I think, when most people say they don't like "todays" tennis, they are saying that they long for the days of wood racquets and short shorts, when everyone had a one handed slice backhand, and topspin lobs were unheard of.
I believe you do not fall into this category (Correct?). I think you are talking about the tennis of only a few years ago, say 5-10 years?
I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I was a serve and volley player for a while in college, but I wasn't tall enough to do it consistently like I did in the juniors, so I really respected any serve and volley player, espically Sampras (and of course Rafter).
To me, the most interesting tennis was played by Sampras. I don't think you would disagree, because he was one of the few players with an all court game, similar to Rafter.
In fact, I believe there were a number of years when Rafter and Sampras were the only players that could really serve and volley (and actually could volley, not just hit a 140mph serve and run to net behind it).
Usually the people that don't like todays game, WANT more ralleys, more baseline play, longer points etc.
Saying Hingis was unfit is a bit unfair....Rafter was the same.
Ok, here is where I will start to disagree.:)
No matter how hot it is out there on the court, a professional tennis player should not be exausted after playing 2 sets. It just shouldn't happen. There is no excuse. The men play 5 sets in the same conditions, and this year, Roddick played enough for 7 sets in his semi against El Anoui. Even after 5 hours of play, Roddick was still sprinting down dropshots. There is not physical reason why women tennis players should become so tired so early in matches, except that they are out of shape and don't train hard.
Now, it is a very well know fact that Hingis did NOT train hard at all. In fact, she would often say that the only reason she played doubles was so that she could do that instead of practicing. She didn't like practicing, and didn't like sprints, she liked playing, and that got her pretty far, but you could see it in her endurance that she was not in shape.
Rafter on the other hand, was a work horse, who was in better shape than most the men. Rafter is a guy who, lets face it, had a sub-average serve, very-sub-average forehand, very sub-average backhand, and exceptional volleys. So, how is it that he did so well? He worked extremely hard, played extrememly smart, and made the most out of every aspect of his game! I think if he were not to have injured his shoulder as bad as he did, that he would still be a factor in the game today, even though he is a serve and volleyer, hitting a 115mph first serve. How is this possible? He hits 70% of them in, and hits them in the corners. He almost never makes errors, he plays smart shots, and he works hard on every point. We need more guys like this...
Dunno if you're a local or not, but the environment the Aussie open is played in is _very_ harsh. It's probably the most physically demanding tournament on the whole tour. Personally, I'm astounded most of the men can even last four sets without being stretchered off.
I'm a local... of Chicago:)
While it is probably not known, chicago summers are usually 90's (lets see thats...35C or so) with 80% or more humidity. While this might not be quite as harsh as you guys get at the Aussi open, it's getting there.
But these people are supposed to be professionals! The best in the world! They should be in such great shape, 3 sets should be no problem.
Hingis simply doesn't have the physical strength to be able to serve like the powerful female players - she's only a tiny little thing.
This is a common, but incorrect assumption. Serve speed has almost nothing to do with strength, and almost everything to do with technique (and flexability).
You have to remember that there is a difference between being a "big" server, and being a "good" server.
Roddick hits the ball much "bigger", but he had WAY WAY WAY fewer aces. Federrer, who doesn't really serve that hard, was placing his serve really well. Remember also that grass is the hardest surface to return on, and Roddick isn't know for being a good returner.
It's interesting that you would pick those 2 players (Rafter and Hingis).
Rafter wasn't one to stay at the baseline, and he would only participate in long ralleys because he didn't have the ground strokes to end them. He would have to get to net usually, or wait for an error from his opponent. I'm a big Rafter fan (or at least was until his retirement), but usually the people that don't like "the new style of tennis", are not the people that like Rafter's game, interesting.
Now, on to Hingis... Before I get going let me say a few things that might piss off some people... Womens tennis sucks. It sucks really really bad. The women pro tennis players, for the majority, are crappy and out of shape.
This year at wimbledon we are seeing the William's sisters in the finals again, and the semi finals were the 1,2,3, and 4 seeds. When was the last time that you saw that happen on the mens side... hmmmm how many years do you have to look back? Has it EVER happened in a slam tournment?
Capriati could lose 20-30 lbs. Her gut sticks as far out as her breasts, if not farther, she has double chin, and she can't even make it through 3 sets of tennis on grass, which is the easiest surfact to play long matches on. 3 sets!! Come on! Go for a jog, watch what you eat! They are supposed to be world class athletes, in a sport that demands extreme fitness to succeed! How can they still be ranked so high if they are in such poor shape? 1) They only play best of 3 sets (and yet want equal pay). 2) There just arn't enough good players out there to force them to do more to improve. It's sad. It's not that the William's sisters are such amazing athletes, it's just that they are good athletes that work very hard, and are in good physical shape.
I will say this, unlike many sports out there (mens tennis included), a "normal" women can become a professional tennis player through hard work. What do I mean? I'll give you an example. If I were to spend every waking hour of my life running, I don't think I would ever be able to become a world class marathon runner. It's just not in my genes. I'm sure you all know (or where) some kid in high school that, no matter how hard he worked, was never going to make the team, they just didn't have it. To be a pro baseball player, it's more than putting in a lot of time in the batter cage, you have to be born with the ability to track the baseball with your eyes, better than almost anyone else on the planet.
Women tennis players, dont' have to worry about any of this.
They don't have to be fast (Davenport, and a bazillion others), they don't have to be big (Henin), they don't have to be strong (Henin), but more importantly, they don't have to have any god given reflexes to return 130 mph serves (or 110 mph kick serves that are curving like crazy).
AND... If Andy Roddick wanted to get ready for his match against Rudsedski (BTW... are there any Brits reading this? Do the people in G.B. realize that Greg Rudsedski is the biggest asshole of all time. And by "asshole" I mean "total classless douchbag", on and off the court? I'm not taking a pot shot, Im just wondering how the British press holds him, and how the fans think of him.)... then Roddick just has to go find a left handed tennis player that can serve mid to upper 140s. Hmmmm. Lets see, there is no one that can do that. Roddick has almost NO way to practice returning that kind of serve.
Now on the womens side... If you are playing Serena or Venus, or Davenport, and you need to practice returning a serve 15-125mph, who can you get to help you? Hmmmm. How about any male tennis player that has played the game for more than a few years. There is no reason that Serena should be blowing players off the court with 115mph serves, when Phillippoussis is serving 125mph SECOND SERVES, and only winning like 60% of the points.
Anyway... back to track.
Higis wasn't that good. The players finally caught up to her. Did you see her last appearance at t
On the tennis comment...
Someone, at some point, started the "With these new racquets, the game is all power hitters, everyone is hitting aces, the game is boring"
There is no basis in fact to back up these claims, it is total nonsense.
The racquets today, don't really help the serve that much, the DO help the returner a lot.
30 years ago, the Wilson speed serving contest was won with a wood racquet, and the serve was hit at over 150mph, thats faster than the current ATP Tour record of 149mph (although the ATP Record requires that the serve go in, while the other contest didn't).
Sampras played McEnroe in a charity tennis event, where they both played with wood racquets. Sampras was still serving mid to upper 120's just like he does with his regular ProStaff 6.0.
For those that say "The game is totally dominated by the big servers!!!!" Of course that is TOTALLY FALSE! Wimbledon is the fastest surface of any tennis court, so of course the servers are going to have the greatest advantage at wimbledon compared with any other tournament. So, was the draw dominated by big servers?? NO, it wasn't at all!!
The mens quaterfinals saw Jonas Bjorkman, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Sjeng Schalken, Tim Henman, Sebastien Grosjean, Alexander Popp, and Mark Philippoussis.
Only Roddick, Popp, and Phillippoussis could be considered big servers in that group. 3/8 isn't really the domination you would expect.
Of the top 10 men in championship race for this year, only 1 could be called a big server, and thats Roddick, who is 7th.
Come on.
"Hawk Eye" sounds like the exact same thing as "Shot Spot", it has to be the exact same technology, licensed to different companies (ESPN and BBC) and then named by each of them differently.
"while I don't recall a call being overturned *because* of this system"
As a matter of the rules of tennis on the ATP and WTA tours, this can simply never happen.
Even if Boris Becker (who I believe was doing commentary for the BBC) were to yell down to the umpire the shot sport showed the ball in/out, the umpire can NOT overrule based on this kind of "replay" technology, it can only be used for the purpose of making a better viewing experience for the viewers.
"I DO RECALL line judges looking up to the folks in the boxes (who had the benefit of the info provided c/o Hawk-Eye) to affirm that a call was correct or not."
I can't say that this *didn't* happen, because I wasn't there to see what you saw in person, but in all the tennis I have ever watched (I played juniors, college, and some pro qualifiers) and all the tennis I have ever watched, TiVo records anything with "Tennis":), I have never seen an umpire, or a lines person, look up for confirmation on a call.
When a linesman calls a ball out, he/she is suppose to be certain that it was out, and if the ump overrules, it is supposed to only be in cases of a "clear mistake".
If they were to then, after making a call, lookup to someone in one of the boxes to get a confirmation of their call, it would show that they arn't sure of themselves.
Even if they were told by their friends in the boxes were to tell them that they were wrong, there is nothing they could do about it anyway, it would just make them look dumb to be looking for a confirmation of their call, when there is no possible outcome that would warrent them doing so.
Were there people in the boxes giving the linesmen thumbs-up thumbs-down signals or what?
In the end, I think we are probably talking about the same system.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok I think we understand each other now...
:)
No matter how hot it is out there on the court, a professional tennis player should not be exausted after playing 2 sets. It just shouldn't happen. There is no excuse. The men play 5 sets in the same conditions, and this year, Roddick played enough for 7 sets in his semi against El Anoui. Even after 5 hours of play, Roddick was still sprinting down dropshots. There is not physical reason why women tennis players should become so tired so early in matches, except that they are out of shape and don't train hard.
:)
I think, when most people say they don't like "todays" tennis, they are saying that they long for the days of wood racquets and short shorts, when everyone had a one handed slice backhand, and topspin lobs were unheard of.
I believe you do not fall into this category (Correct?). I think you are talking about the tennis of only a few years ago, say 5-10 years?
I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I was a serve and volley player for a while in college, but I wasn't tall enough to do it consistently like I did in the juniors, so I really respected any serve and volley player, espically Sampras (and of course Rafter).
To me, the most interesting tennis was played by Sampras. I don't think you would disagree, because he was one of the few players with an all court game, similar to Rafter.
In fact, I believe there were a number of years when Rafter and Sampras were the only players that could really serve and volley (and actually could volley, not just hit a 140mph serve and run to net behind it).
Usually the people that don't like todays game, WANT more ralleys, more baseline play, longer points etc.
Saying Hingis was unfit is a bit unfair....Rafter was the same.
Ok, here is where I will start to disagree.
Now, it is a very well know fact that Hingis did NOT train hard at all. In fact, she would often say that the only reason she played doubles was so that she could do that instead of practicing. She didn't like practicing, and didn't like sprints, she liked playing, and that got her pretty far, but you could see it in her endurance that she was not in shape.
Rafter on the other hand, was a work horse, who was in better shape than most the men. Rafter is a guy who, lets face it, had a sub-average serve, very-sub-average forehand, very sub-average backhand, and exceptional volleys. So, how is it that he did so well? He worked extremely hard, played extrememly smart, and made the most out of every aspect of his game! I think if he were not to have injured his shoulder as bad as he did, that he would still be a factor in the game today, even though he is a serve and volleyer, hitting a 115mph first serve. How is this possible? He hits 70% of them in, and hits them in the corners. He almost never makes errors, he plays smart shots, and he works hard on every point. We need more guys like this...
Dunno if you're a local or not, but the environment the Aussie open is played in is _very_ harsh. It's probably the most physically demanding tournament on the whole tour. Personally, I'm astounded most of the men can even last four sets without being stretchered off.
I'm a local... of Chicago
While it is probably not known, chicago summers are usually 90's (lets see thats...35C or so) with 80% or more humidity. While this might not be quite as harsh as you guys get at the Aussi open, it's getting there.
But these people are supposed to be professionals! The best in the world! They should be in such great shape, 3 sets should be no problem.
Hingis simply doesn't have the physical strength to be able to serve like the powerful female players - she's only a tiny little thing.
This is a common, but incorrect assumption. Serve speed has almost nothing to do with strength, and almost everything to do with technique (and flexability).
No tennis playe
You have to remember that there is a difference between being a "big" server, and being a "good" server.
Roddick hits the ball much "bigger", but he had WAY WAY WAY fewer aces. Federrer, who doesn't really serve that hard, was placing his serve really well. Remember also that grass is the hardest surface to return on, and Roddick isn't know for being a good returner.
It's interesting that you would pick those 2 players (Rafter and Hingis).
Rafter wasn't one to stay at the baseline, and he would only participate in long ralleys because he didn't have the ground strokes to end them. He would have to get to net usually, or wait for an error from his opponent. I'm a big Rafter fan (or at least was until his retirement), but usually the people that don't like "the new style of tennis", are not the people that like Rafter's game, interesting.
Now, on to Hingis...
Before I get going let me say a few things that might piss off some people...
Womens tennis sucks. It sucks really really bad. The women pro tennis players, for the majority, are crappy and out of shape.
This year at wimbledon we are seeing the William's sisters in the finals again, and the semi finals were the 1,2,3, and 4 seeds. When was the last time that you saw that happen on the mens side... hmmmm how many years do you have to look back? Has it EVER happened in a slam tournment?
Capriati could lose 20-30 lbs. Her gut sticks as far out as her breasts, if not farther, she has double chin, and she can't even make it through 3 sets of tennis on grass, which is the easiest surfact to play long matches on. 3 sets!! Come on! Go for a jog, watch what you eat! They are supposed to be world class athletes, in a sport that demands extreme fitness to succeed! How can they still be ranked so high if they are in such poor shape? 1) They only play best of 3 sets (and yet want equal pay). 2) There just arn't enough good players out there to force them to do more to improve. It's sad. It's not that the William's sisters are such amazing athletes, it's just that they are good athletes that work very hard, and are in good physical shape.
I will say this, unlike many sports out there (mens tennis included), a "normal" women can become a professional tennis player through hard work. What do I mean? I'll give you an example. If I were to spend every waking hour of my life running, I don't think I would ever be able to become a world class marathon runner. It's just not in my genes. I'm sure you all know (or where) some kid in high school that, no matter how hard he worked, was never going to make the team, they just didn't have it. To be a pro baseball player, it's more than putting in a lot of time in the batter cage, you have to be born with the ability to track the baseball with your eyes, better than almost anyone else on the planet.
Women tennis players, dont' have to worry about any of this.
They don't have to be fast (Davenport, and a bazillion others), they don't have to be big (Henin), they don't have to be strong (Henin), but more importantly, they don't have to have any god given reflexes to return 130 mph serves (or 110 mph kick serves that are curving like crazy).
AND... If Andy Roddick wanted to get ready for his match against Rudsedski (BTW... are there any Brits reading this? Do the people in G.B. realize that Greg Rudsedski is the biggest asshole of all time. And by "asshole" I mean "total classless douchbag", on and off the court? I'm not taking a pot shot, Im just wondering how the British press holds him, and how the fans think of him.)... then Roddick just has to go find a left handed tennis player that can serve mid to upper 140s. Hmmmm. Lets see, there is no one that can do that. Roddick has almost NO way to practice returning that kind of serve.
Now on the womens side... If you are playing Serena or Venus, or Davenport, and you need to practice returning a serve 15-125mph, who can you get to help you? Hmmmm. How about any male tennis player that has played the game for more than a few years. There is no reason that Serena should be blowing players off the court with 115mph serves, when Phillippoussis is serving 125mph SECOND SERVES, and only winning like 60% of the points.
Anyway... back to track.
Higis wasn't that good. The players finally caught up to her. Did you see her last appearance at t
From another post I saw about "Hawk Eye" I am sure that it is the same thing as "Shot Spot", just different names.
On the tennis comment... Someone, at some point, started the "With these new racquets, the game is all power hitters, everyone is hitting aces, the game is boring" There is no basis in fact to back up these claims, it is total nonsense. The racquets today, don't really help the serve that much, the DO help the returner a lot. 30 years ago, the Wilson speed serving contest was won with a wood racquet, and the serve was hit at over 150mph, thats faster than the current ATP Tour record of 149mph (although the ATP Record requires that the serve go in, while the other contest didn't). Sampras played McEnroe in a charity tennis event, where they both played with wood racquets. Sampras was still serving mid to upper 120's just like he does with his regular ProStaff 6.0. For those that say "The game is totally dominated by the big servers!!!!" Of course that is TOTALLY FALSE! Wimbledon is the fastest surface of any tennis court, so of course the servers are going to have the greatest advantage at wimbledon compared with any other tournament. So, was the draw dominated by big servers?? NO, it wasn't at all!! The mens quaterfinals saw Jonas Bjorkman, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Sjeng Schalken, Tim Henman, Sebastien Grosjean, Alexander Popp, and Mark Philippoussis. Only Roddick, Popp, and Phillippoussis could be considered big servers in that group. 3/8 isn't really the domination you would expect. Of the top 10 men in championship race for this year, only 1 could be called a big server, and thats Roddick, who is 7th. Come on.
"Hawk Eye" sounds like the exact same thing as "Shot Spot", it has to be the exact same technology, licensed to different companies (ESPN and BBC) and then named by each of them differently. "while I don't recall a call being overturned *because* of this system" As a matter of the rules of tennis on the ATP and WTA tours, this can simply never happen. Even if Boris Becker (who I believe was doing commentary for the BBC) were to yell down to the umpire the shot sport showed the ball in/out, the umpire can NOT overrule based on this kind of "replay" technology, it can only be used for the purpose of making a better viewing experience for the viewers. "I DO RECALL line judges looking up to the folks in the boxes (who had the benefit of the info provided c/o Hawk-Eye) to affirm that a call was correct or not." I can't say that this *didn't* happen, because I wasn't there to see what you saw in person, but in all the tennis I have ever watched (I played juniors, college, and some pro qualifiers) and all the tennis I have ever watched, TiVo records anything with "Tennis" :), I have never seen an umpire, or a lines person, look up for confirmation on a call.
When a linesman calls a ball out, he/she is suppose to be certain that it was out, and if the ump overrules, it is supposed to only be in cases of a "clear mistake".
If they were to then, after making a call, lookup to someone in one of the boxes to get a confirmation of their call, it would show that they arn't sure of themselves.
Even if they were told by their friends in the boxes were to tell them that they were wrong, there is nothing they could do about it anyway, it would just make them look dumb to be looking for a confirmation of their call, when there is no possible outcome that would warrent them doing so.
Were there people in the boxes giving the linesmen thumbs-up thumbs-down signals or what?
In the end, I think we are probably talking about the same system.