posted Jun 17, 2008

It's a shame no-one's contributed on this, I agree about the evolution of both the ATP and WTA games and where they're at.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

It makes me wonder what will happen next, and that has got to be good for the game
----------------------------------

Well they've played with the raquets, balls court surfaces and are driven by big money TV and sponsorships.

I just hope they dont start altering the game any more sets/ad rule/champions tie break etc - not all "developments" are good.

I wouldnt mind a period of no change for a while.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

you often find on this forum that when some one writes a good factual article that everyone probably agrees with, that no one bothers to discuss it. If you write something completely unsubstantiated and incorrect you get 5 million replies and a few declarations of war.

This article must be a good one

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

I read recently on one of the BBC's websites that they might be planning to make the balls bigger to slow them down and make tennis better to watch. Anyone know any more about this? What do you think?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

Adaptation / evolution can occur in one of 2 directions - either we adapt the environment (change racquet technology, balls, make grass slower and more consistent, rules, schedule) or adapt the person (change movement, technique, improve fitness, physical strength, mental, emotional). And these two interact and are interdependent of each other. Eg. slower balls = more difficult to hit winners from the base line and from the serve = comeback of serve volley = more smaller players with better endurance and movement.

In this sense, we are either going to see changes that emanate from the guys controlling the rules of the sport or from the players.

One of the issues today is that player adaptation is pushing the limits of human endurance - this is especially noticeable in the women's game where they are trying to emulate the training programs of men. But they don't have the same physiology as men. So you see women have a short burst of success followed by injury from the heavy training and playing regime. So it is difficult for one person to stay on top for long. In the men's game we see the players complaining about the schedule - too many matches, too close together, too many sets...

As duggieto points out the game is driven by Television dollars. The rulers of the game adapt the rules of the game to maintain or increase television revenue. So when people complained that serve volley at Wimbledon was boring they slowed the game down.

The other thing is that tennis is competing with other spectator sports. So what is happening in those sports that might make them more attractive to watch than tennis and why? Take cricket for example - another hand eye co-ordination ball sport. The short game is taking over. First we had 5 day tests, then one day, now 20/20. Why? On one side people have less time in busy lives, they are also used to constant stimulation and change. On the other side, a short game is more spectacular and exciting, bigger risks, harder hitting etc. The format is more appealing.

So what might cause the rulers of the game to change the rules in a way that helps both the players and the TV sales/ popularity vs. the competition? Or if the rulers won't change - as in cricket - will some new party emerge with a more attractive format - shorter and more exciting - more rewarding financially to the players - and easier on their bodies.

How is it possible to repackage the game of tennis to remove the boring bits and increase the exciting bits? To attract new fans without loosing existing fans? Too many aces - boring. Too many long base line rallies boring. Too many short points off predictable set moves - boring. To much ball bouncing etc. between points (Nadal and Djokovic) - boring. The powers that control the game will be forced to innovate because of competition - but expect this innovation to appear experimentally at single tournaments to test the waters rather than sudden across the board chnage e.g.. slower balls and and best of one set, sets that go to 4 instead of 6, sudden death deuce etc.

Maybe part of the solution lies in interactivity - wire the guys up to the internet so we spectators can use Wii type controllers and software and play against them is "real time" at home. It's apparently happening in Formula one. Now that would be cool. I am sure I could beat Federer if it wasn't for my knee!! Someone is going to make money out of this one. Anyone got any seed capital?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

slow down tennis some more? hmmm
we might as well watch turtles race

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2008

Agree - the surfaces are converging enough as it is. Might as well hardcourt everything.

The game needs differing conditions, or else its like the golfers playing the same course for each major.

I think we need to speed up grass to encourage more S&V aggressive play. Slugging away at the back of the court is not interesting ultimately - it doesnt create great rivalries.

add comment | complain about this comment