What will be the next dominant style of play?

[brokenshoelace]

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).

My first caveat is you seem to shrug off the "if you are the best part" as if it's no big deal. You said it yourself, it's not easier to become the best. In fact, when you're dealing with so many greats, it's arguably harder. That alone is a monumental task. Therefore, since it is that hard, and you're playing these greats week in and week out then no, I don't think it's reasonable to say Rafa and Novak had it "a lot easier on grass." They had it a lot easier to adapt to grass, sure. And that in turn surely affected the results...However, the other side of the coin is they were dealing with each other, Federer and Murray, and these guys are you know, kinda good, which balances the "a lot easier" part and makes it "not easier at all."

 

[DarthFed]

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).

My first caveat is you seem to shrug off the "if you are the best part" as if it's no big deal. You said it yourself, it's not easier to become the best. In fact, when you're dealing with so many greats, it's arguably harder. That alone is a monumental task. Therefore, since it is that hard, and you're playing these greats week in and week out then no, I don't think it's reasonable to say Rafa and Novak had it "a lot easier on grass." They had it a lot easier to adapt to grass, sure. And that in turn surely affected the results...However, the other side of the coin is they were dealing with each other, Federer and Murray, and these guys are you know, kinda good, which balances the "a lot easier" part and makes it "not easier at all."

Of course it's a big deal but...someone has to be the best. In this era we can make a good guess it will be a great mover who can transition from defense to offense and that the player will be practically glued to the baseline. That same style will be successful on all surfaces these days, in fact it will rule on all surfaces whereas that may not have been true in the past when some surfaces were playing much faster and grinding baseline play didn't always rule the day. In prior eras there were more styles to go with the different surfaces making the challenges different altogether. And Djokovic and Nadal had a Federer who would've been a hell of a lot tougher to take on faster grass. Or we could go back to days of Sampras where they wouldn't win on grass either.

 

[El Dude]

Aside from the snippityness, interesting conversation. One thing to consider, to highlight the point that federberg and DarthFed are making, is that in today's context, we simply don't have the equivalent of a Sergiy Bruguera on clay. Even with Rafa out of the mix, Bruguera is unlikely to have won two French Open titles in today's game because the contrast is less between clay and other surfaces than it was in the early 90s. We simply don't see that kind of specialization today.

Conversely, Pete Sampras would probably have been a bigger threat at Roland Garros now than he was during the 90s.

I'm also thinking that if there was more court variation today, we would see more early round upsets in the record of all of the Big Four - including Roger. Look at Pete's record - there's only one year in which he played all four Slams and didn't go out at least once before the second week. Roger's had EIGHT such years, Novak five, Rafa and Andy three. We all know Pete's weakness on clay, but I have a hard time believing that he was that much less consistent than today's Big Four. Pete was also occasionally upset elsewhere. It so rarely happens to the Big Four, except in recent years for Rafa and moreso, an aging Roger.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Aside from the snippityness, interesting conversation. One thing to consider, to highlight the point that federberg and DarthFed are making, is that in today's context, we simply don't have the equivalent of a Sergiy Bruguera on clay. Even with Rafa out of the mix, Bruguera is unlikely to have won two French Open titles in today's game because the contrast is less between clay and other surfaces than it was in the early 90s. We simply don't see that kind of specialization today.

Conversely, Pete Sampras would probably have been a bigger threat at Roland Garros now than he was during the 90s.

I'm also thinking that if there was more court variation today, we would see more early round upsets in the record of all of the Big Four - including Roger. Look at Pete's record - there's only one year in which he played all four Slams and didn't go out at least once before the second week. Roger's had EIGHT such years, Novak five, Rafa and Andy three. We all know Pete's weakness on clay, but I have a hard time believing that he was that much less consistent than today's Big Four. Pete was also occasionally upset elsewhere. It so rarely happens to the Big Four, except in recent years for Rafa and moreso, an aging Roger.

1- We don't have a Bruguera but we have a Djokovic, who's better. "Specialists" are overrated (not the players themselves, but the idea of the need for specialists). Djokovic is no less of a clay courter than most clay court specialists. He just happens to be able to play outside of clay. I don't think that's a result of homogenization. His style would actually allow him to thrive on clay in any era. Grass is a different issue, however.

2- I don't think Pete would be a threat on clay in any era.

3- I agree. Faster courts would generally lead to more upsets as the superior baseliner would not always prevail. In that regard, I think even Federer benefited greatly from surface homogenization despite being brilliant on fast surfaces. I'll actually elaborate on that point later and I'm making a thread about it.

 

[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).

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.

I see, and surely we can say the same about Djokovic and Nadal. However, I think the starting point from other people's argument was that, on Federer's prime, surface were less homogeneous than some years later, so his task to dominate across surfaces was bigger (something that I agree with).

 

[Billie]

I am sorry, but some Federer fans make me laugh sometimes. So the surfaces became more or less the same when? In the last 5 years?:cover

Yeah, Nole asked ATP/ITF for it to happen so that it is easier for him, he is that powerful.

And to be more accurate, Federer never dominated clay.lot

 

[El Dude]

And to be more accurate, Federer never dominated clay.lot

Really? Roger has been a very dominant clay court player during his prime, except for the fact of one Rafael Nadal. Roger's clay court record from 2001 to the present is 207-52, or 80%. For his very best years, 2004-09, he was 102-16, or 86%.

Seems pretty dominant to me.

 

[tented]

And to be more accurate, Federer never dominated clay.lot

Really? Roger has been a very dominant clay court player during his prime, except for the fact of one Rafael Nadal. Roger's clay court record from 2001 to the present is 207-52, or 80%. For his very best years, 2004-09, he was 102-16, or 86%.

Seems pretty dominant to me.

Thanks for the stats, Dude.

Roger put it best in an interview several years ago: "I don't have a clay problem; I have a Rafa problem."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Aside from the snippityness, interesting conversation. One thing to consider, to highlight the point that federberg and DarthFed are making, is that in today's context, we simply don't have the equivalent of a Sergiy Bruguera on clay. Even with Rafa out of the mix, Bruguera is unlikely to have won two French Open titles in today's game because the contrast is less between clay and other surfaces than it was in the early 90s. We simply don't see that kind of specialization today.

Conversely, Pete Sampras would probably have been a bigger threat at Roland Garros now than he was during the 90s.

I'm also thinking that if there was more court variation today, we would see more early round upsets in the record of all of the Big Four - including Roger. Look at Pete's record - there's only one year in which he played all four Slams and didn't go out at least once before the second week. Roger's had EIGHT such years, Novak five, Rafa and Andy three. We all know Pete's weakness on clay, but I have a hard time believing that he was that much less consistent than today's Big Four. Pete was also occasionally upset elsewhere. It so rarely happens to the Big Four, except in recent years for Rafa and moreso, an aging Roger.

It is indeed true that upsets are less these days. There is an even more important reason for that beyond the homogenization issue. All the grandslams used to seed only the top 16 players before.
Nowadays, the do a seeding of 32. When you seed only 16 players the chances of a top player
running into a very good player very early in the tournament (before they find their feet/rhythm)
is quite high. Think about it this way, Rafa could have potentially drawn Fog right in the first round.
I am not necessarily saying if that were the case, Rafa would lose right in the first round. But,
the 32 seed phenomena definitely gives a huge advantage to top players as they don't have to
play anyone in top 32 for two full rounds. By the time they play two matches, they get accustomed to the surface etc. This makes upsets less likely.

Brief History Lesson: Wimbledon was doing seeding by a committee which considers players grass court performance (it was not even formulaic at one time). The clay courters were
not getting seeded in the top 16 even though they are ranked in top 16 due to this. Hence, they
staged protest. In particular Kuerten and other clay courters threatened to boycott Wimbledon because of this. Then Wimbledon decided to increase the number of seeds from 16 to 32 (as
they did not want to change the way they are seeding and yet wanted to appease the complainers).
Soon, all other GSs followed suit. Also, Wimbledon said they will take the top 32 players and will
only shuffle them around using grass court performance (in other words somebody ranked 33
cannot become a seed even if they had performed very well on grass). Also, they got rid of
the committee (only for men; for women they still use a committee to subjectively decide)
and started using a formula.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I see, and surely we can say the same about Djokovic and Nadal. However, I think the starting point from other people's argument was that, on Federer's prime, surface were less homogeneous than some years later, so his task to dominate across surfaces was bigger (something that I agree with).

Federer's prime was 2006. Surfaces were homogeneous back then. Unless they became homgeneous in 2008, when Nadal won Wimbledon. Come on.

 

[Federberg]

Aside from the snippityness, interesting conversation. One thing to consider, to highlight the point that federberg and DarthFed are making, is that in today's context, we simply don't have the equivalent of a Sergiy Bruguera on clay. Even with Rafa out of the mix, Bruguera is unlikely to have won two French Open titles in today's game because the contrast is less between clay and other surfaces than it was in the early 90s. We simply don't see that kind of specialization today.

Conversely, Pete Sampras would probably have been a bigger threat at Roland Garros now than he was during the 90s.

I'm also thinking that if there was more court variation today, we would see more early round upsets in the record of all of the Big Four - including Roger. Look at Pete's record - there's only one year in which he played all four Slams and didn't go out at least once before the second week. Roger's had EIGHT such years, Novak five, Rafa and Andy three. We all know Pete's weakness on clay, but I have a hard time believing that he was that much less consistent than today's Big Four. Pete was also occasionally upset elsewhere. It so rarely happens to the Big Four, except in recent years for Rafa and moreso, an aging Roger.

It is indeed true that upsets are less these days. There is an even more important reason for that beyond the homogenization issue. All the grandslams used to seed only the top 16 players before.
Nowadays, the do a seeding of 32. When you seed only 16 players the chances of a top player
running into a very good player very early in the tournament (before they find their feet/rhythm)
is quite high. Think about it this way, Rafa could have potentially drawn Fog right in the first round.
I am not necessarily saying if that were the case, Rafa would lose right in the first round. But,
the 32 seed phenomena definitely gives a huge advantage to top players as they don't have to
play anyone in top 32 for two full rounds. By the time they play two matches, they get accustomed to the surface etc. This makes upsets less likely.

Brief History Lesson: Wimbledon was doing seeding by a committee which considers players grass court performance (it was not even formulaic at one time). The clay courters were
not getting seeded in the top 16 even though they are ranked in top 16 due to this. Hence, they
staged protest. In particular Kuerten and other clay courters threatened to boycott Wimbledon because of this. Then Wimbledon decided to increase the number of seeds from 16 to 32 (as
they did not want to change the way they are seeding and yet wanted to appease the complainers).
Soon, all other GSs followed suit. Also, Wimbledon said they will take the top 32 players and will
only shuffle them around using grass court performance (in other words somebody ranked 33
cannot become a seed even if they had performed very well on grass). Also, they got rid of
the committee (only for men; for women they still use a committee to subjectively decide)
and started using a formula.

32 seeding is an excellent point GSM. I forgot about that. Definitely increases the chances of the top seeds making it thru

 

[DarthFed]

I am sorry, but some Federer fans make me laugh sometimes. So the surfaces became more or less the same when? In the last 5 years?:cover

Yeah, Nole asked ATP/ITF for it to happen so that it is easier for him, he is that powerful.

And to be more accurate, Federer never dominated clay.lot

Now no one is claiming that Nole, Rafa, or anyone else asked for the surfaces to be slowed down. I believe that is up to the tournament directors anyways. Wimbledon's director wanted more baseline rallies so they slowed it down starting in 2001 I believe and they later started playing with a heavier ball. Pretty sure the USO changed their ball too at some point because it is undeniably slower the past few years. Baseline play is what's in now...benefits some more than others

And Rafa has never dominated off clay and Nole has never dominated off slow hards and indoors Not sure what that had to do with this...

 

[golds girl]

The next wave of tennis is going to be the taller, big servers/power players who can actually move well. I know it sounds weird but I've long tried to picture an "NBA style player" who decided to play tennis instead of basketball. We are talking someone with Isner's height (or a few inches shorter) who could have his serve except this player would be 10 times more athletic. I think as the game and the human race evolves we will see these kind of players in tennis and it might become the dominant style at some point.

Hey Darth,
It seems as though it is trending this way...but I'm not sure I like it. What I like about tennis is that you don't have to be a freak of nature to play. You could walk down the street and see Fed or Nishikori and think 'regular guy' yet they're Top 10 athletes. I like that perceived accessibility of tennis...if that makes any sense.:-/

 

[kro2488]

I love the serve and volley and aggressive net play style. I wish more players would embrace it, but its tough to do effectively, and I think players have less patience for it these days. When you use that style you will see balls go by you sometimes even if your not careless, so they would rather just try to out last everybody else from the baseline. I could see a bigger guy doing it if he put in the time and effect and could get to the net quick enough, taller players aren't always slow and goofy.

 

[mrzz]

We got somewhat in to a FedererxDjokovicxNadal discussion which distracted us from the topic. Posters correctly pointed out that surfaces are the basically same from the last ~14 years (thanks, I was in the wrong), but the general argument still makes sense: if surfaces where more distinct there could be no dominant style (even if I still challenge this notion. I will believe it when 8 out of the top 10 are similar, and right now they're different enough for me).

So the point is, future styles depend also on what will happen with surfaces and balls.

 

[Federberg]

We got somewhat in to a FedererxDjokovicxNadal discussion which distracted us from the topic. Posters correctly pointed out that surfaces are the basically same from the last ~14 years (thanks, I was in the wrong), but the general argument still makes sense: if surfaces where more distinct there could be no dominant style (even if I still challenge this notion. I will believe it when 8 out of the top 10 are similar, and right now they're different enough for me).

So the point is, future styles depend also on what will happen with surfaces and balls.

Agreed. I made that same point as well

 

[DarthFed]

Except I think we've seen more homogenization/slowing down of the surfaces in the past 14 years.

 

[Federberg]

^DF I think what mrzz (if I can presume) means is that in order to predict the next dominant style we need to figure out if there will be a move away from surface homgeneity

 

[mrzz]

Except I think we've seen more homogenization/slowing down of the surfaces in the past 14 years.

The point I am trying to avoid is: were the courts slower in 2008 than in 2004? Maybe, but as I agree that the main difference occured from the 90's to the 00's, I really won't split hairs on this.