Is Surface Speed Homogenisation Hindering Excitement in Tennis? - Stats Analysis

Homogenisation

Surface speed is very important, but the strings and balls even more.

I played a woman in my club today, she brought a few Babolat Gold balls (not to be mixed with Babolat Team & Babolat Academy or stg, forgot their name, some of our coaches use them), and I had the new Slazenger balls (this year's official Wimbledon ones).
I was amazed at the difference: her Babolat balls were quite smaller and very low-bouncing.
My Slazenger monsters fluffed up easily, were bigger and bounced high.
The difference in playing points with them was huge. The high bouncing balls gave you so much more time, whereas the Babolat ones really kept you on your toes, but I enjoyed those much more.

As for strings, that's another enormous world of difference in which I don't have a lot of personal experience with as I played with a wooden racquet only a few times a while ago and am yet to try a graphite old Prince one a friend who stopped playing left me as a heritage and treasure,  but have tried several modern ones and even they vary a lot: amazingly light with huge heads, when pros whack them with their full swing,  it must feel like playing badminton to them!

I didn't include balls and rackets in the article for this reason:

-if between 1970-2013 let's say, at any specific year the same balls and rackets were being used- then how can this explain homogenisation of results
-for me surface speed which varies from slam to slam, is much more likely reason for both divergence and homogenisation

It's hindering diversity in the game, hindering fans who want to see ability trump physique, and hindering players who should be winning at the expense of less ability players... like Nadal and Murray.  Baseline retrieving has a home already... clay.  And that's where it should remain.

Julia Santamaria wrote:I didn't include balls and rackets in the article for this reason:

-if between 1970-2013 let's say, at any specific year the same balls and rackets were being used- then how can this explain homogenisation of results
-for me surface speed which varies from slam to slam, is much more likely reason for both divergence and homogenisation

I don't think you can analyse homogenisation backwards -based on results, you need to see how tennis was played.
Just because Borg was winning both Wimbledon and RG back to back does not mean playing conditions were homogenised.

,

it was the contrast between Federer and Nadal which captured the imagination of the public

No it wasn't...it was essentially Federer doing all the hard work, for the first few years most encounters between those 2 were on clay, yet tennis was very popular with Fed's genius all year round.

They have slowed everything down so that the other slams could have a chance of Fed/Nadal matches too.

Nadal's game was never going to be exciting for tennis fan...it's a 0% risk game.. What's th efun in that? It's like saying bankers lending money is exciting!

Tenez wrote:,

it was the contrast between Federer and Nadal which captured the imagination of the public

No it wasn't...it was essentially Federer doing all the hard work, for the first few years most encounters between those 2 were on clay, yet tennis was very popular with Fed's genius all year round.

They have slowed everything down so that the other slams could have a chance of Fed/Nadal matches too.

Nadal's game was never going to be exciting for tennis fan...it's a 0% risk game.. What's th efun in that? It's like saying bankers lending money is exciting!

I know you and many others argue that Fedal was good for popularity of tennis, but I still think that when all is said and done, the damage to tennis that came as a cost of that indeed great popularity was not worth it in the end.
These days media have such unbelievable brainwashing and convincing power, I am sure they could have created another matchup without the need to slow things down.

Look at the consequences: Nadal has a real chance of overtaking Fed's slam count.
How grotesque and ridiculous is that...

Not to mention the state tennis has got to: fitness freaks able to ping-pong forever with the "great" future of lumbersome giants blowing them off the court...cos-mic!

It's a shame that people see this as just another attempt to have a narrow minded argument about Nadal... don't we have enough of those already on this forum?

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think you can analyse homogenisation backwards -based on results, you need to see how tennis was played.
Just because Borg was winning both Wimbledon and RG back to back does not mean playing conditions were homogenised.

Fair point, and I did mention this in my article; the fact the players don't change their style is what shows my case more than anything.

What I would say though... is that I don't want to see US, AO, Wimby all turn fast and have homogenisation between those 3 either.
For a real mix I think we should have 2 slams playing one way, and 2 slams playing another way.
I don't even mind if that's a fast blue clay for French Open, and very slow grass for Wimbledon... that is variety still

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think you can analyse homogenisation backwards -based on results, you need to see how tennis was played.
Just because Borg was winning both Wimbledon and RG back to back does not mean playing conditions were homogenised.

Fair point, and I did mention this in my article; the fact the players don't change their style is what shows my case more than anything.

Borg did have to change his style to win Wimbledon.
Nadal didn't.

Julia Santamaria wrote:What I would say though... is that I don't want to see US, AO, Wimby all turn fast and have homogenisation between those 3 either.
For a real mix I think we should have 2 slams playing one way, and 2 slams playing another way.
I don't even mind if that's a fast blue clay for French Open, and very slow grass for Wimbledon... that is variety still

How can you say something like this...
Seriously, spend some time watching tennis played in the 80s on ALL surfaces.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think you can analyse homogenisation backwards -based on results, you need to see how tennis was played.
Just because Borg was winning both Wimbledon and RG back to back does not mean playing conditions were homogenised.

Fair point, and I did mention this in my article; the fact the players don't change their style is what shows my case more than anything.

Borg did have to change his style to win Wimbledon.
Nadal didn't.

That's what I'm trying to say   

The way you put it was like you were countering my point, it's almost as if even if you do agree with me you can't bear it.

Julia Santamaria wrote:The way you put it was like you were countering my point, it's almost as if even if you do agree with me you can't bear it.

What exactly is your point?

Reasonable article, agree with the overall take as well as conclusions. It also shows that when all is said and done, you know that your usual forum positions are not entirely evenhanded.

I once did a very similar summary, except I was only comparing QF vs QF, with no extra points for further rounds. Was trying to find my original post, but could not.

I try to be logical and fair to all players, irrelevant of whether I support them.

Julia Santamaria wrote:I try to be logical and fair to all players, irrelevant of whether I support them.

You mean in your journalist role, but not quite so on tennis forums, correct?

No, not at all, my statement applies to both situations.

Unlike popular belief I do not argue for the sake of it, but when I either disagree with something, or (and I feel more strongly about this) when something is logically inconsistent.

I'm not sure if you've read this thread: https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t485-am-i-missing-something-or-is-nitb-s-and-some-others-on-otf-stance-on-djokovic-hypocritical
It's an example of the latter, and I would feel this way even if I was a Federer fan.