ATP 500 Dubai, Acapulco 2/27 - 3/4 2023

[ti-amie]

Andrey has been stuck for awhile. I was surprised he made the final but knew he had no chance against Medvedev.

[Deuce]

In this, I will contradict myself a bit.
ALL the courts in the world are too slow. A 25 stroke rally is nowadays completely usual. If three out of 4 men in their prime physical shape are cramping and throwing up while playing at night in Acapulco, something has to be done to shorten the points.
---0---
They are showing the Dubai final again. Has Rublev evert played a different point? All points are the same: inside out FH's, again and again. And he can't still make a winner.

To me, it's not the courts that are the problem, it's the racquets and strings, which all but totally eliminate the serve & volley game.
Tame the racquets and strings, and the serve & volley - and more creativity and variety, too - will return - and with that, shorter points will also return.

We must also look at the weather being a factor... Last night in Acapulco was very uncomfortably hot, apparently. Overall, we are experiencing hotter temperatures around the planet than was the case in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. This, combined with players having to work hard on court because the ball is being hit much harder than in the past (due to today's racquets and strings) - and you see players being tired.

Lest we forget that cramping and vomiting on the court is not exclusive to today's tennis... these things existed back 30 and 40 years ago, as well.

[ashkor87]

That was a really good win for Paul...I like him for his willingness to come to the net, though he sort of lumbers up there and isn't really that good at volleying..but atleast he tries...

I actually feel he is good at the net. As you say, he is willing to come in and I have seen him hitting some solid strokes there.
Of course, they are not showing the matches this week so I won't be able to see the final, but I will keep an eye on his volleying skills next time I see him play.

I haven't seen a full match either, featuring Paul, so could be wrong. He was Sock's choice for doubles partner so can't be too shabby at volleying, at least in doubles.

[ashkor87]

In this, I will contradict myself a bit.
ALL the courts in the world are too slow. A 25 stroke rally is nowadays completely usual. If three out of 4 men in their prime physical shape are cramping and throwing up while playing at night in Acapulco, something has to be done to shorten the points.
---0---
They are showing the Dubai final again. Has Rublev evert played a different point? All points are the same: inside out FH's, again and again. And he can't still make a winner.

Totally agree..slow courts are going to kill tennis if this goes on .maybe time to move to the 'first to 4, no ad ' format...having to hit every ball 20 times will cause injuries to all players. Best of 5 sets needs to be scrapped too...I don't want to see players almost collapsing on the court..this isn't a gladiotarial contest in ancient Rome, after all.

[Deuce]

Even with the 'slow' courts, the ball is travelling faster than at any other time in the history of tennis. And that is the reason they are making the courts slower - because, with today's racquets and strings, tennis will become like a video game if the courts are not made slower.

I still say that their mistake is focussing on the courts rather than on the racquets and strings.
We are seeing more net play and more variety and creativity now than we saw 5 or 10 years ago (think Jabeur, Alcaraz, and Cressy, to name but a few)... but they can't make tennis more enjoyable to watch just by slowing down the courts - they have to address the racquets and strings.

[ponchi101]

In this, I will contradict myself a bit.
ALL the courts in the world are too slow. A 25 stroke rally is nowadays completely usual. If three out of 4 men in their prime physical shape are cramping and throwing up while playing at night in Acapulco, something has to be done to shorten the points.
---0---
They are showing the Dubai final again. Has Rublev evert played a different point? All points are the same: inside out FH's, again and again. And he can't still make a winner.

Totally agree..slow courts are going to kill tennis if this goes on .maybe time to move to the 'first to 4, no ad ' format...having to hit every ball 20 times will cause injuries to all players. Best of 5 sets needs to be scrapped too...I don't want to see players almost collapsing on the court..this isn't a gladiotarial contest in ancient Rome, after all.

No, please, never move to "first to 4, no ad". We have seen how insipid those matches at the NEXT GEN exo are.
I have to agree with Deuce. Time to regulate the racquets. Start with limits on the head size. Maximum size: 95 sqin (I would make it smaller, but that would be impossible). And as they do in golf: they have to regulate the strings to limit the power. You cannot have the luxilons or new strings allowing you to be Medvedev and hit a return with enough power still from 8 meters behind the base line.

But it will never happen. It is too late (for example, Alcaraz and Rune would have to relearn their strokes. Cressy would benefit, though).

[ti-amie]

[Deuce]

In this, I will contradict myself a bit.
ALL the courts in the world are too slow. A 25 stroke rally is nowadays completely usual. If three out of 4 men in their prime physical shape are cramping and throwing up while playing at night in Acapulco, something has to be done to shorten the points.
---0---
They are showing the Dubai final again. Has Rublev evert played a different point? All points are the same: inside out FH's, again and again. And he can't still make a winner.

Totally agree..slow courts are going to kill tennis if this goes on .maybe time to move to the 'first to 4, no ad ' format...having to hit every ball 20 times will cause injuries to all players. Best of 5 sets needs to be scrapped too...I don't want to see players almost collapsing on the court..this isn't a gladiotarial contest in ancient Rome, after all.

No, please, never move to "first to 4, no ad". We have seen how insipid those matches at the NEXT GEN exo are.
I have to agree with Deuce. Time to regulate the racquets. Start with limits on the head size. Maximum size: 95 sqin (I would make it smaller, but that would be impossible). And as they do in golf: they have to regulate the strings to limit the power. You cannot have the luxilons or new strings allowing you to be Medvedev and hit a return with enough power still from 8 meters behind the base line.

But it will never happen. It is too late (for example, Alcaraz and Rune would have to relearn their strokes. Cressy would benefit, though).

I would go smaller, too - nothing larger than 90 sq. in.
They should have never allowed it to get to the point it's at now.

[Owendonovan]

Shall we introduce racket size to GOAT debate to skew it some more?

[Deuce]

Shall we introduce racket size to GOAT debate to skew it some more?

Sure - I think that would be appropriate, as eras can't accurately be compared with each other.

[ashkor87]

Shall we introduce racket size to GOAT debate to skew it some more?

he he

[ponchi101]

As one of the oldies here, that did play with the T-2000, Borg Pro and even borrowed my brother's Spalding Pancho Gonzales, I would say it is an interesting point of discussion, but not to the point of changing the quality of the GOAT's.
Examples:
Would Borg had stayed on the tour if he had switched to a more modern racquet at the time?
How many slams did Pete leave on the table because he was too stubborn (he has admitted to this) to change from the Pro Staff 6.0 to a more advanced racquet, and especially, switch to higher tech strings?
Could Rafa hit that forehand with a smaller head size racquet? (I say, no).
Could Novak hit that BH passing shot with a smaller head size racquet (I say, no).
Could Seles hit those two monster sides with a smaller head size (no).

But, if you introduce that subject (and you did, yes you did), then Laver and Gonzales really, really get into the conversation. Roger and Pete could have played with wood, pretty much in the same fashion. Rafa and Novak would be totally different players.

[Deuce]

I'm simply saying that we should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
That is saying that it's impossible to select the greatest player of all time in a sport where the game has changed so much (which is pretty much every sport, usually because of the equipment changes and/or changes in the rules).

So, rather than debating whether Sampras was better than Laver, or whether Federer was better than McEnroe, which is impossible due to the changes in the game, we need to be comparing players only of the same era.
Selecting among Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic... between Sampras and Agassi... between McEnroe and Lendl, etc... But NOT mixing them all together, because the tennis was too different from one era to the next (or the previous).

It might get a little tricky at times, because there is some crossover - players who played in two eras - like Connors, Edberg, and maybe even Federer to a degree.

So maybe a good way to separate the eras would be by looking at the racquets...
There was the wood racquet era, where the game remained pretty much the same for several decades... Then metal racquets began entering in the 1960s, and the game began to change... The 1970s saw the introduction of different materials like fibreglass, graphite, boron, etc... In the 1980s, wood completely disappeared, metals were on their way out, and larger headed racquets (usually 80 to 85 sq. in. at the pro level) became the norm.
The 1990s ushered in even larger headed racquets - 95 to 98 sq. in. - and the dreaded 'widebody' racquets. This is also when the weight of racquets began to drop significantly - the racquets were becoming lighter and stiffer.
Many players still play with that size racquet (95 to 98 sq. in), but others have moved up to the 100 to 105 sq. in. size. through to today.
There were a few exceptions, of course, like Agassi's and Shriver's oversized frames in the '80s and '90s (about 107 sq. in.).

And then there are the changes in strings, which has also significantly affected the way that the game is played.

And so, I think that discussions about the 'GOAT' should be done by era - or, by extension, by racquet size... which is also to say that it should be done by how the game was played at given times, as the differences are too great to compare directly to each other.

(Should this discussion be moved to the 'GOAT thread?)