This is Tennis today:

[Cro Morgan]

Best graphic i ve seen to the subject:

TENNIS TODAY:

I watched Sampras/McEnroe/Edberg, etc. play in their prime. I prefer to watch Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, etc. I found the serve and volley game very boring.

To each his own, I suppose.

[Martan]

serve and volley is boring? Are you kidding? S&V is the best tactic for watch ever Djokovič, Murray, Nadal... these are boring guys!

[djarvik]

Everyone is entitled to his wrong opinion.

[Cro Morgan]

Everyone is entitled to his wrong opinion.

I dunno, to me S&V seemed like cheating. It's like "hey!, what the hell are you doing? stay on the baseline where you belong."

I'm serious.

[ICEMAN_9588]

Well,I also like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. They can have incredible rallies.
What I don't like is watching every single f***ing point played in the same way, using the same shots, all...the...time.

So when you're watching Djokovic-Nadal in the AO final, you cannot leave your seat, cause you wanna know how it's gonna end, you wanna know who's gonna win.
Cause you're attending a very, very, very intense match.

Intense, not beautiful. Which means that matches between these guys, NEED to be very intense, and balanced, to captivate us.
If these conditions suddenly disappears, you risk to get bored.

Now, Djokovic-Nadal had these conditions, Djokovic-Murray didn't.
And they're just an example, the best example, of modern tennis. If I mention a match like Monaco-Simon, well....wake me up when the chair umpire says "Game, Set and Match Monaco" (just cause I hate Simon).

[ICEMAN_9588]

Everyone is entitled to his wrong opinion.

I dunno, to me S&V seemed like cheating. It's like "hey!, what the hell are you doing? stay on the baseline where you belong."

I'm serious.

Ok, you realized that we're talking about real tennis, and not about Top Spin 4?


No I'm joking, but seriously, I didn't understand very good what you wanted to say.

[Cro Morgan]

What I don't like is watching every single f***ing point played in the same way, using the same shots, all...the...time

S&V is the exact same!!

Serve. Run to Net. Win point or lose point.
Serve. Run to Net. Win point or lose point.
Serve. Run to Net. Win point or lose point.
Serve. Run to Net. Win point or lose point.

I don't see the difference. If baseline bashers are boring, then so is S&V.

I will concede, a more all-around game would be ideal (and more entertaining). Bashing the ball from the baseline not with the intent of winning a point, but with the intent of finding an opening (to move to net). I can wrap my arms around that.

[ICEMAN_9588]

But S&V are nicer to watch in my opinion.

Also to me, all-around playing is the best deal, but if I have to choose between S&V and baseline, I prefer S&V.

[djarvik]

Personally, I prefer the clashes of styles then any combination of same style match-ups.

[ICEMAN_9588]

Personally, I prefer the clashes of styles then any combination of same style match-ups.

Of course, I completely agree on this.
That's why Federer-Nadal rivalry seems to be still more fascinating that Djokovic-Murray rivalry, at the moment.

[Saarbrigga]

I watched Sampras/McEnroe/Edberg, etc. play in their prime. I prefer to watch Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, etc. I found the serve and volley game very boring.

To each his own, I suppose.

Before 2002:

AUS Open: Baseliner (Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov) won there, but also S&V players (Sampras, Becker, Edberg)
ROLAND GARROS: Ground stroke heaven, no S&V
WIMBLEDON: S&V heaven, almost 0 baseline playing
US Open: similar to AUS Open just a bit more S&V (Rafter, Edberg) but also baseliner (Agassi, Courier).

In those days anyone found his own.

Today:

AUS Open: Baseline players
ROLAND GARROS: Baseline players
WIMBLEDON: 90% Baseline players
US Open: same as WImby


For example 1991:

FRENCH OPEN: Jim Courier def Michael Stich 6-2 6-7 6-2 6-4
WIMBLEDON (4 weeks later): Stich defeats Courier 6-3 7-6 6-2

C what i mean?

[ICEMAN_9588]

We must say also that today it's becoming harder and harder to create a big surprise in a Slam.
It's very difficult to see one of the Big 4 eliminated before QF.

[Corbon]

20-25 years ago we watched Becker and Edberg in their prime playing S&V and it was boring. Now we watch Djokovic and Murray in their prime and it's boring. If everyone would go back to S&V, we would get sick of it after a couple of years as well. Go watch some Ivanisevic "highlights" if you don't believe me. Successful all court players like Becker, Sampras and Federer are a rare species.

[coke4]

mean, Federer and Murray are all-rounders, cause when they came to the net, they can play good volleys.Nadal and Djokovic don't.

While I agree that Murray is better at the net than Djokovic, I think its hard to call Murray an all rounder and djokovic not when in the Aussie Open final Djokovic came to the net 41 times, Murray 15

[ICEMAN_9588]

But these are just statistics of one match.
In Wimbledon SF Federer came to the net only 25 times, and Djokovic 22. What does it mean?

I think it depends also on who you're facing at the moment.
Obviously if Federer is facing Djokovic, he will come to the net with more caution than against, who knows, Tsonga (in fact, in Australian Open QF he came to the net 58 times, 41 in the first 4 sets).

But apart from this, I think that Murray is an all-around player in general, not considering the way he normally plays, even if since Lendl is coaching him, he started to play a little more "all-around" again.