Siiting here at 8-8 in the fifth set, 63 games played and what, 2 breaks???

It's getting to the point where the importance of the serve is overweighted. This is a great match because it's close, but I miss the tennis of the past where most of the points averaged more than two or three hits.

All it will take is some 6'10" european to come on the scene and be unreturnable and the game will be trash.

I think they should consider shrinking the box by a couple inches, or raise the net just a touch.

I want to also say that I think the players don't really even expect to break serve and take a mental break during those games.

Even when the returner has gained the edge in a point, more times than not the server will still win the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_tennis_match_records

for reference

federer's going to have a problem when nadal gets back in it at the U.S Open

I think that's a Wimbledon issue more than a tennis issue and frankly I don't think it's much of an issue there. Kind of like too many dunks in basketball. Should the basket be raised to 11 feet?

[This message has been edited by SA68AG (edited 7/5/2009 1:14p).]

Well, in basketball you have to beat a defender to get there for the most part.

In tennis, we're approaching the point where it is physically impossible to get to many serves. We'll start to see players guessing on direction ala goalkeepers on pk's.

That was probably the greatest service day Federer has ever had and likely, the same can be said for Roddick.

quote:

---

I think that's a Wimbledon issue more than a tennis issue

---

Bingo, except I don't really call it an "issue"...it's just part of the grass court game.

I agree it's not an issue. It's part of what makes tennis grand slams unique - three very different surfaces requiring different strategies and favoring different skills.

How many break points did we see today? How many deuces? What looked like the best match of all time on paper was actually a little flat because the returner rarely won more than a point or two.

Y'all don't see a problem with the serve having so much weight?


[This message has been edited by TennAg (edited 7/5/2009 3:16p).]

I understand what you're saying. I just think that's part of grass tennis and what makes it different from clay and the hard courts. Grass has always favored the big server as long as I can remember. I personally find hard court and clay court tennis in general more interesting to watch but I don't have a problem with grass court tennis. The variety makes me really appreciate the player that can win on all surfaces. I think if ALL matches were played on grass, tennis would have a problem.

quote:

---

All it will take is some 6'10" european to come on the scene and be unreturnable and the game will be trash.

---

His name is Ivo Karlovic. He has a HUGE serve but been knocked out of Wimbledon in the first round the the previous four years. Has four single titles in nine years.

Karlovic made it to the quarters this year actually. Fed beat him in straight sets. Karlovic is 6'10".

Original poster - Welcome to Wimbledon. Don't watch much tennis? This used to be pretty normal for Wimbledon until they slowed the courts in recent years. You don't see this kind of thing on any of the other surfaces.

No big deal. But I do agree that it was boring to watch.

You know, at the same time, I think they should change the clay at Roland Garros so that you can hit MORE aces.

Its part of playing on grass, you wont see it being that big of a problem on all surfaces. Personally, I love the diversity of the game being played on all different surfaces, and each surface having its advantage for certain types of players. Its good for the game more than it hurts it.

If you want to put the blame on anyone for the big serves, blame the people behind racket technology. You cant go changing the dimensions of the court because the players have gotten better at one aspect of the game.

Cooter, i've watched plenty of tennis, I know what I'm talking about. You may not agree with my opinion and that's fine.

This isn't just a Wimbledon issue, the top level players are winning 85-90% of their service games throughout the year.

That should raise some flags.

the only flag it raises is that people are better at serving, and that technology has gotten better. You cant serve proof a tennis court like you can tiger proof a golf course. This has been an oncoming trend for a while now. Unless you think the ATP can be convinced to place restrictions on what type of rackets can be used, nothing will change.

I kinda like it, because you are forced to be a better returner. Makes a player more well rounded. Look at Karlovic. He probably plays more tiebreakers than anyone in the game. Which means he never gets broken, but at the same time, he cant break. If you break him once a set, you will more than likely win the set. Get better at your return game and you can do that.

quote:

---

Cooter, i've watched plenty of tennis, I know what I'm talking about.

---

Is that why you're shutting everyone up with your very knowledgable comments?



Please don't miss the sarcasm there.

Gotcha TXAggie2011.

My opinion may be wrong, but it's not uninformed.

Just sayin...

Referencing your 6'10" European comment, that you're taking one match on the fastest surface in which two great players possibly had their best service days ever and saying the entire game of tennis has a problem, etc...

It's been a long time in the making for me, it wasn't just watching a few minutes of tv coverage. I know as a player, the shorter the points got, the less appeal the sport had, win or lose.

(the european comment was referencing some imaginary player who also has some legit talent. If you do the geometry, a player of that height with some control and better than average pace would truly be unreturnable, the angle spectrum is just too wide.)

I don't buy the "this is just Wimbledon" argument. Maybe this is Wimbledon since the oversized, composite racquets (which I'm not against), but no one would call Ashe or even McEnroe a hard server. Hell, Lendl had one of the better serves in the game when he played and never won Wimbledon. Hard servers of that era did well, but often would reach the semis or finals and then flame out. Its a total game -- then and now, but more so then.

Right, but you still didn't know who Ivo Karlovic was, which makes me question your credibility on this topic. Clearly if you DID you wouldn't have made that statement. Tennis does not have a problem at all my man.

I don't view it as that big of a "problem." Federer has a good serve, but it's his all around game that has won him 15 grand slams. Nadal might still be the best player in the world, and it's because of his baseline game. Roddick is probably the 2nd best server in the world after Karlovic, but he had to improve immensely as an all around player to get so close to beating Federer (Stefanki has worked wonders with the volleying and backhand). Yes, there will be matches with lots of aces. I watched Roddick beat Karlovic 7-6 7-6 at Queen's a few weeks back and it was the most brutal tennis match I'd ever watched. But the better overall player will still win most of the time.

quote:

---

I don't buy the "this is just Wimbledon" argument. Maybe this is Wimbledon since the oversized, composite racquets (which I'm not against), but no one would call Ashe or even McEnroe a hard server. Hell, Lendl had one of the better serves in the game when he played and never won Wimbledon. Hard servers of that era did well, but often would reach the semis or finals and then flame out. Its a total game -- then and now, but more so then.

---

I'm not following what point you are arguing. Lendl never won Wimbledon b/c he was a poor volleyer. Back in the day, the S&V won Wimbledon.

quote:

---

Federer has a good serve, but it's his all around game that has won him 15 grand slams. Nadal might still be the best player in the world, and it's because of his baseline game.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Hard servers of that era did well, but often would reach the semis or finals and then flame out. Its a total game -- then and now, but more so then.

---

I wasn't around to see Lendl, so I'll only quote this part.

If they were reaching the semifinals and finals, then you're saying only a couple of players at the most were doing more, right?


Right now, there are a coulple of players that would fit that same position.

Federer and Nadal are not the two best servers in the world, far from it, in my opinion.

They are the two guys who consistently when everything because their overall games are just that good.


I'm not sure I understand your point.

For me the point is that the games are boring. You can almost see the returner lay off because he knows his effort is best spent on his service games. To have a 30 game set yesterday with so little excitement was a downer. I'd rather it had been 6-4 with a lot of break points and deuces.

This sport, just like all others on TV, are for the spectators, not the participants.

Although I don't agree that it is a problem, it has been discussed as a potential problem for at least 40 years by various tennis commentators. You can go back into the 50's with Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad and people were saying the same things about big servers and grass courts.

the sport is fine, someone with a good serve always has the advantage in the service games. Would you rather watch a bunch of dementieva matches where she gets broken 4-8 times in a match??

also, karlovic may not have done a lot, but he is always a tough out. like, 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 7-6 out. I honestly think I've seen lines like the majority of the times he plays, haha.

bump for karlovic serving up an ungodly amount of aces and coming back from 2 sets down to beat blake. haha

quote:

---

This is a great match because it's close, but I miss the tennis of the past where most of the points averaged more than two or three hits.

---

Depending on the era which you're talking about, tennis of the past was serve and volley, so the points were very short. McEnroe and Sampras would have only 3-5 shot rallies. I'd say Henman was the last true serve and volley player, and now most everyone is a baseline player.

Also take into account that these two players were serving unbelievably, and that's why they got into the finals. Tune into the US Open starting Aug 31 and the tennis will be a lot more exciting.

The solution to this is called women's tennis. A lot of people have made similar comments about Men's volleyball. The guys just jam the crap out of the ball and it takes a little of the fun out of the game.

But seriously, watch college tennis. It's a lot more entertaining because, although there are good servers, it's not like in the pro's. The team aspect also adds a lot of fun, as there's usually players that play all different styles, and so everyone gets their fill, and you can watch 6 matches at once!

Good womens college tennis is also fun, but only with teams ranked 30ish and above. much below that, it can be pretty painful and frustrating watching the lower lines.

The only thing in the modern era that has changed is the racket (and ball perhaps). The court dimensions have never changed (at least in the modern era) and NEVER should change. Place restrictions on equipment, fine. But you don't change court (including net) dimensions. That would be incredibly unfair to player's who have learned how to play the game according to the courts dimensions. Years of training goes into serving the ball consistently near the service line over and over. Quality of play would go down.

I've never met anyone who plays tennis who wants the wood rackets to come back. The game will never go back to wood and shouldn't. Players strokes and serves are not not built for wood. Again, quality of play would go down.

But finding a way to slow down the racket or ball and/or balls a bit isn't a terrible idea, at least on the men's side. But I also agree there's more drama in a men's match fighting over a single break, than a women's baseline fest where serve is almost irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by Aston04 (edited 8/9/2009 12:16a).]