Today's players finish their points from way back
Aren't basically all athletes hugely better than previous generations as well though? Advances in things like nutritional and sport sciences mean it can't just be the racket tech, surely?
Not hugely better, no. Marginally better, yes.
The racquet technology impact in tennis has been enormous, with the largest difference being size and weight. Traditional wood tennis racquets maxed out at around 65 sq in of string area but weighed up to 400 grams (mixed units, I know). A modern graphite tennis racquet can achieve 100 sq in of string area while decreasing the weight to 300 grams!
Lighter weights allow a player to generate a lot more racquet acceleration without killing their wrist. At the same time, the larger string area gives a lot more margin for error when striking the ball. Players in turn responded by changing their swing planes to a higher vertical angle, coming up over the back of the ball to generate a lot of topspin (and string technology helps with this too). The topspin further increases margin for error by making the ball dive down into the court instead of sailing long (see Magnus effect).
All of this has combined to allow tennis players to hit the ball far harder than they had in the past, with the increase far exceeding what you’d expect from physical training alone. Give modern players a traditional wood racquet and they’ll spray the ball all over the place, making huge numbers of errors, until they force themselves to not swing so hard.
Oh to be clear, the "hugely better" aspect I was referring to is the one observable across basically all sports at the top level (not specifically just tennis), particularly the last 40-50 years or so. One easy to observe side effect is how most world records have been set in the past couple of decades, I think the oldest standing one is from the mid-80s.
Though thanks for the extra context around the racquet, it does seem like it's likely the main factor.
Yes, like the racquet technology isn’t going to help Joe Sixpack weekend warrior. It takes all that training to be able to fully utilize the technology. The racquet size increase has led to so much more consistency with striking the ball that rallies last way longer now. Longer rallies require way more conditioning to survive!
most world records have been set in the past couple of decades
Afaik this was true a few decades ago too
yeah it's probably both, and also could be cultural like strategy and technique evolving
And many people who are elite athletes today have been training hard in their sport since they were young children
Ya there are several things that go into this change. Shoes tech, grass type, how short was the grass cut, style of play has changed. If day racket tech is the biggest factor but it's imagine there's more that goes into it.
Looks like 1970 would've been more interesting to watch.
That was my first thought ... would be interesting to see what current day athletes could do with old wooden rackets, was my second
1970 = Mario Tennis
Which is a lot more interesting than baseline-to-baseline tennis.
Yeah. Lots of sports regulate what kind of equipment is allowed. Maybe professional tennis should impose restrictions on rackets to encourage more varied play.
Is it the racket , the ball or playing style that changed?
Yes
Exactly. The baseline game has become the dominant form (which imo is rather unfortunate and makes it much more one-dimensional)
Or the grass is more resilient
Playing style changed to keep up with faster shots.
For a while I thought racket technology was something used to improve grass resilience, then I understood.
I have read multiple comment threads on here and I still don’t get it… they used to hit the ball in the middle of the field now they are edging the court?
Yes, probably because the new rackets allow faster balls, so it has become too difficult to try to surprise the opponent with a short return at the net.
I never knew tennis was played on grass anywhere, let alone an actual stadium. Is this normal?
Of the four big tournaments, Wimbledon is the only one on grass. The French open is played on clay. The US and Australian Open are played on your typical hard court.
I see, is there a big learning curve or difference when it comes to playing on grass vs a hard court? Like if a professional athlete has a tournament at Wimbledon, and they've only ever played on hard courts, would they be at a significant disadvantage to someone who played on grass? Or is it likely that both players will either have no experience with grass, or decent training in both?
Yes some players play better on a specific surface. Like Nadal was a clay expert, since he is from Spain and Spain doesn't have many grass courts, most outdoor courts there are clay courts. He has won 14 French Open titles while only 2 Wimbledon titles.
Though to be fair grass courts are rare everywhere since they are expensive to maintain but they are even rarer in warm and dry countries like Spain
Are most outdoor courts clay courts? Or just the ones at a high enough level? It seems to me like hard courts are probably cheaper and require little to no maintenance. I would assume that the majority of courts are probably the low-maintenance variety.
There are differences that lead to advantages. If I remember correctly then Nadal was especially good in Paris while Murray was good in Wimbledon.
No, tennis players are never normal
never normal
So it's normal, then?
General Knowledge wants to have a word with you
Everyone generally knows about tennis courts?
Learn something new every day.
Tell him to shove it, I already talked to Captain Obvious.
But General Knowledge outranks Captain Obvious.
Tennis apparently used to be grass everywhere, but when tennis players in southern France tried to maintain grass courts the climate made it too difficult. So, instead they switched to clay.
What's interesting to me is the length of the grass. Apparently Wimbledon grass is 8mm long, whereas the Premier League uses grass that's up to 30mm long, but typically 20-22mm.
I would guess short grass probably plays similarly to clay and "hard surface". It would be interesting to see tennis on long grass.
Racket, racket is a war.
It takes a child to raze a village.
The grass is in on the racket, it's all the kickbacks that makes it grow better.
Become pong.
You sure court isn't different?
Have you ever seen Nadal’s arm? Dude can serve from a different stadium.
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.