How tennis changed!

Watching those clips it's obvious to see how tennis changed in that 10 year period.

and  

Agassi hardly runs plays so close to the line, Federer does quite a bit of retrieving.

But one change is so obvious can you pin-point it?

Does this not mean that Agassi was very talented? You have said otherwise before tenez.

For some reason youtube clips don't "show" on my Ipad, you just see a blank space but when you click on it you get the sound only.
So, I did that and it was very interesting to just listen to tennis. Even by just listening, after watching the clips on the desktop now, the same thing stood out: how fast tennis was then, how quick the time between each shot.
When I watched it, it was confirmed by a quicker surface in the first clip, as well, but mainly Nadal's ball trajectory due to spin and the time it travels from where he is behind the baseline.
I enjoyed guessing who was hitting the ball just by the sound of it, too.

Btw, I love this kind of OPs, every pair of eyes sees something different and it's great to compare eras/players/styles this way rather than just dig impressions from mind which often look rosier than they actually were at the time.

luvsports! wrote:Does this not mean that Agassi was very talented? You have said otherwise before tenez.

I do not remember saying this of Agassi. I remember saying I did not believe he was mentally strong (well relatively to his generation) but I always recognised "some" talent.

The striking difference in my view is a result of the spin. We knew that but if you look at pre-2005/6 matches, balls rarely crosses the sidelines or tramelines before reaching the baseline. Whereas with the current game the aim is not so much to hit hard but aim for sharp cross court shots with the ball crossing the tramelines well before reaching the baseline.

This of course can only be done with a better use of the synth strings and therefore forces the player to do twice as much running as pre 2005.

This is very simply why the game is now so much more physical than it once was...especially since those spiny cross courts are not winners but balls which can be retrieved.

If you look at Agassi, he hardly bothers run for balls which are 2m away from him. he'd rather let it go that spend energy retrieving it. That's the way tennis was played then. Running was not the deciding factor. Well Chang tried to make an impression by retrieving balls but was quickly overwhelmed by the serve volleyers.

Now we have plenty of successful changs everywhere.

Tenez wrote:The striking difference in my view is a result of the spin. We knew that but if you look at pre-2005/6 matches, balls rarely crosses the sidelines or tramelines before reaching the baseline. Whereas with the current game the aim is not so much to hit hard but aim for sharp cross court shots with the ball crossing the tramelines well before reaching the baseline.

This is very simply why the game is now so much more physical than it once was...especially since those spiny cross courts are not winners but balls which can be retrieved.

I think it's also worth mentioning that CC shots, even the angled ones are a lot less risk-free than DTL and inside out ones.
You rarely see players go for those now.
So much safer hitting 3-5 CC shots to open up the court and hit a "winner". Nadal is a master of it, he doesn't even bother going for the lines, the powerspin does the work for him in the long run instead.

Modern strings look good in the hands of talented players but are at the same time death in the hands of those who rely on physical dominance.

Tenez wrote:The striking difference in my view is a result of the spin. We knew that but if you look at pre-2005/6 matches, balls rarely crosses the sidelines or tramelines before reaching the baseline. Whereas with the current game the aim is not so much to hit hard but aim for sharp cross court shots with the ball crossing the tramelines well before reaching the baseline.

This is very simply why the game is now so much more physical than it once was...especially since those spiny cross courts are not winners but balls which can be retrieved.  

Yes, even the classic, modern baseliner like Agassi was barely outside the court.

I heard commentators mention how Nadal loves Chatrier because it has more space to run around.
When I was there this spring I realised how true it is and how much it helps him to execute his FH.

He had no problem covering the ground with almost elegant speed and always be in perfect balance.
It requires a physical monster to put him away on that court, no wonder he has been so dominant there.

I just hope tennis courts now don't start following that pattern, it is so weird to play behind the baseline.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Does this not mean that Agassi was very talented? You have said otherwise before tenez.

I do not remember saying this of Agassi. I remember saying I did not believe he was mentally strong (well relatively to his generation) but I always recognised "some" talent.

Through a PM i remember you said that he wasn't THAT talented despite winning all 4 slams during the 90's as a baseliner.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Does this not mean that Agassi was very talented? You have said otherwise before tenez.

I do not remember saying this of Agassi. I remember saying I did not believe he was mentally strong (well relatively to his generation) but I always recognised "some" talent.

Through a PM i remember you said that he wasn't THAT talented despite winning all 4 slams during the 90's as a baseliner.

He is one of the more talented player but I think Rios, Medvedev, Federer where clearly more talented.

For me Agassi was a Boletieri prototype, and Bolletieri kills talent in his academy.
It's just a glorified factory.

noleisthebest wrote:Modern strings look good in the hands of talented players but are at the same time death in the hands of those who rely on physical dominance.

very true.

noleisthebest wrote:For me Agassi was a Boletieri prototype, and Bolletieri kills talent in his academy.
It's just a glorified factory.

Bolitieri won't help you take the ball that early. Only th every talented ones can do it.

And Djoko is also a pure Bolitieri product, like many Balkans players (including Cilic). I have said that all along. Djoko and Cilic are simply modern version and Cilic being imo a more agressive version.

yes, I know that...you're so funny, T!
For me, Nole is a lot more than a tennis player, but I think you've known that all along, anyway.
And yes, you can humour me as much as you like about it! Tennis needs Federer, 5 million FB middle-aged women need Rafa, and Serbia needs Nole.

I am curious to see if any talent comes out of Mac's NY tennis academy, though.

Nishi is also a Boletieri pupil with lot of potential, but he doesn't carry the game inside him, still, love watching him for light feet and those quick hands, and under Chang he is definitely playing better tennis, attacking more.

Dolgo, on the other hand has too much game and not enough discipline.

So much variety enhanced with modern strings.

But the real problem are the muscles, aren't they?

noleisthebest wrote:Nishi is also a Boletieri pupil with lot of potential, but he doesn't carry the game inside him, still, love watching him for light feet and those quick hands, and under Chang he is definitely playing better tennis, attacking more.

Dolgo, on the other hand has too much game and not enough discipline.

So much variety enhanced with modern strings.

But the real problem are the muscles, aren't they?

Yes mouvement is important but not many move with grace.

That's the good part about modern strings. They allow for more variation. I wish they were changing the dimension of the court to go with it.....or simply change the balls.