Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[Luxilon Borg]

John Yandell measured Nadal at an average of 3300 rpm, Federer AND Joker and 2700, and Murray at
2400. Sampras? 1000.

Please don't spin this..no pun intended.

That's my issue with looking at numbers. They're so misleading and at times, flat out false. A quick Google search reveals various articles that have conflicting numbers to the ones you posted. I'm aware of the study you're referring to, but keep in mind it is measuring FOREHANDS. Novak Djokovic's backhand, and especially Andy Murray's backhand are relatively flat shots. I'm honestly not sure how that's even debatable. Murray in fact, by your definition, is from that "rare bread" (like Hewitt) that is a flat hitting counterpuncher (I maintain it's not THAT rare, and Gilles Simon is a prime example, who hits the ball with almost retro levels of flat). In fact, Murray's flat groundies are part of the reason why he hasn't excelled on clay (like Hewitt). His forehand has some spin when he hits it cross court, but it is significantly less than that of Nadal, Federer and even Djokovic. It's not nearly as heavy. Sometimes watching is enough to determine these things.

The study you're referring to says Federer hits with as much spin as Djokovic. I honestly find that hard to believe. His ground strokes have significantly more spin, especially on the backhand side (which the study doesn't account for). This is discounting the slice backhand, which Federer often uses, and I assume it has a crap ton of backspin/underspin. But that's a different issue.

You also have to keep in mind that all depends on the match-up strategies. For instance, Novak Djokovic will put more spin on his rally cross court forehand against Nadal than he would against other players, and that is because part of his strategy is to take Nadal off the court by gradually pulling him wide on his backhand side with heavy cross court forehands and open up the court. Against someone like Federer, Novak hits a bit flatter.

Very few players nowadays play "flat" in the traditional sense of the word (Berdych and Del Potro stand out). So of course someone like Pete Sampras will have average far less RPM's.

I understand what you are saying. Some good points, but also a bit of hair splitting.

First, Yandell has done many studies with advanced cameras. The famous one, quoted by the new york times, was focused on forehands because the numbers are more breath taking. I have been at Indian Wells when he had his cameras rolling and have asked first hand what they were doing. They measured all strokes including second serves for rpm.

Having sat courtside, not up in stands, it was easy to see the rotation, shot in shot out. Of course inside out shoulder level shots got blasted. Murray and Joker hit a lot of egg shaped shots. Of course nothing can compare to Nadal, who basically reinvented top spin. Both their backhands, as I said, have a beautiful arc and jump off the court.

Conversely, sitting courtside for Berdych and DelPo, wholly crap their balls are flat as flat can be, DelPo more so..it is just a straight through the contact point shot.

It is very commonly excepted that only very tall players can hit flat with consistency. OF COURSE there are exceptions..Connors, etc. But geometry rules.

Back to my original point, IMO, neither Murray or Dkoker can be classified as "flat grinders". I know you may disagree.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Roger Rasheed says Melbourne is slower than Brisbane.

https://twitter.com/roger_rasheed

"Hit on Margerat Court Arena today, when finished it will be superb, will add great atmosphere this year. Court is slower than Brisbane btw".

This is literally my least favorite part of any slam. Different players/coaches/commentators will provide different accounts of how fast/slow courts are playing, and people will lose their minds. While watching, very few will actually notice any difference...and Djokovic will play Nadal in the final

The aftermath of the draw is usually my least favourite part of a slam... two dozen conspiracy theories on how it was rigged and lengthy discussions about matches that often never take place!

Oh geez, I remember the nut job who tried to claim the US OPEN draw was rigged a few years ago and went to ESPN to give them all these charts and numbers he drew up..a real wacko. He was ignored and went on a tirade claiming they were doing a cover up.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Back to my original point, IMO, neither Murray or Dkoker can be classified as "flat grinders". I know you may disagree.

Of course they don't classify as flat grinders. Who said they were? And why the need to put a label on players? I don't get this. Novak is an aggressive baseliner, mostly. Murray has an all around game, but it is based on counter-punching, mainly.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Back to my original point, IMO, neither Murray or Dkoker can be classified as "flat grinders". I know you may disagree.

Of course they don't classify as flat grinders. Who said they were? And why the need to put a label on players? I don't get this. Novak is an aggressive baseliner, mostly. Murray has an all around game, but it is based on counter-punching, mainly.

I am not trying to label players for the hell of it. If we are going discuss how the conditions will
favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

I love when players defy categorization. They claimed Borg would never win on grass..5 Wimbys later..how did the experts do on that one?

They also claimed Nadal could never win Wimbledon. It was difficult as hell, but he did it, twice.

I don't know of another sport where changing conditions such as weather, surface, ball, and setting have such a dramatic impact on the results.

 

[Fiero425]

Back to my original point, IMO, neither Murray or Dkoker can be classified as "flat grinders". I know you may disagree.

Of course they don't classify as flat grinders. Who said they were? And why the need to put a label on players? I don't get this. Novak is an aggressive baseliner, mostly. Murray has an all around game, but it is based on counter-punching, mainly.

I am not trying to label players for the hell of it. If we are going discuss how the conditions will
favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

I love when players defy categorization. They claimed Borg would never win on grass..5 Wimbys later..how did the experts do on that one?

They also claimed Nadal could never win Wimbledon. It was difficult as hell, but he did it, twice.

I don't know of another sport where changing conditions such as weather, surface, ball, and setting have such a dramatic impact on the results.

Who said Nadal wouldn't win on grass? I know I said he won't be dominating on the surface! It's not like the old days when the grass was so choppy, uneven, and slick! If Nadal had played the event in the 70's or 80's, he might not have gotten out of the 1st round! There's a big difference now; esp. with the generic power game being played well behind the baseline! That's what made Borg's accomplishments epic even today; 5 in a row with no warmup event and after playing and winning on FO clay! :clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

If we are going discuss how the conditions will favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

And that's exactly the mistake you're making. You want players to be classified in order to know which surface favors them, so you mistakenly assumed that Hewitt should do better on slower surfaces because he's a counter-puncher. I don't want to rehash this point, but despite your backpedaling and beating around the bush, results prove otherwise, as do Lleyton's own comments. He prefers faster surfaces.

By lumping players into "counter-punchers" and "grinders" and generalizing, you're making a mistake that is skewing your views.

As I said, if we label both Muster and Hewitt as counter-puncher, then how come the surfaces they excelled at are so vastly different? Well, that's because their games are different.

If you really want to know which surface favors what players, analyze a player's game, without necessarily putting labels, generalizing, and falsely lumping players under big umbrellas.

If I were to call Nadal a counter-puncher then show someone who's never seen him play videos of his run on North American hard courts this past summer, he'd think I don't know anything about tennis.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Back to my original point, IMO, neither Murray or Dkoker can be classified as "flat grinders". I know you may disagree.

Of course they don't classify as flat grinders. Who said they were? And why the need to put a label on players? I don't get this. Novak is an aggressive baseliner, mostly. Murray has an all around game, but it is based on counter-punching, mainly.

I am not trying to label players for the hell of it. If we are going discuss how the conditions will
favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

I love when players defy categorization. They claimed Borg would never win on grass..5 Wimbys later..how did the experts do on that one?

They also claimed Nadal could never win Wimbledon. It was difficult as hell, but he did it, twice.

I don't know of another sport where changing conditions such as weather, surface, ball, and setting have such a dramatic impact on the results.

Who said Nadal wouldn't win on grass?

Back in 2006? About 80% of the tennis world. And that's being generous.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

If we are going discuss how the conditions will favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

And that's exactly the mistake you're making. You want players to be classified in order to know which surface favors them, so you mistakenly assumed that Hewitt should do better on slower surfaces because he's a counter-puncher. I don't want to rehash this point, but despite your backpedaling and beating around the bush, results prove otherwise, as do Lleyton's own comments. He prefers faster surfaces.

By lumping players into "counter-punchers" and "grinders" and generalizing, you're making a mistake that is skewing your views.

As I said, if we label both Muster and Hewitt as counter-puncher, then how come the surfaces they excelled at are so vastly different? Well, that's because their games are different.

If you really want to know which surface favors what players, analyze a player's game, without necessarily putting labels, generalizing, and falsely lumping players under big umbrellas.

If I were to call Nadal a counter-puncher then show someone who's never seen him play videos of his run on North American hard courts this past summer, he'd think I don't know anything about tennis.

Dude, your circular arguement are surely getting tiring...as tiring as watching Wilander and Lendl hit 36 cross court slice backhands.

Muster and Hewitt have totally different stroke production and court positioning. Muster has extreme strokes. It is a paradox because he won the French, and Hewitt won Wimbledon, yet they really seek to acomplish the same thing. Use their court coverage, passing shots, physicality and determination.

Muster actually won Miami bro..something Hewitt never did (to the best of my knowledge)..even when it was playing fast. He also was supposed to play another final against Lendl but we all know what happened there. He has wins over Courier as the AO, and Agassi in Miami. Every dog has his day and can win on any surface.

Also your argument about Muster not doing as well on hard court is a false one. He skipped 75% of the hard court season most years after the knee injury. I would see him at the US Open after getting off a plane from Mexico with red clay still on his socks and shoes.

 

[Moxie]

Back to my original point, IMO, neither Murray or Dkoker can be classified as "flat grinders". I know you may disagree.

Of course they don't classify as flat grinders. Who said they were? And why the need to put a label on players? I don't get this. Novak is an aggressive baseliner, mostly. Murray has an all around game, but it is based on counter-punching, mainly.

I am not trying to label players for the hell of it. If we are going discuss how the conditions will
favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

I love when players defy categorization. They claimed Borg would never win on grass..5 Wimbys later..how did the experts do on that one?

They also claimed Nadal could never win Wimbledon. It was difficult as hell, but he did it, twice.

I don't know of another sport where changing conditions such as weather, surface, ball, and setting have such a dramatic impact on the results.

Who said Nadal wouldn't win on grass?

Back in 2006? About 80% of the tennis world. And that's being generous.

That's true, and about the same amount believed he'd never win the USO until he actually did. Remember, waaaay beyond when it was true, the various and sundry liked to pretend he was just a clay-courter.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

An even higher percentage, probably close to 99%, believed that Fed will never break
Sampras's weeks at #1 record once he gave up the #1 ranking in 2010 July to Nadal.
Folks were not proclaiming that he will not win another slam ever; they just thought he will
never reach back #1 again.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If we are going discuss how the conditions will favor a certain player or group of players, they must be classified.

And that's exactly the mistake you're making. You want players to be classified in order to know which surface favors them, so you mistakenly assumed that Hewitt should do better on slower surfaces because he's a counter-puncher. I don't want to rehash this point, but despite your backpedaling and beating around the bush, results prove otherwise, as do Lleyton's own comments. He prefers faster surfaces.

By lumping players into "counter-punchers" and "grinders" and generalizing, you're making a mistake that is skewing your views.

As I said, if we label both Muster and Hewitt as counter-puncher, then how come the surfaces they excelled at are so vastly different? Well, that's because their games are different.

If you really want to know which surface favors what players, analyze a player's game, without necessarily putting labels, generalizing, and falsely lumping players under big umbrellas.

If I were to call Nadal a counter-puncher then show someone who's never seen him play videos of his run on North American hard courts this past summer, he'd think I don't know anything about tennis.

Dude, your circular arguement are surely getting tiring...as tiring as watching Wilander and Lendl hit 36 cross court slice backhands.

Muster and Hewitt have totally different stroke production and court positioning. Muster has extreme strokes. It is a paradox because he won the French, and Hewitt won Wimbledon, yet they really seek to acomplish the same thing. Use their court coverage, passing shots, physicality and determination.

Muster actually won Miami bro..something Hewitt never did (to the best of my knowledge)..even when it was playing fast. He also was supposed to play another final against Lendl but we all know what happened there. He has wins over Courier as the AO, and Agassi in Miami. Every dog has his day and can win on any surface.

Also your argument about Muster not doing as well on hard court is a false one. He skipped 75% of the hard court season most years after the knee injury. I would see him at the US Open after getting off a plane from Mexico with red clay still on his socks and shoes.

I genuinely have no idea what does any of this have to do with my argument. So I'll just say: cool.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I believed Nadal would never win the US Open. I remember saying as much in summer of 2010, about 3 weeks before he actually did. I actually don't see it as a huge deal that most thought Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon. If you watched him play in 2006, before actually reaching the final there, you wouldn't have guessed he ever would.

But yeah, the US Open thing to me, is almost as impressive. If you watched him play there until 2010, it was painful. He really was struggling to impose his game. Then one year, he alters his serve, steps closer to the baseline, and suddenly his forehand is looking world class again. He's won it twice and reached the final once since, in 3 appearances. Not too shabby.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Although many did not believe Nadal would ever win Wimbledon in 2006, in the weeks
before the beginning of Wimbledon 2008, there was quite a buzz that he might do it that
year (especially as he already went to five sets in 2007 final).

In fact, I distinctly remember Pre-tournament promotional videos by Wimbledon
tournament suggesting a parallel to another lefty (McEnroe) overthrowing a five time
winner (Borg).

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I believed Nadal would never win the US Open. I remember saying as much in summer of 2010, about 3 weeks before he actually did. I actually don't see it as a huge deal that most thought Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon. If you watched him play in 2006, before actually reaching the final there, you wouldn't have guessed he ever would.

But yeah, the US Open thing to me, is almost as impressive. If you watched him play there until 2010, it was painful. He really was struggling to impose his game. Then one year, he alters his serve, steps closer to the baseline, and suddenly his forehand is looking world class again. He's won it twice and reached the final once since, in 3 appearances. Not too shabby.

I thought he had a 20% chance of winning a US.

Everyone talks about the slowing down of the game but in New York they did not for most of the 2000s.

I remember seeing some players struggle on the outer courts with the speed.

 

[Fiero425]

I believed Nadal would never win the US Open. I remember saying as much in summer of 2010, about 3 weeks before he actually did. I actually don't see it as a huge deal that most thought Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon. If you watched him play in 2006, before actually reaching the final there, you wouldn't have guessed he ever would.

But yeah, the US Open thing to me, is almost as impressive. If you watched him play there until 2010, it was painful. He really was struggling to impose his game. Then one year, he alters his serve, steps closer to the baseline, and suddenly his forehand is looking world class again. He's won it twice and reached the final once since, in 3 appearances. Not too shabby.

I thought he had a 20% chance of winning a US.

Everyone talks about the slowing down of the game but in New York they did not for most of the 2000s.

I remember seeing some players struggle on the outer courts with the speed.

The USO was the major I thought Nadal would have the most trouble with! He's usually a little run down by the fall and more likely to get upset over the late summer and fall! Notice he's only made a couple finals and has lost all WTF's so far! So much for being dominating! :s :nono

 

[Moxie]

An even higher percentage, probably close to 99%, believed that Fed will never break
Sampras's weeks at #1 record once he gave up the #1 ranking in 2010 July to Nadal.
Folks were not proclaiming that he will not win another slam ever; they just thought he will
never reach back #1 again.

It sort of depends when you're back-dating to, but yes, a lot thought that Federer had wind his last Slam and wouldn't break the Sampras record of weeks at #1…and he did. Not exactly the same thing as not believing Nadal would win Wimbledon, before he'd ever won a Slam off clay, but I take your point.

I believed Nadal would never win the US Open. I remember saying as much in summer of 2010, about 3 weeks before he actually did. I actually don't see it as a huge deal that most thought Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon. If you watched him play in 2006, before actually reaching the final there, you wouldn't have guessed he ever would.

But yeah, the US Open thing to me, is almost as impressive. If you watched him play there until 2010, it was painful. He really was struggling to impose his game. Then one year, he alters his serve, steps closer to the baseline, and suddenly his forehand is looking world class again. He's won it twice and reached the final once since, in 3 appearances. Not too shabby.

I actually thought that Rafa might win that USO, though of course I go on more blind faith than you. But Federer had just lost in 2 consecutive QFs, Djokovic and Murray weren't making a great show of themselves, (until the North Am. HC swing,) and DelPotro wasn't going to play the USO. No one could have predicted the way Nadal played that tournament, but he did have a great chance, and he's not one to pass them up. That's why I thought it might be his year.

But in the broader perspective, I'd agree that most, even fans, never thought Nadal would get the USO until he did. Aside from the disdain for his HC play, there was the notion that he was played out by that late in the year. That's why it was thrilling that it won it in 2010, and even more gratifying that he won it again this year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

An even higher percentage, probably close to 99%, believed that Fed will never break
Sampras's weeks at #1 record once he gave up the #1 ranking in 2010 July to Nadal.
Folks were not proclaiming that he will not win another slam ever; they just thought he will
never reach back #1 again.

It sort of depends when you're back-dating to, but yes, a lot thought that Federer had wind his last Slam and wouldn't break the Sampras record of weeks at #1…and he did. Not exactly the same thing as not believing Nadal would win Wimbledon, before he'd ever won a Slam off clay, but I take your point.

1. I am back dating both to two years before it actually happened.

2. I guess you did not quite read my post properly. I said even though folks
were willing to say that Fed may win another slam, no one was willing to
say he will break Sampras's #1 in weeks record.
(Let me come out against myself too. I was one such person. I was
willing to believe Fed may win one more slam, but I did not think he
will ever get back to #1 again. It was especially painful as it was
just 1 week short to tie and 2 weeks short to overtake).

3. Before the beginning of Wimbledon 2006, Nadal has already won
two FO's.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

http://tinyurl.com/mcr9q5f

So Craig Tiley says the speed is the same as last year. If true, much ado about nothing.

Opening the Pandora box again. It seems there is some truth to the claim that
the courts are playing faster than last year. Apparently, it was not intentionally
done. The theory is that it is because the surface was laid couple of weeks earlier
than normal. However, I am not sure whether the predicted increase in speed will
be perceptible to players and/or viewers; probably not. It is generally accepted
fact that plexicushion surface (and most other hard court surfaces) pick up some
pace after a few weeks of playing and being out in the sun. This is in contrast
to Wimbledon which is usually slower in the second week than in the first week
as the grass gets worn out.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/federer-delighted-by-opens-quick-courts/story-fnbe6xeb-1226795395217

 

[Fiero425]

An even higher percentage, probably close to 99%, believed that Fed will never break
Sampras's weeks at #1 record once he gave up the #1 ranking in 2010 July to Nadal.
Folks were not proclaiming that he will not win another slam ever; they just thought he will
never reach back #1 again.

It sort of depends when you're back-dating to, but yes, a lot thought that Federer had wind his last Slam and wouldn't break the Sampras record of weeks at #1…and he did. Not exactly the same thing as not believing Nadal would win Wimbledon, before he'd ever won a Slam off clay, but I take your point.

1. I am back dating both to two years before it actually happened.

2. I guess you did not quite read my post properly. I said even though folks
were willing to say that Fed may win another slam, no one was willing to
say he will break Sampras's #1 in weeks record.
(Let me come out against myself too. I was one such person. I was
willing to believe Fed may win one more slam, but I did not think he
will ever get back to #1 again. It was especially painful as it was
just 1 week short to tie and 2 weeks short to overtake).

3. Before the beginning of Wimbledon 2006, Nadal has already won
two FO's.

I didn't think Fed would get back to #1! I thought another major was possible, but things fell into place for Roger to jump over Nole and Rafa! He had a great fall after '11 USO and with '12 Madrid being on that blue Har-Tru, it really helped him in addition to that Wimbledon and final at Olympics! Both Rafa and Nole were out early on the blue stuff and the footing treacherous for other clay specialist in Spain!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

http://tinyurl.com/mcr9q5f

So Craig Tiley says the speed is the same as last year. If true, much ado about nothing.

Opening the Pandora box again. It seems there is some truth to the claim that
the courts are playing faster than last year. Apparently, it was not intentionally
done. The theory is that it is because the surface was laid couple of weeks earlier
than normal. However, I am not sure whether the predicted increase in speed will
be perceptible to players and/or viewers; probably not. It is generally accepted
fact that plexicushion surface (and most other hard court surfaces) pick up some
pace after a few weeks of playing and being out in the sun. This is in contrast
to Wimbledon which is usually slower in the second week than in the first week
as the grass gets worn out.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/federer-delighted-by-opens-quick-courts/story-fnbe6xeb-1226795395217

If you click on the link that I provided, it takes you to Australian newspaper site,
but you won't be able to read the full article without subscription. If you want to
read the full article, type in the title of the article (that you see after clicking my
link) in google and then click on the first result.

It is important to note here that the Tournament Director explicitly says
that there is zero difference in the composition of the surface between last
year and this year. All of this projected speed up is attributed to a combination of three
factors 1) The time at which the surface was laid. It is apparently earlier than normal
2) The weather conditions. It is apparently very hot and surface is baking on it
and 3) the new livelier balls.

p.s. The only thing I found counterintuitive in this article is that it says, Pete Sampras
complained against a fast AO court in 1999. Why would he do so? May be they got
the names mixed up?