2018 Wimbledon...ATP 2000...London, Great Britain

[arturohernandez]

What exactly do you mean by this comment?

Lament the changing of the game. Try to go back to what was. I feel in some ways that a lot of things today are more homogeneous. If you listen to pop music, it is still catchy. But it all sound the same.

https://pudding.cool/2018/05/similarity/

I feel we could say the same thing about tennis. It is homogenized. Everyone is trained the same way. They use metrics and quantitative approaches.

Players are "better" than ever. They can play longer, have better fitness are more athletic, taller...

Catch my drift?

It's beating of the dead horse to try and go back to originality and less homogenization.

Kids don't play outside anymore, everyone is connected to a device.

Hopefully, you can see the dead horse I didn't want to beat.

[don_budge]

Lament the changing of the game. Try to go back to what was. I feel in some ways that a lot of things today are more homogeneous. If you listen to pop music, it is still catchy. But it all sound the same.

https://pudding.cool/2018/05/similarity/

I feel we could say the same thing about tennis. It is homogenized. Everyone is trained the same way. They use metrics and quantitative approaches.

Players are "better" than ever. They can play longer, have better fitness are more athletic, taller...

Catch my drift?

It's beating of the dead horse to try and go back to originality and less homogenization.

Kids don't play outside anymore, everyone is connected to a device.

Hopefully, you can see the dead horse I didn't want to beat.

I am not certain but what I think you are saying is that I am beating a dead horse with my comments. Is that right?

[arturohernandez]

I am not certain but what I think you are saying is that I am beating a dead horse with my comments. Is that right?

Kind of but more than anything I was just trying to not continue along the same line of thinking.

We have to somehow accept reality even though we might not like it.

After all, I am teaching my daughter to hit a one handed backhand despite the fact that her brother who hits with one hand thinks she should hit with two.

A lot of other people do too. Although surprisingly coaches are much more inclined to support her hitting with one hand.

I am sure that she would have more success in tennis with two hands in the short term.

Most pushy type A parents would want results now. Everyone wants success now.

Keep saying what you are saying.

Maybe a dead horse can be revived.

[stotty]

Homogenised tennis is the reason we have three incredible baseliners. But if all the players are playing the same game-style it's only those with given qualities who will rise to the top. It's a cul-de-sac for the rest who have left themselves without tactical options. It's true when you think about it.

There are plenty of incredible volleyers out there who were never given the chance to develop their incredible volleys to become the incredible volleyers they were meant to be.

I don't believe the players always find the best way in a given environment. Maybe eight, ten years ago this was the case. The problem is the coaches got on the bandwagon and started teaching the modern game; that's a game without volleys because the common thinking in coaching is volleying is a dead game. So if this mentality persists, the game can only go one way...more of the same.

Nadal has done a couple of things that have brought him closer to Novak's level, namely a tiny bit more variety. He has learned these qualities later in his career when he might well have learned them at the beginning. Let's hope coaches and upcoming players can at least learn something from that.

The trouble with coaches is they are desperate for silver bullets and leadership. They often aren't they brightest people you could meet.

[klacr]

Homogenised tennis is the reason we have three incredible baseliners. But if all the players are playing the same game-style it's only those with given qualities who will rise to the top. It's a cul-de-sac for the rest who have left themselves without tactical options. It's true when you think about it.

There are plenty of incredible volleyers out there who were never given the chance to develop their incredible volleys to become the incredible volleyers they were meant to be.

I don't believe the players always find the best way in a given environment. Maybe eight, ten years ago this was the case. The problem is the coaches got on the bandwagon and started teaching the modern game; that's a game without volleys because the common thinking in coaching is volleying is a dead game. So if this mentality persists, the game can only go one way...more of the same.

Nadal has done a couple of things that have brought him closer to Novak's level, namely a tiny bit more variety. He has learned these qualities later in his career when he might well have learned them at the beginning. Let's hope coaches and upcoming players can at least learn something from that.

The trouble with coaches is they are desperate for silver bullets and leadership. They often aren't they brightest people you could meet.

Could not have said it better myself.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stroke]

Lament the changing of the game. Try to go back to what was. I feel in some ways that a lot of things today are more homogeneous. If you listen to pop music, it is still catchy. But it all sound the same.

https://pudding.cool/2018/05/similarity/

I feel we could say the same thing about tennis. It is homogenized. Everyone is trained the same way. They use metrics and quantitative approaches.

Players are "better" than ever. They can play longer, have better fitness are more athletic, taller...

Catch my drift?

It's beating of the dead horse to try and go back to originality and less homogenization.

Kids don't play outside anymore, everyone is connected to a device.

Hopefully, you can see the dead horse I didn't want to beat.

Everyone is trained the same way, metrics and quantitatively. So true. tennis has never been more physical, particularly to win 7 matches 3 of 5 sets. But to me winning Masters titles is almost as difficult, as from the 1st round on with the smaller draws, it is even tougher, and the players have to play every day starting Wednesday on to the Sunday final. Masters titles are a bit under rated to me in the scheme of things talking about player's accomplishments. And no doubt height is a great shortcut to the upper levels of tennis now as the serve plays such a big role in mens tennis(but how much is always interesting). For instance, the new Novak, who to me is Zverev, is 3 or 4 inches taller that Novak. His serve is slightly better because of his being taller, but as good as he moves, he still does not move as well as Novak, nor maintain his core balance facing incoming balls as well as Novak. And I do not think extreme height like Anderson or even more so, Isner, will ever be a true contender on clay, so if a player wants to compete of all 3 surfaces? And there are no new Fed's or Nadal"s, but that is another discussion.

Now doing away with the ol injury time out may make things more interesting. I would rather see that than the shot clock. And Wimbledon obviously needs to go the a 5th set tiebreak.

[stotty]

Oddly enough I was talking to a friend the other day who claimed both Zverev and Nishikori have better backhands than Novak. He may be right on a single shot basis, but this is not how a backhand or any shot should be judged. Novak made about two errors on his backhand in that Wimbledon final, and year-round he will spray very few. Come crunch time the shot is technically superb. Novak's serve is also underrated. Just look how well he served in that semi and then again in the final. His placement was superb and he delivered excellent serves right when he needed to. He had no right to win that third set but he did through good serving and composure.

Zverev has a way to go to match Novak and, frankly, I cannot see him doing it. I do see him winning slams once the Big 3 split the tour or if they hang around too long.

The umpire should have called Novak on his time wasting. As Tim Henman said, if he is bouncing the ball 17 times then that is seventeen seconds gone, and that's before you include the recouping between points and the walk to the baseline to serve. Andrew Castle said Novak was averaging 32 seconds between points in the final.

[stroke]

The ultimate test of a tour backhand to me is how it stands vs Nadal forehand, particularity on clay, the ultimate test there. I give it to Novak.

[arturohernandez]

Glad to see all the discussion! I have seen Djokovic twice in person. The first time was in 2009 at Halle. I was so impressed with his movement. I mean he was almost getting to balls on the edge of the court near the lines people.

I saw him in Paris three years ago. He was just clinical indoors on hardcourt. It was like surgery as he just dissected Berdych in straight sets.

In principle, Djokovic has Sampras like flexibility and should be able to serve with a high spin component. I remember watching his second serve from the side and seeing how it was almost like a lob that would dip into the court at the last minute.

His serve must be pretty heavy even though he is pretty thin.

Nishikori is great and he hits a very clean ball.

For some reason, Zverev does not impress me. He seems like a great hitter but I don't get the wow factor from him.

I was hoping for Shapavolov as the next big player but he seems perhaps a little too trigger happy.

I just don't see anyone out there who will put pressure on players.

Everyone seems to just want to hit through the other players.

Let's just keep beating this horse.

Hopefully, someone on this board will train the next big volleyer that is able to play a Federer like game.

[klacr]

Glad to see all the discussion! I have seen Djokovic twice in person. The first time was in 2009 at Halle. I was so impressed with his movement. I mean he was almost getting to balls on the edge of the court near the lines people.

I saw him in Paris three years ago. He was just clinical indoors on hardcourt. It was like surgery as he just dissected Berdych in straight sets.

In principle, Djokovic has Sampras like flexibility and should be able to serve with a high spin component. I remember watching his second serve from the side and seeing how it was almost like a lob that would dip into the court at the last minute.

His serve must be pretty heavy even though he is pretty thin.

Nishikori is great and he hits a very clean ball.

For some reason, Zverev does not impress me. He seems like a great hitter but I don't get the wow factor from him.

I was hoping for Shapavolov as the next big player but he seems perhaps a little too trigger happy.

I just don't see anyone out there who will put pressure on players.

Everyone seems to just want to hit through the other players.

Let's just keep beating this horse.

Hopefully, someone on this board will train the next big volleyer that is able to play a Federer like game.

Your last line is what I've been practicing, teaching and preaching for most of my career. It takes longer for that game to come to fruition and reach it's peak but when it does the payout is huge. Stop with the teaching of baseline bashing. Like Nick Saviano mentions in one of his articles on this site, if you are teaching and training your players to be like today's champion, when they grow up and reach a bigger stage they will be a generation behind the current champions.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Your last line is what I've been practicing, teaching and preaching for most of my career. It takes longer for that game to come to fruition and reach it's peak but when it does the payout is huge. Stop with the teaching of baseline bashing. Like Nick Saviano mentions in one of his articles on this site, if you are teaching and training your players to be like today's champion, when they grow up and reach a bigger stage they will be a generation behind the current champions.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

The problem is the current trend has gone on so long that all the coaches, at least over here, are all teaching the same way, and with the instilled belief that volleys aren't really necessary other than to mop up easy kills after hitting hoofing great ground shots. You go to any tennis centre over here and you will seldom see a coach teaching volleys to junior players. That's a huge problem because all players are coached these days. It used to be a commonly held belief that players innovate, coaches follow. I doubt that is the case these days. Coaches hugely influence the progress of a player, and if volleys aren't taught from a young age, then a volleyer will never become a natural volleyer. The one good thing, the only good thing, about Kyrgios is he likely stuck two fingers up somewhere along the way so at least we have someone a little bit different.

Imagine tennis without Roger, Rafa or Novak. It won't be good. There is a real chance the game could go down the toilet once they are gone.

[arturohernandez]

The problem is the current trend has gone on so long that all the coaches, at least over here, are all teaching the same way, and with the instilled belief that volleys aren't really necessary other than to mop up easy kills after hitting hoofing great ground shots. You go to any tennis centre over here and you will seldom see a coach teaching volleys to junior players. That's a huge problem because all players are coached these days. It used to be a commonly held belief that players innovate, coaches follow. I doubt that is the case these days. Coaches hugely influence the progress of a player, and if volleys aren't taught from a young age, then a volleyer will never become a natural volleyer. The one good thing, the only good thing, about Kyrgios is he likely stuck two fingers up somewhere along the way so at least we have someone a little bit different.

Imagine tennis without Roger, Rafa or Novak. It won't be good. There is a real chance the game could go down the toilet once they are gone.

Maybe Shapovalov will save the day! He is the only one that I see as a truly attacking player of the young guard. But based on his volleying skills I can see that he did not spend a whole lot of time training them.

I agree that the payoff will be great when training volleys at an early age.

I dropped my daughter off at tennis camp only to find out that she is the only student. So I got a chance to talk to the pro who is trying to sell me on his credentials.

He got to top 10 in the US and was ranked I am pretty sure in the top 500 in the world as a pro. He played on par with Isner in the Juniors.

The pro's take was that while he was practicing 4-5 hours a day as a junior others were going to school two hours a day and practicing 10 hours a day.

He could just not compete with that level of practice. He thinks other countries basically take kids out of school and have them focus on tennis from a young age.

So the stakes are just so high and people are investing huge amounts of time (and money!) on tennis training.

There is a formula for relative success. Everyone is following it.

I have been reading the Black Swan lately (https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Im...lack+swan+book).

The basic idea is that there is a lot uncertainty in the world.

No one has any idea what will happen. We just trick ourselves into thinking we do.

Kahneman and Tversky have done a lot of work on biases. The Black Swan takes this idea a bit further.

It is really ironic that by increasing relative success we are reducing uncertainty.

And by reducing uncertainty we are decreasing the potential peak of one or two tennis players that would stand out.

Would anyone allow McEnroe to play the way he does today?

He is quirky.

Rafa and Roger (compared to Novak) are also a bit quirky.

Roger is hyper aggressive and hits with a 1HBH. He volleys and attacks the net too.

Rafa hits his forehand with a reverse finish and his backhand is not textbook. His slice is also odd looking.

And yet both of them made it work.

Would anyone allow Rafa and Roger to play the way they do if they were juniors today?

[arturohernandez]

BTW, picked up my daughter after three hours of tennis camp. The pro spent all the time on groundstrokes and serves. No time on volleys or overheads.

[doctorhl]

We could beat a dead horse forever. I agree with don_budge that players are not fully developing their games.

But things change. And I still love watching tennis even though I find it boring at times.

My thinking is that height is very deceptive. It is no secret that players are getting taller and that conditions favor taller players.

There is no way that a semifinal between two giants would have been possible at Wimbledon twenty years ago. With the rackets and the serve and volley play they would have never made it out of the first round. It would have been like watching a Giraffe looking down at piranhas bleeding it to death in a puddle of water at their ankles.

But now height is entering into the equation more and more. Especially, in the juniors. It's not my idea. You can read an article on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...is-future.html

Hingis thinks that the problem is that smaller players do not hang around because they are either giving up on themselves or their coaches give up on them.

So now the players that do excel in the juniors are taller. Many of them are A LOT taller. Height becomes the norm but it also creates rising stars that will not be able to reach the pinnacle of the sport.

I still think that 6 foot or just above is ideal for men and 5'9" or just above is ideal for women.

What we have lost is any 5'10 top male players and have almost lost any top women that are 5'6" and with that we have lost the other elements of the game.

At those heights we had lots of play inside the court because it was much easier for these players to maneuver themselves.

Juniors have very few models like this for players to emulate.

And if a junior is short he or she will have a much harder time getting through.

Look at Simona Halep. They are highlights but look at how easily she runs forward.

https://youtu.be/8U-IAQiG1ng

Even Nishikori tries to stay back. But if you watch carefully he can handle balls inside the court much more easily.

https://youtu.be/0BhSw0SurZs

You rarely seem them slipping at Wimbledon. When they do come in they can handle volleys and play inside the court very well.

Halep likes the swinging volley but still at least it is inside the court.

Djokovic plays more like a tall player. And now everyone wants to emulate him.

Tennis has become an exclusively taller player sport. And inevitably we have lost play inside the court.

Not the only cause but perhaps one of them.

Just my 2 cents coming from an under 6 foot tall rec player.

The 3 point line in basketball was an attempt to bring back the small guy. But rule interpretation changes for defense shut out the small guy again. So the tall, long armed, big handed people turned pro basketball into the lack of finesse game you see in pro tennis. One can observe Olympic badminton going down the same road as tennis as rackets changed from wood, then to graphite oversized and the subsequent increased dominance of the smash brought in the bigger, taller players for the power game. But, beating the dead horse.......

[arturohernandez]

It appears we are not the only ones noticing the trend.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/07/diego-schwartzman-david-goffin-smaller-tennis-players/75522/