Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[ponchi101]

Agree. The courts are all slow now. It is one of the reasons why serve and volley is dead (but not the only one) and why I say that court speed is of no relevance, because it is all about the same.
Court speed will become relevant when you have courts that are clearly different in speed. When RG is truly slow, but Wimby is truly fast.

[skatingfan]

Agree. The courts are all slow now. It is one of the reasons why serve and volley is dead (but not the only one) and why I say that court speed is of no relevance, because it is all about the same.
Court speed will become relevant when you have courts that are clearly different in speed. When RG is truly slow, but Wimby is truly fast.

The problem is that this isn't really true - some courts are slower, and some courts are the same, and some courts are faster. The real slow down in courts happened in the early 2000's, and since then tour averages have been the same for more than a decade. Wimbledon didn't get slower, they changed the bounce so the ball is in the court for longer but it's still travelling approximately the same speed it did in the past. The ATP got rid of carpet, and that had a big impact on the average court speed because all carpet courts were faster than average. The court speed thing is talking point, but not a very interesting one. We should be looking at the balls, the playing conditions, the equipment, and the playing style to explain changes more.

[ponchi101]

We should be looking at the balls, the playing conditions, the equipment, and the playing style to explain changes more.

Agree. I would like to see how balls have changed.
And yes. I am not saying that the slowdown of courts happened recently. As you say, it was in the early 2000's. But the tour is no longer the same as when Borg won RG and W back-to-back-to-back. Then, those two tournaments were really different. which is why his achievement was so great.
Do you have some data on court speed? (serious question, not putting you on).

[ashkor87]

Do you have some data on court speed? (serious question, not putting you on)

ask ChatGPT, it will tell you

[ponchi101]

I trust Skating more than ChatGPT

[ti-amie]

Live and learn

ETA: His history

[ashkor87]

Borg won RG and W back-to-back-to-back. Then, those two tournaments were really different

People today forget how good Borg's serve was and how quick he was to move - which is why he won W- he was also incredibly patient and had great stamina - hit the ball back and forth a million times with making a mistake, which is why he was so good on clay. But not on the hard courts of the USO, which placed a premium on being aggressive and penalized heavy topspin (which is true even today - see Swiatek, for instance) - and, of course, the rise of John McEnroe who started beating him everywhere (which is what, I believe, sent him into retirement - his last defeat was at his home tournament, hard to swallow, I would think)

[ponchi101]

The USO was an odd tournament for Borg. Remember he lost the 76 final to Connors, on har tru. He should have won that one.
But he made the finals 4 times. That is not a player that was not successful there. Just could not close that deal.

As you say, he was so quick. And so strong. I would like to see some of the new players trying, much less playing, to hit with Borg's racquet. 16 oz, 68 sq in, strung at 80 pounds. Go ahead, wreck your elbow trying to hit some of those modern strokes.

[ashkor87]

Remember he lost the 76 final to Connors,

but he never won the USO !

[ponchi101]

I know, that is what we are talking about.
But to say that a person that reached a slam final four times was not successful there is a bit too much to me. And people talk a lot about Borg not winning the USO because it is such a huge tournament, and conveniently forget that Mac and Connors never won RG.
He was not useless on hard courts. Was he the same as when he was on clay? Of course not. But he played well there.

[ashkor87]

I know, that is what we are talking about.
But to say that a person that reached a slam final four times was not successful there is a bit too much to me. And people talk a lot about Borg not winning the USO because it is such a huge tournament, and conveniently forget that Mac and Connors never won RG.
He was not useless on hard courts. Was he the same as when he was on clay? Of course not. But he played well there.

those are facts.. I am more interested in understanding why

[ashkor87]

watching Muchova playing Vondrousova - what makes Muchova so good to watch? Of all the players in the world today, the ones who are really fun to watch (for me) are the ones who seem to play with no effort.. and whose footwork puts them always in the right place..

Among men - Alcaraz and Sinner, for sure, also Monfils and Fonseca..
among women - Muchova, Paolini, Rybakina

who are your favorites to watch and why?

[ponchi101]

those are facts.. I am more interested in understanding why

Ah.
I say he lost two finals to Connors and two to Mac. Those two guys knew a bit or two about playing, and it was NYC. They got better there, especially Jimbo.
Sometimes things just happen. There are no complicated answers.
It's like Mac losing that RG final. He played two of the most incredible serve and volley sets ever on clay. But he needed a third, and he did not. Just that.

[ashkor87]

https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/ro ... ng-extinct

the middle article has some nice discussion about the serve...how did the second serve come about, etc.

[ashkor87]

It's like Mac losing that RG final. He played two of the most incredible serve and volley sets ever on clay. But he needed a third, and he did not.

I did see that entire match, clearly JMac didnt have the stamina, he just got tired. Lendl's physical conditioning..