What happened to the serve in all those years? Serve was a big weapon in the 70s with players like Tanner able to reach a Wimbledon final and win the AO essentially thanks to a great serve. In the 80s the serve became an even bigger weapon with the larger graphite racquets Becker and Edberg following on McEnroe's steps raised the bar in Serve and volleying. By the early 90s it became by far the most important shot to win on the non clay tournaments. Serve speed was constantanly raising on average and combined with accuracy allowed Wimbledon and the USO to be almost entirely dominated by big servers, best represented by the Sampras/Goran/Kraji, Rafter years.
Now players are bigger, hit harder and have a more powerful technology.....yet the increase in serve speed is hardly significant and no one gets to a slam final thanks to his serve, let alone win it. Why?
Well the first reason is obvious: The balls are simply significantly bigger than they used to. This has contributed to keep the pace down. Not so much at the point of impact but very quickly after. Nowadays, serves speeds are measured pretty early after the racquet swing. I am not sure how early but that is what is being said. At Pete’s time, speed serve was either measured at the net or maybe an average of a longer distance: serve to net, serve to bounce and I also remember that the speed would have been measured identically whether served on the T or wide which seriously affected the accuracy of the pace recorded. The bigger balls have a huge impact on the pace at the baseline and beyond. That really explains (with the string technology which I will talk about later) why big servers have little success nowadays while not so long ago in the US circuit up to 2006 guys like Roddick, Johansson, Gilles Muller Ancic were really feared by all.
In that famous HE analysis ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw ) we can see the balls roughly going at the same speed but after the bounce speed drops considerably. Why? They say, it’s the surface but I disagree (bar the fact it could have caught a more or less dry patch). There are 3 reasons all linked to the bigger ball size: a) the surface of impact is slightly increased (increased friction especially as the ball skids as well) b) the higher bounce also due to bigger balls (linked to a) as well) c) most importantly air friction decelerating the ball considerably after the bounce. Take a birthday balloon, tap it and you will see how quickly it moves the first few inches and how quickly it slows down thereafter. 43mph at the baseline instead of 52 is a big difference. About a 20% drop of pace, hence no chance for a heavy topspinner to time a ball accurately while keeping some precision on their shots. The clay specialists then actually often did not bother turning up on grass.
I mentioned the strings earlier which also have played a great role in killing chances for SVers. Essentially what they do is to emphasise the characteristics of the bigger balls. By allowing considerably more spin, they increase bounces height (therefore loss of pace in rally exchanges) and of course increase the air friction contributing to more deceleration towards the baseline. In the past the natural strings did not bite on the ball and a top spin would lose considerable pace as opposed to flat hitting. But how did that affect the server? Well those new strings allow for spin and pace (unlike natural gut) and that give servers more security and control over their serve allowing them to increase their first serve percentage at the minimum loss of pace. But in turn it slows the ball down considerably towards the baseline allowing the returner to whack the ball back. Especially dipping in the feet making a volley difficult and risky.
When watching someone like Raonic on a faster surface or even Isner beating Federer on clay or Djokovic on HC, we realise how dominant those big servers like Karlo would be if conds were back to the 90s. In fact they would simply be unstoppable. I am convinced they would be close to unbreakable. I am hoping however some balance can be found in particular at Wimbledon and the USO.
The serve - What happened?
posted on 27/5/12
Tenez wrote:
The balls used are actually type 2 balls
---------------
Interesting, I was somehow assuming they were type 3 though come to think of it do not know why. Are there any big tournaments that use type 3 balls, do you know?
posted on 27/5/12
Apparently no slam is using type 3 balls but like you I thought they did. However type 2 or 3 is quite irrelevant cause we never knew how big or smalls were before they introduce those types in early 2000.
An official ball was between a size range and type 2 is also a size range with huge differences when considering one extreme of the range to the other even if the range is quite narrow.
I remember in the recent past we used USO Wilsons (2001-2007) at our club and they had this tendency to get through the fence after a good serve or good FH. while the SLazengers used at Wimbleodon never pierced through the fence. Nowadays the USO balls are roughly the same size as the Slaz and never leave the court even worn out. There are been a clear increase in size for the Wilsons.
I find it interesting that the ball manufacturers are all hiding information about dimensions of their balls but have no problem mentioning the weight in most cases. Weird really.
posted on 27/5/12
Can't somebody just get one and measure it?
posted on 28/5/12
but for me the best balance between fast pace of the Wimbledon 90s are todays are actually USO 90s
------------
same here, I thought back then USO played just nice. In the late 90s it was the only major I really enjoyed watching.
posted on 28/5/12
Tenez wrote:
It's easier for the crowd at large to appreciate the effort of bringing what woudl be a winner's ball back than the more subtile work
-------------------
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste? Why would, or even should, an organizer come and say that no they do not like defensive tennis putting premium on athletic abilities, so they will set up their tournament to be attacker-friendly even if that is not what the public wants?
I may not be too thrilled that tennis has slowed down but who am I to want to override what other people enjoy?
posted on 28/5/12
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste?
=========================
That applies for everything: food, art, musique, etc.... It's about meeting in the middle between "educated" and "undecuated" tastes. I don;t mean to appear a snob but there is room for McDonalds and Sushis, for Madonna and Rossini. We shoudl not push down people's throat just one version of something.
I was a Borg fan and my favourite food when I was 4 was a salami sandwish with a coke. Thanks to Borg I loved tennis and since playing I know what it takes to play like Nadal or play like Federer.
Today in tennis we have double cheese big Macs but no osso bucco! Or let's put it this way when you have the finest chief in the world being snubbed by the masses preferring Subway, you know there is something wrong!
posted on 28/5/12
Tenez,
masses have always ruled and that is not about to change any time soon.
There but by the grace of God go I
posted on 28/5/12
masses have always ruled and that is not about to change any time soon.
-------------------------
Really? I don't think that's the feeling they have!
posted on 28/5/12
@
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said this many times. Most of those people do not know tennis nor care about it. They like to see the drama which a tennis match at times can produce. For them watching a tennis match or going for a movie is no different. They can easily appreciate the brute power, speed and a gruesome game which leaves bothe players exhausted. Thats where the maximum drama lies. The crowd has always been sympathetic to wards the "defender" who is the underdog. And there is nothing like when after a 25 shot rally, the defender soaks up everything that the attacking player offered and then wins the point. High drama.
Such people don't care about sports. And they are always going to be the masses. Justin Beiber is definitely more appreciated and known than Mozart. But is Beiber or his music anyway near to Mozart?
posted on 28/5/12
The crowd has always been sympathetic to wards the "defender" who is the underdog.
----------------------------------------
I am actually not so sure about it. In fact people like Rafa cause he is the one you woudl naturally warm up to if yuo had no clue about tennis. Younger, energetic, emotional on the court, "tamed macho" image (pretty sure what turns women on) and so on.
But...but ...I have noticed funnily that the crowd often ends up during a tight match v Nadal supporting the opponent, the risk taker, the more artistic player. That was most obvious in Dubai or Daho when Nadal was facing Davydenko, or even in Rome a few years back. The crowd starts to understand what's going on and though they still want Nadal to win, they are much more split as the match goes on. In DOha you had teh whole crowd cheering for Davydenko at the end cause they coudl see he was the one making the game.
But sure once the match is over they don;t quite realise why they supported the opponent to Nadal, the underdog.
Having said that the same can happen if an attacking player simply blasts the opponent off court but then they see more ball coming back and can start supporting the defending player.
Crowds are complex to analyse actually.