What will be the next dominant style of play?

[Haelfix]

aren't we assuming that the current dominant style is a specific one based mostly on Nadal and Djokovic? Ok, these players indeed dominated the last few years, but can we assume that it was because of the style itself, or their absurd talent to impose this given style?

I really do think they go hand in hand. A lot of what makes Nadal and Djokovic so good is precisely their mastery of the style. Eg they don't make a mistake within that particular style of play. It's the high percentage play almost every single time.

Like you won't see Nadal bothered if he makes the opponent hit a running one handed dtl backhand behind the baseline that leads to a winner against him. He just shakes his head and says 'too good'. He knows he's going to win more points than not if he gets the opponent to commit to that type of play.

And I think that overall, that style of play has indeed contributed to the high ranking of a large number of players that perhaps wouldn't be there otherwise. Take a talent like Tsonga and contrast him with David Ferrer. The big difference between David and Tsonga is precisely that Ferrer always plays the same way and plays within a set of rigid shot selection rules. His ceiling, talent and shotmaking ability isn't as high, but the raw consistency allows him to not lose against players he should beat. This leads to better seedings and ultimately a better career arc.

I would say there is an overabundance of players who all play similarly and very few who really break the mold. An example of a baseline player who is just a bit different, would be Dolgopolov. You just don't really know how where he is going to hit the ball. Sometimes the results are spectacular, but more often than not you will see a wildly inconsistent less than optimal solutions that ultimately hurts him.

That's what I mean when I say the style is essentially 'solved'. I just don't think the choice of specific shot selections is going to change that much unless court conditions/balls/rackets radically change.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Will be this the future of this sport? sad.....

http://youtu.be/btbohlRp_lo

That was an interesting video Carol.

But, very definitely data gathering racquets which have a chip in them are already hitting the market. I think within the next five years, even the club level players will be using such racquets.
The real question would be whether one can make good use of the data gathered to change
one's game for the better.

 

[isabelle]

Hope to see one day, another Nalby, another Safin, another Guga, another Mecir....

 

[Federberg]

Let me take a step back... aren't we assuming that the current dominant style is a specific one based mostly on Nadal and Djokovic? Ok, these players indeed dominated the last few years, but can we assume that it was because of the style itself, or their absurd talent to impose this given style? Take those two out of the equation... which style is the dominant one? I would guess none...

I really think homogenisation of the court surfaces has had a lot to do with the extent of their success. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been successful, but not having to deal with the sort of variance we saw in the 80s is a huge help for them. These days the top 10 all seem to be uniformly good on all surfaces that's telling you something right there :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let me take a step back... aren't we assuming that the current dominant style is a specific one based mostly on Nadal and Djokovic? Ok, these players indeed dominated the last few years, but can we assume that it was because of the style itself, or their absurd talent to impose this given style? Take those two out of the equation... which style is the dominant one? I would guess none...

I really think homogenisation of the court surfaces has had a lot to do with the extent of their success. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been successful, but not having to deal with the sort of variance we saw in the 80s is a huge help for them. These days the top 10 all seem to be uniformly good on all surfaces that's telling you something right there :nono

Got you. So it's easier for Djokovic to do what he did in 2011 against Federer, Nadal and Murray because...they can actually play on all surfaces?

I'll let you spot the contradiction.

Now, snark aside, it's easier for players like Djokovic and Nadal to be good on all surfaces due to homogenization, yes. But it's not easier to achieve the same result across all surfaces since every top player is more or less a factor on all surfaces, and thus, you don't have top players who are non factors at certain points in the season (see Sampras, Pete). In other words: competition is more universally fierce.

Think about it that way, how much easier would Federer have found it on grass if Djokovic and Nadal couldn't play on that surface too? You would have added two more Wimbledons to his resume. Conversely, how much easier would Nadal have found it on clay if Djokovic couldn't play on that surface (yes, it would have been easier than it is).

That's the argument your post doesn't take into account, and in your defense, your sentiments are echoed by many. It just isn't as sensible as you think, and is quite a limited outlook.

 

[Federberg]

:laydownlaughing Good ole BS, lurking in the shadows on his computer again. Very linear thinking in my view. It fails to take into account the psychological dividend accrued in an era of surface homogeneity. Back in the day, a dirt baller would have felt better able to resist an Edberg or a McEnroe because they had the good memories of actually doing so off their favourite surfaces. Now, no matter where 2nd or 3rd tier players go, they pretty much know that they're going to be tuned. It's not about how the top players compete against each other, it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam. These days I bet all of the top 4 make their bookings for the whole 2 weeks. Tennis has changed.

These forums are about a sharing of views. If you want to create a hostile environment and continuously go on the attack that's fine with me. But it's a little sad in a way. Bring it on! When I'm in the mood I'll respond to you, but other times don't be surprised if I just ignore. Really can't be bothered to answer uber long posts, so if you want to get my attention keep it short

 

[brokenshoelace]

:laydownlaughing Good ole BS, lurking in the shadows on his computer again. Very linear thinking in my view. It fails to take into account the psychological dividend accrued in an era of surface homogeneity. Back in the day, a dirt baller would have felt better able to resist an Edberg or a McEnroe because they had the good memories of actually doing so off their favourite surfaces. Now, no matter where 2nd or 3rd tier players go, they pretty much know that they're going to be tuned. It's not about how the top players compete against each other, it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam. These days I bet all of the top 4 make their bookings for the whole 2 weeks. Tennis has changed.

These forums are about a sharing of views. If you want to create a hostile environment and continuously go on the attack that's fine with me. But it's a little sad in a way. Bring it on! When I'm in the mood I'll respond to you, but other times don't be surprised if I just ignore. Really can't be bothered to answer uber long posts, so if you want to get my attention keep it short

Disagreeing = hostile environment? If I didn't know any better, I'd call you a Nadal fan for being so sensitive. Jesus, you said it's easier for guys to win, I said no it's not. In the middle, there were arguments as to why on both sides.

That's what the forum is for. If that bothers you, either ignore me, or don't let the door kick you on the way out.

 

[brokenshoelace]

it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam.

Also, who's a bigger threat to top players, each other, or "the field"? I'm glad you think how Nadal competes against Almagro is a bigger deal than how he competes against Djokovic.

 

[Federberg]

:laydownlaughing Good ole BS, lurking in the shadows on his computer again. Very linear thinking in my view. It fails to take into account the psychological dividend accrued in an era of surface homogeneity. Back in the day, a dirt baller would have felt better able to resist an Edberg or a McEnroe because they had the good memories of actually doing so off their favourite surfaces. Now, no matter where 2nd or 3rd tier players go, they pretty much know that they're going to be tuned. It's not about how the top players compete against each other, it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam. These days I bet all of the top 4 make their bookings for the whole 2 weeks. Tennis has changed.

These forums are about a sharing of views. If you want to create a hostile environment and continuously go on the attack that's fine with me. But it's a little sad in a way. Bring it on! When I'm in the mood I'll respond to you, but other times don't be surprised if I just ignore. Really can't be bothered to answer uber long posts, so if you want to get my attention keep it short

Disagreeing = hostile environment? If I didn't know any better, I'd call you a Nadal fan for being so sensitive. Jesus, you said it's easier for guys to win, I said no it's not. In the middle, there were arguments as to why on both sides.

That's what the forum is for. If that bothers you, either ignore me, or don't let the door kick you on the way out.

Don't try to be cute now mate. "Got you". Tells me all I need to know about your objective. I'm not sensitive at all. I'm just giving you fair warning because you are :blush: If I choose to leave this site (why would I?) It's certainly not going to be because of the likes of you :lolz:

 

[Federberg]

it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam.

Also, who's a bigger threat to top players, each other, or "the field"? I'm glad you think how Nadal competes against Almagro is a bigger deal than how he competes against Djokovic.

There was a time top players had to worry about getting through the draw, that is far less the case now. The field mattered. Now.. not so much. That's exactly the point I'm trying to convey. If you don't get it, that's not my problem

 

[brokenshoelace]

:laydownlaughing Good ole BS, lurking in the shadows on his computer again. Very linear thinking in my view. It fails to take into account the psychological dividend accrued in an era of surface homogeneity. Back in the day, a dirt baller would have felt better able to resist an Edberg or a McEnroe because they had the good memories of actually doing so off their favourite surfaces. Now, no matter where 2nd or 3rd tier players go, they pretty much know that they're going to be tuned. It's not about how the top players compete against each other, it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam. These days I bet all of the top 4 make their bookings for the whole 2 weeks. Tennis has changed.

These forums are about a sharing of views. If you want to create a hostile environment and continuously go on the attack that's fine with me. But it's a little sad in a way. Bring it on! When I'm in the mood I'll respond to you, but other times don't be surprised if I just ignore. Really can't be bothered to answer uber long posts, so if you want to get my attention keep it short

Disagreeing = hostile environment? If I didn't know any better, I'd call you a Nadal fan for being so sensitive. Jesus, you said it's easier for guys to win, I said no it's not. In the middle, there were arguments as to why on both sides.

That's what the forum is for. If that bothers you, either ignore me, or don't let the door kick you on the way out.

Don't try to be cute now mate. "Got you". Tells me all I need to know about your objective. I'm not sensitive at all. I'm just giving you fair warning because you are :blush: If I choose to leave this site (why would I?) It's certainly not going to be because of the likes of you :lolz:

A person who took objection to "got you" is telling me I'm sensitive, then referring to "the likes of me."

Oh, the irony...

 

[brokenshoelace]

it's about how they compete against the field. There was a time where slam winners had no right to believe they would be playing in the 2nd week of a slam.

Also, who's a bigger threat to top players, each other, or "the field"? I'm glad you think how Nadal competes against Almagro is a bigger deal than how he competes against Djokovic.

There was a time top players had to worry about getting through the draw, that is far less the case now. The field mattered. Now.. not so much. That's exactly the point I'm trying to convey. If you don't get it, that's not my problem

...a logic that somehow doesn't apply to when Federer dominated (because you never used it). Did Roger have to worry about the field? Careful, in between the lines, there's a very poorly camouflaged "weak competition" argument, that somehow only applies to post 2007 tennis, apparently.

 

[Federberg]

Disagreeing = hostile environment? If I didn't know any better, I'd call you a Nadal fan for being so sensitive. Jesus, you said it's easier for guys to win, I said no it's not. In the middle, there were arguments as to why on both sides.

That's what the forum is for. If that bothers you, either ignore me, or don't let the door kick you on the way out.

Don't try to be cute now mate. "Got you". Tells me all I need to know about your objective. I'm not sensitive at all. I'm just giving you fair warning because you are :blush: If I choose to leave this site (why would I?) It's certainly not going to be because of the likes of you :lolz:

A person who took objection to "got you" is telling me I'm sensitive, then referring to "the likes of me."

Oh, the irony...

Lol! Get over yourself. It was suggested yesterday that we try to take the confrontational tone away from legitimate debate. But clearly you don't want to :nono Ah well..

 

[Federberg]

Also, who's a bigger threat to top players, each other, or "the field"? I'm glad you think how Nadal competes against Almagro is a bigger deal than how he competes against Djokovic.

There was a time top players had to worry about getting through the draw, that is far less the case now. The field mattered. Now.. not so much. That's exactly the point I'm trying to convey. If you don't get it, that's not my problem

...a logic that somehow doesn't apply to when Federer dominated (because you never used it). Did Roger have to worry about the field? Careful, in between the lines, there's a very poorly camouflaged "weak competition" argument, that somehow only applies to post 2007 tennis, apparently.

You really should change your name from Broken Shoelace to Broken Record :nono This is about the future of tennis, and you want to turn this into another Fedal thread? :nono Yet again you're making assumptions about what I think. And once again you're not doing a good job of it. Quite apart from the fact that homogenisation has got worse over the years, I would definitely subscribe to the view that Federer has also benefitted. One of the issues I have with the concept of GOAT to be honest. Now.. I'm going to ignore you for a bit, because I'm enjoying the tennis

 

[DarthFed]

Let me take a step back... aren't we assuming that the current dominant style is a specific one based mostly on Nadal and Djokovic? Ok, these players indeed dominated the last few years, but can we assume that it was because of the style itself, or their absurd talent to impose this given style? Take those two out of the equation... which style is the dominant one? I would guess none...

I really think homogenisation of the court surfaces has had a lot to do with the extent of their success. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been successful, but not having to deal with the sort of variance we saw in the 80s is a huge help for them. These days the top 10 all seem to be uniformly good on all surfaces that's telling you something right there :nono

Got you. So it's easier for Djokovic to do what he did in 2011 against Federer, Nadal and Murray because...they can actually play on all surfaces?

I'll let you spot the contradiction.

Now, snark aside, it's easier for players like Djokovic and Nadal to be good on all surfaces due to homogenization, yes. But it's not easier to achieve the same result across all surfaces since every top player is more or less a factor on all surfaces, and thus, you don't have top players who are non factors at certain points in the season (see Sampras, Pete). In other words: competition is more universally fierce.

Think about it that way, how much easier would Federer have found it on grass if Djokovic and Nadal couldn't play on that surface too? You would have added two more Wimbledons to his resume. Conversely, how much easier would Nadal have found it on clay if Djokovic couldn't play on that surface (yes, it would have been easier than it is).

That's the argument your post doesn't take into account, and in your defense, your sentiments are echoed by many. It just isn't as sensible as you think, and is quite a limited outlook.

The thought is that homogenizing the courts has also led to dang near everyone playing from the baseline. So if someone is the best baseliner on hard courts chances are it is the same or close to it on clay and grass since the differences aren't as significant. Therefore it is easier for the likes of Rafa and Djokovic to adapt to grass since it is significantly slower and higher bouncing than it used to be. So no, Roger might have had 2 extra Wimbledon's if the grass was what it used to be, irregardless of how good Djoker and Nadal are on the current surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I really think homogenisation of the court surfaces has had a lot to do with the extent of their success. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been successful, but not having to deal with the sort of variance we saw in the 80s is a huge help for them. These days the top 10 all seem to be uniformly good on all surfaces that's telling you something right there :nono

Got you. So it's easier for Djokovic to do what he did in 2011 against Federer, Nadal and Murray because...they can actually play on all surfaces?

I'll let you spot the contradiction.

Now, snark aside, it's easier for players like Djokovic and Nadal to be good on all surfaces due to homogenization, yes. But it's not easier to achieve the same result across all surfaces since every top player is more or less a factor on all surfaces, and thus, you don't have top players who are non factors at certain points in the season (see Sampras, Pete). In other words: competition is more universally fierce.

Think about it that way, how much easier would Federer have found it on grass if Djokovic and Nadal couldn't play on that surface too? You would have added two more Wimbledons to his resume. Conversely, how much easier would Nadal have found it on clay if Djokovic couldn't play on that surface (yes, it would have been easier than it is).

That's the argument your post doesn't take into account, and in your defense, your sentiments are echoed by many. It just isn't as sensible as you think, and is quite a limited outlook.

The thought is that homogenizing the courts has also led to dang near everyone playing from the baseline. So if someone is the best baseliner on hard courts chances are it is the same or close to it on clay and grass since the differences aren't as significant. Therefore it is easier for the likes of Rafa and Djokovic to adapt to grass since it is significantly slower and higher bouncing than it used to be. So no, Roger might have had 2 extra Wimbledon's if the grass was what it used to be, irregardless of how good Djoker and Nadal are on the current surface.

The point that it's easier to adapt was never debated. In fact, I flat out mentioned it in the very post you quoted.

However, I'm saying this doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to win, because you're dealing with all time greats who can actually play on all surfaces and will always be a factor. I mean how could anyone, with a straight face, say: "Sure Djokovic had success on all surfaces. But it was easy because of homogenization. He never had to face specialists. All he had to deal with was Federer, Nadal and Murray."

See what I mean? It cuts both ways. It's easier to adapt, but it's easier to adapt for EVERYBODY, including your main rivals, who happen to be all time greats.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There was a time top players had to worry about getting through the draw, that is far less the case now. The field mattered. Now.. not so much. That's exactly the point I'm trying to convey. If you don't get it, that's not my problem

...a logic that somehow doesn't apply to when Federer dominated (because you never used it). Did Roger have to worry about the field? Careful, in between the lines, there's a very poorly camouflaged "weak competition" argument, that somehow only applies to post 2007 tennis, apparently.

You really should change your name from Broken Shoelace to Broken Record :nono This is about the future of tennis, and you want to turn this into another Fedal thread?

Hmmm, let's see:

"I really think homogenisation of the court surfaces has had a lot to do with the extent of their success. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been successful, but not having to deal with the sort of variance we saw in the 80s is a huge help for them. These days the top 10 all seem to be uniformly good on all surfaces that's telling you something right there."

Sounds familiar? That was posted by you, in this thread, on this page, before I had anything to say about this issue. How is that in any way not about Nadal/Djokovic and how does it concern the future?

Jesus.

 

[mrzz]

...a logic that somehow doesn't apply to when Federer dominated (because you never used it). Did Roger have to worry about the field? Careful, in between the lines, there's a very poorly camouflaged "weak competition" argument, that somehow only applies to post 2007 tennis, apparently.

A really good point, Broken, but not necessarily true (as I know you know). You could have, as general rule, to worry about the field, and have just one guy so freaking good that he, and only he, did not. This is a valid possibility (and by the way the way I see it).

 

[DarthFed]

Got you. So it's easier for Djokovic to do what he did in 2011 against Federer, Nadal and Murray because...they can actually play on all surfaces?

I'll let you spot the contradiction.

Now, snark aside, it's easier for players like Djokovic and Nadal to be good on all surfaces due to homogenization, yes. But it's not easier to achieve the same result across all surfaces since every top player is more or less a factor on all surfaces, and thus, you don't have top players who are non factors at certain points in the season (see Sampras, Pete). In other words: competition is more universally fierce.

Think about it that way, how much easier would Federer have found it on grass if Djokovic and Nadal couldn't play on that surface too? You would have added two more Wimbledons to his resume. Conversely, how much easier would Nadal have found it on clay if Djokovic couldn't play on that surface (yes, it would have been easier than it is).

That's the argument your post doesn't take into account, and in your defense, your sentiments are echoed by many. It just isn't as sensible as you think, and is quite a limited outlook.

The thought is that homogenizing the courts has also led to dang near everyone playing from the baseline. So if someone is the best baseliner on hard courts chances are it is the same or close to it on clay and grass since the differences aren't as significant. Therefore it is easier for the likes of Rafa and Djokovic to adapt to grass since it is significantly slower and higher bouncing than it used to be. So no, Roger might have had 2 extra Wimbledon's if the grass was what it used to be, irregardless of how good Djoker and Nadal are on the current surface.

The point that it's easier to adapt was never debated. In fact, I flat out mentioned it in the very post you quoted.

However, I'm saying this doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to win, because you're dealing with all time greats who can actually play on all surfaces and will always be a factor. I mean how could anyone, with a straight face, say: "Sure Djokovic had success on all surfaces. But it was easy because of homogenization. He never had to face specialists. All he had to deal with was Federer, Nadal and Murray."

See what I mean? It cuts both ways. It's easier to adapt, but it's easier to adapt for EVERYBODY, including your main rivals, who happen to be all time greats.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is it's easier to dominate these days because there is less change. It's not easier to become the best, but if you are the best it becomes a lot easier to dominate year round because the transitions between surfaces aren't tough and most people play similarly. It is completely reasonable (and accurate) to say players like Rafa and Djokovic had it a lot easier on grass in this era because they are more suited to slow/medium surfaces and the grass isn't anywhere near as fast as before. It's a factor for all of them. Some can argue that it has helped Federer too and I think it has in some respects but hurt him in others (mainly that he likes fast surfaces and they have mostly been slowed down).

 

[brokenshoelace]

...a logic that somehow doesn't apply to when Federer dominated (because you never used it). Did Roger have to worry about the field? Careful, in between the lines, there's a very poorly camouflaged "weak competition" argument, that somehow only applies to post 2007 tennis, apparently.

A really good point, Broken, but not necessarily true (as I know you know). You could have, as general rule, to worry about the field, and have just one guy so freaking good that he, and only he, did not. This is a valid possibility (and by the way the way I see it).

That's precisely my point. If what you said applies to Federer, and it does, then why doesn't apply to Novak and Nadal? Why is Federer so damn good while Nadal and Novak just "don't have to worry about the field because of surface homogenization"? Especially when Federer played in the era of surface homogenization and that's when he dominated.