. 2007 Wimbledon Grass Final Federer 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2 3:45 5/5 5 8
14. 2007 Tennis Masters Cup Hard (i) Semi-final Federer 6–4, 6–1 0:59 2/3 6 8

 

[kidbourbon]

Hell, I can make the statement: "Rafa has been kicking Fed's ass since Rafa was 17 years old"....and I'm not even telling a lie!

 

[DyronNix]

This is a fundamental disagreement.

I fundamentally, comprehensively, wholeheartedly disagree with the quoted assertion. What rational basis do you have for believing that 2004-2007 Fed would unmercifully beat a 22-25 year old Rafael Nadal when he couldn't even unmercifully beat an 18 year old Nadal?


No. Year Tournament Surface Round Winner Score Length (H:MM) Sets Federer Nadal
1. 2004 Miami Hard R32 Nadal 6–3, 6–3 1:10 2/3 0 1
2. 2005 Miami Hard Final Federer 2–6, 6–7(4–7), 7–6(7–5), 6–3, 6–1 3:43 5/5 1 1
3. 2005 Roland Garros Clay Semi-final Nadal 6–3, 4–6, 6–4, 6–3 2:47 4/5 1 2
4. 2006 Dubai Hard Final Nadal 2–6, 6–4, 6–4 1:53 3/3 1 3
5. 2006 Monte Carlo Clay Final Nadal 6–2, 6–7(2–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–5) 3:50 4/5 1 4
6. 2006 Rome Clay Final Nadal 6–7(0–7), 7–6(7–5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(7–5) 5:05 5/5 1 5
7. 2006 Roland Garros Clay Final Nadal 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4) 3:02 4/5 1 6
8. 2006 Wimbledon Grass Final Federer 6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3 2:58 4/5 2 6
9. 2006 Tennis Masters Cup Hard (i) Semi-final Federer 6–4, 7–5 1:53 2/3 3 6
10. 2007 Monte Carlo Clay Final Nadal 6–4, 6–4 1:35 2/3 3 7
11. 2007 Hamburg Clay Final Federer 2–6, 6–2, 6–0 1:55 3/3 4 7
12. 2007 Roland Garros Clay Final Nadal 6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 3:10 4/5 4 8
13. 2007 Wimbledon Grass Final Federer 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2 3:45 5/5 5 8
14. 2007 Tennis Masters Cup Hard (i) Semi-final Federer 6–4, 6–1 0:59 2/3 6 8

Ok, I'll retract the 'unmercifully' language. I was just following your lead with the hyperbole.

Anyway, all you've shown here is that in the early stages of the rivalry, Nadal and Federer played the majority of their matches on clay (7:5:2)(clay/hard/grass). Coincidentally, that is the surface that Nadal owns and has always owned. In fact, Ralph is the greatest ever to play on clay. Interestingly, each matchup on clay is in the finals or semi-finals speaking also to Federer' ability on Nadal's surface. Interestinglier, these are all fairly even scorelines on Nadal's greatest surface with many sets decided by a break or less.

Then you get a couple of Nadal victories on the hardcourts of Miami -- a very slow hardcourt -- and Dubai. I don't know anything about Dubai. Isn't that an exo? I have no idea so I'll concede Rafa's dominance in that era by a break in each set on the hardcourts of Dubai.

I've played fast hardcourts and slow hardcourts. I've played slow hardcourts that are slower than clay. Those hardcourts are so gritty that the court pretty much grabs the ball stopping its momentum and plays like clay in that it allows a very defensive game to suceed by smothering pace on the strokes and, most importantly, the serve. The most important stroke in the game -- the serve -- is neutralized on the slow hardcourt. The point being just because it is a hardcourt doesn't mean it is a fast track.

Although I can't believe Im going to acknowledge Mats Wilander's opinion, he had a great explanation for the triumvirate of tennis in Fed-Rafa-Djoker and the article goes on to argue that this is truly the golden age of the game. Basically, attributes the greatness of each player to the fact that each had the others as opponents. Without Federer, Nadal's accomplishments are paltry and bland. Vice-versa. Without Nadal, Djokovic's 2011 isn't as meaningful. I agree that this is the greatest era in tennis history in my eyes.

I will try to link to the article.

Tennis' titanic trio create a magic era - The Daily Breeze

 

[DyronNix]

Question to all:
Is it easier to control a volley when the ball is coming at you at 75mph or when the ball is coming at you at 105mph?


Where am I going with this ridiculously obvious question?

Eventual Conclusion:
string technology was the final straw in the extinction of the serve and volleyer.


How I arrive at that conclusion:
1) Racquet technology helped the server
2) String technology helped the returner, and thus allowed the returner to get back on an even plane with the server.

2a)
Case in point: remember back in the 90s when a 128mph serve was either: (a) an ace, (b) a service winner, or (c) an exceptional exceptional return, probably only pulled off by Agassi?

Why is this not the case anymore? When did this stop being the case?

Admittedly, I never really thought about this until today when I was in the gym, but it's definitely the strings. Racquet technology has essentially stayed the same since the early 90s. It's the strings that have represented the more recent technological advancement. This allows the ball to be struck with greater spin, which benefits the return more than it does the serve.

So one of the many consequences of the improved spin technology is that returns of serve are moving faster than ever. The ridiculous velocity of the serve -- which used to be exceptionally difficult to control -- is now simply resulting in a faster return of serve.

I have no idea what the average speed on a return of serve in 1980 was. I have no idea what the average speed on a return of serve is now (though I could probably look the latter up). But you have to think that the latter is a good 15-20mph faster than the former. Easy.

And just like in baseball where there is a clear breaking point such that a 93mph fastball is standard operating procedure while a 99mph fastball is virtually unhittable. Right? It just so happens that humans can't react from 60 feet away to a ball moving that fast in time to make contact with it with any degree of consistency.

I think the same happened in tennis. The normal speed on a service return -- because of the string technology -- passed over a threshold that made it really difficult to consistently react to and controllably strike the ball from 40 feet away. As such, the S&V'iers "batting average" has been reduced enough over the long haul such that it is simply no longer an advantageous strategy to come in off the serve.

It is now better to get your opponent in a position of identified weakness before moving forward and taking the net.


Thoughts?

Ok, you've literally hit a sore spot with me on this one. These strings are ridiculous and should be illegal. They banned spaghetti string, but allow polys. These poly strings make it almost impossible for a player like Nadal to hit the ball long. It's crazy. However, all players have the same opportunity to use the string so not much can be said about Nadal's extreme advantage in putting these strings to use.

I say sore spot for one simple reason: I haven't really been able to use these polys myself because I suffer from terrible tennis elbow. These strings rip my arm apart literally in matter of minutes. There's no denying the impact that string technology has had on the modern game.

I use a multi-filament string that is soft and forgiving, but even so, this string does stuff that no string ever did when I started playing in the 80s. The control and spin produced off of modern strings is something to behold.

They no longer make it for some reason, but a couple years ago I used Wilson K-Gut string. It was phenomenal how much spin and control I had with that string. It felt like the strings grabbed the ball and cradled it until I decided which corner to release it towards. Unreal.

 

[kidbourbon]

Ok, you've literally hit a sore spot with me on this one. These strings are ridiculous and should be illegal. They banned spaghetti string, but allow polys. These poly strings make it almost impossible for a player like Nadal to hit the ball long. It's crazy. However, all players have the same opportunity to use the string so not much can be said about Nadal's extreme advantage in putting these strings to use.

I say sore spot for one simple reason: I haven't really been able to use these polys myself because I suffer from terrible tennis elbow. These strings rip my arm apart literally in matter of minutes. There's no denying the impact that string technology has had on the modern game.

I use a multi-filament string that is soft and forgiving, but even so, this string does stuff that no string ever did when I started playing in the 80s. The control and spin produced off of modern strings is something to behold.

They no longer make it for some reason, but a couple years ago I used Wilson K-Gut string. It was phenomenal how much spin and control I had with that string. It felt like the strings grabbed the ball and cradled it until I decided which corner to release it towards. Unreal.

But you think my theory has some merit?

 

[BigPapaVol]

But you think my theory has some merit?

some merit, but handling the speed of the ball doesn't change the world for the volleying type. McEnroe could have handled cannon balls with his hands. The issue it really about getting to the ball and reaction times. The amount of net one can cover gets much smaller with the hammers people have now. More guys stepping in to take the ball on the rise has also hurt the volley game. Until the pace changes, a serve and volley guy has no prayer of winning, unless Wimbledon goes back to skidders, speed and no bounce.

 

[kidbourbon]

Ok, I'll retract the 'unmercifully' language. I was just following your lead with the hyperbole.

Anyway, all you've shown here is that in the early stages of the rivalry, Nadal and Federer played the majority of their matches on clay (7:5:2)(clay/hard/grass). Coincidentally, that is the surface that Nadal owns and has always owned. In fact, Ralph is the greatest ever to play on clay. Interestingly, each matchup on clay is in the finals or semi-finals speaking also to Federer' ability on Nadal's surface. Interestinglier, these are all fairly even scorelines on Nadal's greatest surface with many sets decided by a break or less.

Then you get a couple of Nadal victories on the hardcourts of Miami -- a very slow hardcourt -- and Dubai. I don't know anything about Dubai. Isn't that an exo? I have no idea so I'll concede Rafa's dominance in that era by a break in each set on the hardcourts of Dubai.

I've played fast hardcourts and slow hardcourts. I've played slow hardcourts that are slower than clay. Those hardcourts are so gritty that the court pretty much grabs the ball stopping its momentum and plays like clay in that it allows a very defensive game to suceed by smothering pace on the strokes and, most importantly, the serve. The most important stroke in the game -- the serve -- is neutralized on the slow hardcourt. The point being just because it is a hardcourt doesn't mean it is a fast track.

Although I can't believe Im going to acknowledge Mats Wilander's opinion, he had a great explanation for the triumvirate of tennis in Fed-Rafa-Djoker and the article goes on to argue that this is truly the golden age of the game. Basically, attributes the greatness of each player to the fact that each had the others as opponents. Without Federer, Nadal's accomplishments are paltry and bland. Vice-versa. Without Nadal, Djokovic's 2011 isn't as meaningful. I agree that this is the greatest era in tennis history in my eyes.

I will try to link to the article.

Tennis' titanic trio create a magic era - The Daily Breeze

Good article.

And on the Fed-Nadal thing. Your point about some hard courts being really slow is unquestionably true. And some are really fast. I've played on both versions myself. But it doesn't really relate to our discussion because those same conditions would have existed whether Nadal was 18 or 21.

My point is that even if you just look to those early hard court matches, you see 17 year old Nadal beating an in-his-prime Federer. Then you see an 18 year old Nadal taking an in-his-prime Federer to five sets. And then you see a 19 year old Nadal beating an in-his-prime Federer.

It wasn't until Nadal was 20 that he began to become a great all around player. So even when he was still raw and improving, Nadal was holding his own and/or getting the better of Federer even on hard courts, which is Nadal's worst surface.

So I can't come to any other conclusion but that if Nadal were three years older, he would have won a few or more of the Majors that Fed won.

 

[kidbourbon]

some merit, but handling the speed of the ball doesn't change the world for the volleying type.
(1)
McEnroe could have handled cannon balls with his hands.

(2)
The issue it really about getting to the ball and reaction times. The amount of net one can cover gets much smaller with the hammers people have now. More guys stepping in to take the ball on the rise has also hurt the volley game. Until the pace changes, a serve and volley guy has no prayer of winning,

(3)
unless Wimbledon goes back to skidders, speed and no bounce.

(1)
This is what I'm not sure about. I can't help but think that even a guy with hands like Mcenroe would have seen his touch substantially impaired if he was playing balls that were coming 20mph faster at him.

(2)
Good points

(3)
I'm not sure this would matter. I think they could start playing tournaments on a sheet of ice, and it still wouldn't resurrect the serve and volley game. The issues I raised and the issues you raised would still exist.

Playing on a sheet of ice would help servers. But it would help servers whether they stayed back at the baseline or served and volleyed. But when the ball is getting returned back, it's going to be moving real fast, and the server probably will be at the service line and no further.

I actually think that a slow court would make serving and volleying more of a viable option, but it doesn't because it in turn just makes it easier to return serve. If they ever invented a court surface that both (a) was slow, and (b) helped the server out (perhaps with funky bounces off the serve)...that might be the best surface to serve and volley on. I'm just spitballin' though.

 

[DyronNix]

some merit, but handling the speed of the ball doesn't change the world for the volleying type. McEnroe could have handled cannon balls with his hands. The issue it really about getting to the ball and reaction times. The amount of net one can cover gets much smaller with the hammers people have now. More guys stepping in to take the ball on the rise has also hurt the volley game. Until the pace changes, a serve and volley guy has no prayer of winning, unless Wimbledon goes back to skidders, speed and no bounce.

I adopt this rationale as my own. Racquet and string technology plus court homogenization has turned the game over to the baseliners and 20 point rallys. Serving is neutralized. Serving and volleying is neutered.

I agree with what Memphis said a few posts back about the uniqueness of W and, in the past, getting to see that different game of tennis -- the game of grass as Federer refers to it -- played out one time a year.

I read recently that pro indoor tournaments used to be played on wood. As in wooden gym floor. Talk about some skid and low bounce.