Has Super Athleticism Worked Against Top Tier TENNIS

[Luxilon Borg]

After watching the AO final, and really not seeing anything different than the last 6 times Joker and Murray played, I wondered has the SUPREME athleticism worked against the actual SPORT of tennis.

Matches involving the Big 4 are often way too long, sometimes very little variety of play, and ultimately they can look like 4 hours of mini sprints.

I think the top tier relying so much on their conditioning and athletic skills makes them not reach their apex as tennis players. The slice approach shot is dead and so is serve and volley, with occasional matches players are "in the mood".

Federer is clearly excluded from this.

One thing is clear, the matches are wayyyyy long.

I almost, and I mean ALMOST, long for the time when the ATP was dominated by guys were far better tennis players than athletes, like McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Leconte, etc.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic is a better tennis player than the guys you mentioned though. Being a great athlete and a great tennis player is not mutually exclusive. Safe to say Djokovic is both, as is Murray.

To answer the thread's question, no, I wouldn't say so. It elevated tennis. It's not like guys can just rely on being great athletes otherwise Monfils would have actually done something worth a damn in his career.

 

[Kieran]

Leconte is the bogey name in the list. Who the "Kim Sears" is Leconte? But otherwise, those names are about Novak's level. However, the two are unrelated. Athleticism can only help, but it doesn't nullify technique, unless you subscribe to brother Cali levels of saying that Nadal only beat the Leonardo of tennis - Daveed - through unfair athletic advantages...

 

[nehmeth]

To answer the thread's question, no, I wouldn't say so. It elevated tennis. It's not like guys can just rely on being great athletes otherwise Monfils would have actually done something worth a damn in his career.

We could make a list, but Monfils would usually be at or near the top. Kyrgios could someday end up a poster child on the list of great athletes that did little. These next couple years are going to be crucial for him to pull it together.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Djokovic is a better tennis player than the guys you mentioned though. Being a great athlete and a great tennis player is not mutually exclusive. Safe to say Djokovic is both, as is Murray.

To answer the thread's question, no, I wouldn't say so. It elevated tennis. It's not like guys can just rely on being great athletes otherwise Monfils would have actually done something worth a damn in his career.

Point noted about Monfils, but the main point of my post is the fact that he can run down balls 15 feet behind the baseline, and hit pogo groundstrokes keep him from actually developing as a TENNIS player, and a circus acrobat.

Take somebody like Arthur Ashe..who was not especially quick, not especially agile, but was a superb tennis player in that he mastered the offensive aspect of the game, and his serve, volleys, and approach shots were lethal because they HAD to be. There was nothing else to fall back on, and that was my point.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

To answer the thread's question, no, I wouldn't say so. It elevated tennis. It's not like guys can just rely on being great athletes otherwise Monfils would have actually done something worth a damn in his career.

We could make a list, but Monfils would usually be at or near the top. Kyrgios could someday end up a poster child on the list of great athletes that did little. These next couple years are going to be crucial for him to pull it together.

But again, if they could not hit groundstrokes while doing full splits, or slide 10 feet to retrieve a drop shot, would they have to actually develop classic tennis skills.

I am becoming bored watching sprinters with tennis rackets.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Leconte is the bogey name in the list. Who the "Kim Sears" is Leconte? But otherwise, those names are about Novak's level. However, the two are unrelated. Athleticism can only help, but it doesn't nullify technique, unless you subscribe to brother Cali levels of saying that Nadal only beat the Leonardo of tennis - Daveed - through unfair athletic advantages...

Ok, I will give you Leconte, but he was truly gifted, but probably never saw the inside of a gym, and would not be called an "elite" athlete.

Athleticism does not NULLIFY technique, but it can replace it during crucial moments.

 

[Billie]

I don't know but these old players and their play to me is like WTA compared to men of today. Everything changed, evolved and become better. The shots that today's players can pull off, the old guard could just dream of. Tennis players are truly athletes now with damn good tennis skills. And tennis skills and mentality are the things that separate great from good tennis players. Just like it was before.:angel:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is only Andy - Novak match up that tends to produce boring wars of attrition. Other match ups
are much better.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

It is only Andy - Novak match up that tends to produce boring wars of attrition. Other match ups
are much better.

Errrr...who played the longest Slam final of all time???? Not Murray-Joker.

Who played a 4 hour two out of three match? Not Murray-Joker...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't know but these old players and their play to me is like WTA compared to men of today. Everything changed, evolved and become better. The shots that today's players can pull off, the old guard could just dream of. Tennis players are truly athletes now with damn good tennis skills. And tennis skills and mentality are the things that separate great from good tennis players. Just like it was before.:angel:

I assure you many of the lite of the early era of open tennis would be elite today...Laver, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg...

But yes, the level is just incomprehensible. today.

 

[nehmeth]

To answer the thread's question, no, I wouldn't say so. It elevated tennis. It's not like guys can just rely on being great athletes otherwise Monfils would have actually done something worth a damn in his career.

We could make a list, but Monfils would usually be at or near the top. Kyrgios could someday end up a poster child on the list of great athletes that did little. These next couple years are going to be crucial for him to pull it together.

But again, if they could not hit groundstrokes while doing full splits, or slide 10 feet to retrieve a drop shot, would they have to actually develop classic tennis skills.

I am becoming bored watching sprinters with tennis rackets.

L.B.
It seems that the game of tennis today is not to your taste. I went through the same thing when it seemed tennis had become all about a big serve and little else. (Spent a lot of time watching the WTA during those years).

I would rather watch a longer match of high quality rather than a very short match of serves, the rare return and a quick put away shot - over and over and over. Again, that is a matter of taste.

 

[Riotbeard]

Doesn't this rely on some sort of ideal definition of "tennis skills" that is fundamentally problematic. The top guys, each in different ways, have perfected a type of movement that is clearly a tennis skill. Novak's gumby slides, rafa super speed while hitting crazy-technique forehands from way behind the baseline, and Federer's gliding are all important tennis skills. They are possible because of their athleticism, but they are also more than the sum of their muscles. They are techniques. Has super athleticism limited old school attack tennis, of course.

I would say we are watching a golden era of attention to movement technique. There is something lost in attack variety, but modern tennis players are also utilizing styles and techniques of tennis their predecessors couldn't dream of, so in that sense it's a flowering of technique and an evolution of what is "good tennis". I also think reducing what the top guys do to pure athleticism loses site of movement and defense as always having been integral parts of tennis, just guy today are better at it and focus more on that aspect of the game. Movement is where I see the most flair in tennis today.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is only Andy - Novak match up that tends to produce boring wars of attrition. Other match ups
are much better.

Errrr...who played the longest Slam final of all time???? Not Murray-Joker.

Who played a 4 hour two out of three match? Not Murray-Joker...

The others may be longer, but not boring.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The idea that the Nadal-Djokovic 2012 AO final was this long boring snooze-fest is one of the most baffling pieces of narratives to emerge from this forum, and I only see this spread around here. It was a great match. Was it too long if you have no emotional investment in it? Well, nobody wants to do the same thing for 6 hours so I can see that point of view. But quality wise it was very good.

 

[Billie]

I don't know but these old players and their play to me is like WTA compared to men of today. Everything changed, evolved and become better. The shots that today's players can pull off, the old guard could just dream of. Tennis players are truly athletes now with damn good tennis skills. And tennis skills and mentality are the things that separate great from good tennis players. Just like it was before.:angel:

I assure you many of the lite of the early era of open tennis would be elite today...Laver, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg...

But yes, the level is just incomprehensible. today.

Well honestly we don't know how they would compete and what their style would be in today's game. My guess not serve and volley.:snicker

I really can't see some of these on your list being able to overpower some of today's greats, but that is just me. Only in music and art I go back in history and think that can't be surpassed. Everything else evolves and there is no need for me to miss any events of the past, sports included.

 

[Fiero425]

The idea that the Nadal-Djokovic 2012 AO final was this long boring snooze-fest is one of the most baffling pieces of narratives to emerge from this forum, and I only see this spread around here. It was a great match. Was it too long if you have no emotional investment in it? Well, nobody wants to do the same thing for 6 hours so I can see that point of view. But quality wise it was very good.

If you want to ignore Rafa's act; the stalling, toweling off, challenging calls he know aren't worthy, etc.! In a lot of ways, I'm still trying to recover from that match after 3 years! I had been up all day and the match kept me engrossed, taping every stroke until almost 8 or 9 am here in Chicago! Nole started "doing it" to get back at Nadal who's been abusing the time limits since the beginning! It's part of his gamesmanship package that has ripped off many a match he should have lost; esp. against Roger who actually had chances at FO in a couple of those finals! I can't have any respect for someone like that who resorts to that type of thing when they get into a little trouble on court! It's disrespectful to the opponent, the crowd, and the integrity of the game! I'm offended! :nono :cover :ras:

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The idea that the Nadal-Djokovic 2012 AO final was this long boring snooze-fest is one of the most baffling pieces of narratives to emerge from this forum, and I only see this spread around here. It was a great match. Was it too long if you have no emotional investment in it? Well, nobody wants to do the same thing for 6 hours so I can see that point of view. But quality wise it was very good.

No where, did I imply, or even MEAN to imply that was a boring final.

I was simply referencing the length.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Doesn't this rely on some sort of ideal definition of "tennis skills" that is fundamentally problematic. The top guys, each in different ways, have perfected a type of movement that is clearly a tennis skill. Novak's gumby slides, rafa super speed while hitting crazy-technique forehands from way behind the baseline, and Federer's gliding are all important tennis skills. They are possible because of their athleticism, but they are also more than the sum of their muscles. They are techniques. Has super athleticism limited old school attack tennis, of course.

I would say we are watching a golden era of attention to movement technique. There is something lost in attack variety, but modern tennis players are also utilizing styles and techniques of tennis their predecessors couldn't dream of, so in that sense it's a flowering of technique and an evolution of what is "good tennis". I also think reducing what the top guys do to pure athleticism loses site of movement and defense as always having been integral parts of tennis, just guy today are better at it and focus more on that aspect of the game. Movement is where I see the most flair in tennis today.

Riot, superb post, and far more eloquent than my self, I agree 100% with your take.

Yes, movement in tennis IS a skill. I just feel the balance has shifted a bit to the super movers.

But really, bravo on your synopsis.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

We could make a list, but Monfils would usually be at or near the top. Kyrgios could someday end up a poster child on the list of great athletes that did little. These next couple years are going to be crucial for him to pull it together.

But again, if they could not hit groundstrokes while doing full splits, or slide 10 feet to retrieve a drop shot, would they have to actually develop classic tennis skills.

I am becoming bored watching sprinters with tennis rackets.

L.B.
It seems that the game of tennis today is not to your taste. I went through the same thing when it seemed tennis had become all about a big serve and little else. (Spent a lot of time watching the WTA during those years).

I would rather watch a longer match of high quality rather than a very short match of serves, the rare return and a quick put away shot - over and over and over. Again, that is a matter of taste.

No, I love the tennis today.

I just do sometimes get frustrated with the length of the rallies, and the fact that damaging shots art not capitalized on, hence long matches.

Another observation is the top 5 players do not have the best serves, and that means more serves coming back into play, and more rallies.

Everything is a natural progression and I don't wish to go back to the "good old days". But it is also fun to comment on the evolution.