Tennis vs technology, a cautionary tale?

[Tony_Muldoon]

The normally reliable John Huggan writes of the proposed changes to the PGA schedule and decides that they amount to a surrender.  His point is a familiar one here that the real issue that needs addressing is technology.  

He then refers to the following

“..the demise of tennis as a participation/spectator sport in the US. As bigger racquets and hi-tech materials removed entertaining 'feel' players, such as John McEnroe and Ilie Nastase, from the upper echelons, tennis became more and more a power game dominated by big-serving behemoths. And not surprisingly, the public rejected that tedium. From a peak of 34 million in 1975, it is estimated that only 13 million Americans play tennis and only rarely does it make it onto network TV.”

This is often trotted out here as a warning but I’ve never seen it fully explored.  He certainly puts it in stark terms.

Is this too simplistic, are there factors other than technology that might explain the collapse of tennis?  The new rackets do make it easier for the beginner and extend the age group who can successfully play in both directions.  

Can we directly compare the drive/wedge/putt game to it?

http://sport.scotsman.com/golf.cfm?id=2234162005

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tony,

I play tennis occasionally and from my perspective the new technology certainly has not made the sport more attractive to me, so in that regard maybe the argument that new technology attracts players and makes it more enjoyable is not neccesarily true, it may have made it a little more easy to play but it did not make me play more.  I think it boils down to the qualities of the sports and I think golf has many more appealing qualities as compared to tennis so I don't think technology is going to cause golf to take a nosedive like tennis.  I think there will come a time and maybe we are approaching it when those kids coming up in golf will have no idea what some of us who grew up with persimmon are talking about.  The inherent qualities that make golf so good will still be there but the way the game is played will certainly be different but these kids will still be attracted by the great qualities of the game.  The advances of technology in relation to the diminishment of golf has been the mantra of many for nearly a century and yet the game is still just as wonderful for me today as it ever was.  I can not imagine golf not being one of the great sports of all time and continuing to attract new generations of players for centuries to come.

[A.G._Crockett]

The technology analogy for the two sports ignores/oversimplifies several things, IMO.  While the current style of play is clearly less attractive to spectators than in the past, it is only one problem that tennis faces.  Among the others:

1. The totally unidentifiable season in tennis.  Other than the Grand Slam events, nobody has any idea what is going on in tennis, and what the significance of individual events is.  Who is the leading money winner?  Where are they playing next week?

2. The decline of appealing "personalities".  Beginning with Conners and McEnroe, there has been a gradual but continual decline in dress and manners of tennis players, with Sampras as a notable exception.  The adult demographic is off-put by guys wearing tee-shirts with the tail out, backwards baseball caps, and baggy pants; I can see that at the mall or a skatepark if I am so inclined.  Guys like Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, et. al., were John Wayne-types; these guys aren't.

3. The demographic problems of the baby boom.  The tennis boom was the baby boomers, and they/we don't play nearly as much any more.  As we have played less, we watch less as well.  (This is another part of the equation that may already be showing up in golf.)

I should add, as a former tennis player, that I don't see the current game as a "power" game in the traditional sense.  There are relatively few serve-and-volley types out there now.  The game seems to me to be huge topspin ground strokes hit as hard as possible, and it just isn't much fun to watch.  I do think that devolution of style has a lot to do with equipment, and golf may learn from that.

[Andy Troeger]

Hope this isn't too much of topic, but I think that the biggest threat to golf's popularity down the road is the overall cost to play, both in terms of purchasing the equipment and fees to play. Even many of the cheapest municipal courses cost $30 with a cart on a weekend, and those places are already packed. In an economic downturn I could see major problems for golf, because I think most people that watch golf also like to play golf. If the clubs get taken out of their hand I would argue they would be less likely to follow the PGA Tour as well. IF (and I hope it doesn't) that were to happen then as was mentioned for tennis I think there will be a need for NEW dynamic personalities to pull the game back up.

I think technology-wise there is a major difference. I think spectators (at least the masses) actually enjoy watching the boys bomb drives and hit wedges to two feet and all that. There's an awe factor to it, because most people never see/play with anybody that can hit a ball even close to that far. I hear quite a few people complain about watching the pros make bogeys and look silly at times at the US Open, they prefer the Masters where they have a chance to hit great shots and there are birdies and bogeys all over. I suppose that its certainly possible that people could get sick of this as the "awe factor" loses its luster, but I'd be more concerned about the cost factor myself.

[ForkaB]

AG

Agree with all you say--particularly the misunderstanding of most people regarding the role of technology vis a vis the "power" game.  What many people have missed (in a number of senses) is the decline in esthetics when all that 90% of the players do is grunt and smash the ball from the baseline--a shot that is outdone in terms of ugliness in any sport only by tinkling of the wrist when wielding the broom-handled putter......

[TEPaul]

I've been mentioning an analogy of tennis to golf for maybe fifteen years now but the analogy certainly wasn't JUST the lack of interest in the power game of tennis today and the potential lack of interest in the power game of golf that's coming upon us.

The analogy I mentioned is a potential analogy---eg the demise of the old USLTA about 35 years ago and the potential irrelevency of the USGA/R&A.

Under the old USLTA (an amateur regulatory organization) amateur tennis in America was a far more popular sport compared to today (see Huggans numbers of 34 mil in 1975 vs 13 mil today).

It's called grass roots interest and support and the USLTA helped sustain that. A game like tennis needed that to sustain interest in the sport. Today the USLTA is nothing like it once was if it even exists today (if it does its nowhere near as visible as it was 35 years ago). When I grew up in NY the US Amateur in tennis was a huge event compared to today--I doubt you could find it today, if it even exists.

Golf may not be much different. How is amateur interest and support in golf maintained at a grass-roots level? For starters golf at an amateur level has two very participatory amateur golf organizations (at least in a structural sense) that are still very central in the entire world of golf (the Playing Rules of golf, the I&B rules and regs of all golf equipment and balls, and a fairly comprehensively used handicap system).

Cast the two amateur regulatory organizations of golf (USGA/R&A) into irrelevency and golf will lose the vibrancy of its sustaining grass-roots base---amater golf---as tennis did and eventually the same plight will likely befall golf as did tennis---eg not much more visiblity than professional tours---just like tennis today.

In my opinion, the latter---eg irrelevency of the USGA/R&A (as analogous to the irrelevecny of the old USLTA) would be the cause, the former, power tennis compared to power golf, merely a symptom of that cause. The cautionary tale is potential lack of relevency in the future of golf's two amateur organizations which today still control a few very significant aspects of the game world-wide.

[John_McMillan]

If your hypothesis is that finesse = popular, power = tedium; then you have to explain why Wimbledon and the US Open, not the French Open, are the biggest rated TV events for Tennis.  

Power, however produced by Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, has produced incredible popularity and ratings for baseball.  

In golf, from a pure TV ratings perspective, John Daly is always going to out-draw Corey Pavin.  

[A.G._Crockett]

TomPaul,
I think you are absolutely right about the USGA-USLTA analogy.  The biggest argument in favor of caution in dealing with technology is what happens if the USGA becomes irrelevant in the world of golf, and it could happen.  Trying to avoid that by the USGA is not just a self-preservation strategy; it is really, really in the best interests of the game.  Tennis has become like boxing in terms of governing bodies; who knows who is really running anything?  Golf would not be well-served by that development.

[ForkaB]

TEP

The "US Amateur" is now called the "US Open."  It's still pretty big.

[A.G._Crockett]

If your hypothesis is that finesse = popular, power = tedium; then you have to explain why Wimbledon and the US Open, not the French Open, are the biggest rated TV events for Tennis.  

Power, however produced by Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, has produced incredible popularity and ratings for baseball.  

In golf, from a pure TV ratings perspective, John Daly is always going to out-draw Corey Pavin.  

I think this is the point!  Power does NOT equal tedium, in golf, baseball, or tennis.  The current style in tennis is NOT power in the traditional sense of the word; power in tennis was guys like Gonzales, Sampras, and the other great serve-and-volley players.  The current style IS tedium defined.

Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are still significant because fans understand what they mean in the sport, regardless of the style of play.  The rest of the year in tennis is a mish-mash of minor events that mean nothing to their communities, or to the viewing public.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
The "US Amateur" is now called the "US Open."  

Rich;

In tennis in America that's a good point. It's comforting for amateur golf in America to know that's not true--not yet anyway!  

A.G.

Your post #7 is so very true. The irony is the analogy of tennis's plight and evolution to what may potentially happen to golf in the future is right before our very eyes---eg the "handwriting" is clearly on the wall and too many of us today are either too unaware of history's analogy to tennis or just too dumb to recognize it and admit it.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I feel there's a discrepancy here.  If power itself is not boring then lack of variety is.

When tennis had more characters each had a different style.  Today they would all be seen as Conners types.  But I loved watching McEnroe and in the womens game the peerless Yvonne Cawley (nee Goolagong).

Driver/Wedge  =  baseline rally?

[Craig Sweet]

I don't believe the occasional tennis/golf playing public has any idea who governs the sport and what that governing body means to the sport. Nor do they think much about technology.

What they care about is access when they want to play. If playing the public course is like sitting in a Friday afternoon traffic jam, they won't be back. If they find their old racket in the garage and take their kid to the park to whack a tennis ball, only to find the tennis court is now a skate park, they won't be back.

Where does technology fit into either of these scenerio's?

[Jason Topp]

As a non-tennis player, my interest in the sport has declined dramatically, and I think technology has a lot to do with it rather than personalities.   I always found the personalities of the 70's and early 80's to detract from the support.  I found Mcnroe and Connors to be nothing more than an embarrassment personality wise.  On the other hand, I found their performances on the court to be compelling.  Touch shots, hustle with the possibility of recovering when in trouble and the strategy of the game made for great theater.

I find the analogy to golf a bit flawed, because golf is not a sport dependant on reaction time, unlike tennis.  I also think that the power game boosted golf's television popularity in the short term, because it has allowed a small handful of players to become dominant.  Recall how people cried out for more stars in the 80's and early 90's?  At that time, the top US players only won about 20-25 events in their careers.
top Euopean players won more often, but were unable to have similar success to the US, other than in the Masters.

The question is - is recent success a temporary blip due to the personality of Tiger Woods with permanent damage to the overall appeal of the game caused by technological change or not.  

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't believe the occasional tennis/golf playing public has any idea who governs the sport and what that governing body means to the sport. Nor do they think much about technology.

What they care about is access when they want to play. If playing the public course is like sitting in a Friday afternoon traffic jam, they won't be back. If they find their old racket in the garage and take their kid to the park to whack a tennis ball, only to find the tennis court is now a skate park, they won't be back.

Where does technology fit into either of these scenerio's?

Craig,
I think you are right about the access issue for the masses of occasional golfers.  However, the other core of the golf business is the frequent golfer, and part of the charm of golf has always been the feeling (however inaccurate it might be) that they are playing the same game as Tiger and the boys.  This is where the USGA becomes relevant, even if the golfer isn't aware of it.  

Preserving the game in a condition in which the I&B rules are the same for all preserves some of the game's fundamental appeal, and the USGA and technology are central in this.  If I know how hard it is to break 80 and my course, then I can appreciate the feat of breaking 70 four days in a row on a course set up for a major championship, AS LONG AS I think the players are using more or less the same stuff I am using to do that.

This is where the tennis analogy breaks down.  The problems in tennis are much more than technology, though that is at least something of a problem.  Also, the tennis courts that I see daily tend to be:
     a. very affordable
     b. very empty

The tennis boom is clearly over, and golf as an industry would do well to try to figure out why, besides demographics, this has happened.  I just don't think technology is the main or only reason.

[Craig Sweet]

A.G. I agree the tennis boom is over for now. However, I think the guy that plays golf a lot KNOWS that his equipment and Tiger's is NOT the same. He probably figures Tiger's equipment is custom fitted and utilizes technology that won't be on the market for at least another year. Sure, the frequent golfer wants to THINK he's playing the same game as Tiger, but he KNOWS he is not.

Here is my fear about the direction golf is taking. More and more new courses are semi-private high end, or very private exclusive. Access is everything in my opinion to "saving" golf.

 

[PThomas]

kudos to Jason for pointing our MacEnroe (sp?) and Connor's antics, which were absolutely ridiculous...if that's what people watched tennis for then shame on them

I wonder if the behavior of those 2 didn't cause, at least in part, some of tennis' decline

thank God golf's professionals , for the most part, still "behave"

[Doug Sobieski]

I forwarded the words attributed to John Huggan to a buddy of mine that played Division 1 tennis in college, and eventually became a professional instructor. Here is his reply (he's very opinionated, so I wanted to see how ruffled his feathers would become  ).

_______________________________________________

"This is what happens when experts go outside their area of expertise.

Tennis has long been the dumping ground for everyone in America from the "don't turn pro when you're ready and burn out like Capriati" (way overblown, forget about Evert, Borg, Agassi, Graf, Sampras, Becker and every other European mega-millionaire superstar) to the men's game has no appeal (thank Mac, among other idiots, for blasting the game for a decade as soon as he quit due to mental exhaustion.  The guy was wacked when he played and still is today only now he rocks the mic).  

I don't have specific stats, but I've been told the #1 sport in the world is ..... futbol (i.e. soccer) and #2 is tennis.  American tennis appeal certainly has slumped, but it has nothing to do with big serves and equipment changes.  In fact, they actually have a speed gun on the court to track how fast the serve, which is a huge fan favorite.  Tech increases are very similar to golf in that they help good players and bad players.  But bad players are still very bad (just like golf) and unlike golf, many pro's play rackets that are 5+ years old (few pro's use drivers 5 years old).  The lighter rackets have assisted women to a much greater degree, since the men can only go so light (not much can be done with a badminton racket or ping pong paddle, you need mass).  Sampras played the same racket (no updates) for 15+ years.  Furthermore, unlike golf, distance is a non-issue.  You still have to hit it in the court, if you miss a 'fairway' the point is over you lose.  You can only hit the ball so hard and have enough control to get it in.  Beyond that, you can only hit it so hard before you get injured as it's an unbelievable grind.  Try bustin a ball as hard as you can every shot for 2-4 hours for two straight weeks.  Your season will be done in a month.

Wimbledon has always been a speed/power game due to the grass surface - serving and volleying - and it is still that way today.  Little known fact, MAC was a big server in his day and relied on it as he had virtually no ground strokes. Can't comment on Nastase, since I never saw him play, but his reputation was similar to that of Ballesteros - a simple jackace, just like Mac.  Every other tournament except the 2 wimbledon warm-ups is power and finesse.  Consider Agassi, Nadal, Coria, Hewitt, Ginepri, among other groundstrokers that come to the net 2x per match - coin toss and handshake, not to mention all-courters like Blake.  

Sampras was the greatest ever and people marveled at his skill, but mac complained that he was boring.  It would be nice to see Tiger conduct himself in a like professional manner.  Now, barring injury, Federer will go down as the greatest of all time and he rarely serves it 130 mph.  He simply owns, not has, but owns every shot - similar to TW 2000 - and you can bet he's not changing his strokes.  The guy is a genius, he doesn't even have a coach!

If this writer doesn't think the game is entertaining today than he probably doesn't really understand the game and certainly didn't see this year's Open. I've been watching it for 2 decades and this was the best I've ever seen.

The game has dropped in america, but not due to technology.  Consider current national past times, NASCAR, Bowling, Golf, Baseball/Softball, football, hockey, poker and the ever increasing obesity and drug addiction in America. All of these currently popular games/sports you can get loaded at while watching and some even while participating.  Not the case in tennis, it's not a drinking 'sport', fat man 'sport', or a gambling 'sport'.  It's true sport - physical and mental."

[Craig Sweet]

I totally watched tennis back then because of characters like McEnroe and Connors and Natasie. Today's players are pretty bland. They are all grunt and shireks.  The other problem with todays tennis player is the money.apperance fees, and amazing perks. The player ranked #100 has earned over $230,000. The game has become, "show up, last a couple of rounds and go home with $30,000". There is not much incentive for hardwork when you get apperance fees, can earn a good living, and NOT win anything.

At least with golf, if you can't make cuts, you don't last on tour.

[Phil Benedict]

Just a few observations on this topic:

1.  Tennis technology helps the recreational player more than modern golf technology helps the recreational golfer.  Average handicaps have remained pretty constant despite the technological boom (partly because courses have been toughened).  
2.  Technlogy has changed the pro golf game tremendously because they guys have the skill to exploit it (high clubhead speed, consistent contact etc.).
3.  Tennis popularity in the 70's and '80's was fueled by charismatic personalities (guys who were jerks, by the way).  Once they passed from the scene the sport started to decline as entertainment.  Golf similarly benefited from the arrival of Tiger, who is not a jerk and will be around for 20 years or more.
4.  Aging of the baby boom generation probably hurt tennis as a participant sport and helped golf.
5.  The current top tennis player (Roger Federer) is artistically off the charts and may be the equal of Tiger in the ranks of all-time greats in his sport.  However, he is not an American and thus gets limited play in our US-centric media.
6.  Golf is the ultimate corporate sport.  CEO's love it because it's great for entertaining clients (pro-ams, corporate tents etc.); the players are generally well-behaved; and its relatively small audience has great demographics.  The PGA Tour has milked this to the limit.
7.  Golf is no longer a growth industry because it takes too long; costs too much; and is too hard.  I don't think technology has anything to do with it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Just a few observations on this topic:

1.  Tennis technology helps the recreational player more than modern golf technology helps the recreational golfer.  Average handicaps have remained pretty constant despite the technological boom (partly because courses have been toughened).  
2.  Technlogy has changed the pro golf game tremendously because they guys have the skill to exploit it (high clubhead speed, consistent contact etc.).
3.  Tennis popularity in the 70's and '80's was fueled by charismatic personalities (guys who were jerks, by the way).  Once they passed from the scene the sport started to decline as entertainment.  Golf similarly benefited from the arrival of Tiger, who is not a jerk and will be around for 20 years or more.
4.  Aging of the baby boom generation probably hurt tennis as a participant sport and helped golf.
5.  The current top tennis player (Roger Federer) is artistically off the charts and may be the equal of Tiger in the ranks of all-time greats in his sport.  However, he is not an American and thus gets limited play in our US-centric media.
6.  Golf is the ultimate corporate sport.  CEO's love it because it's great for entertaining clients (pro-ams, corporate tents etc.); the players are generally well-behaved; and its relatively small audience has great demographics.  The PGA Tour has milked this to the limit.
7.  Golf is no longer a growth industry because it takes too long; costs too much; and is too hard.  I don't think technology has anything to do with it.

Phil,
I would agree on all points except for #3, and that's only a quibble.  The "jerks" (McEnroe, Conners, Nastase) fueled the popularity as long as they were the quirky exception; when they became much more the rule, it hurt interest in the game.

John Daly might be a good analogy, though I don't consider him a jerk.  His IS quirky, and as an exception, a lot of fun to watch to see what the heck will happen next.  If the majority of the Tour was like Daly, it might be a bit less appealling, and I think that happened in tennis.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I came across this today and thought about this thread from earlier in the week
China crisis  

   By Jonathan Overend
BBC Five Live tennis correspondent  


The Masters Cup is a great concept - an end-of-season showdown where the best eight players in the world fight it out.

But if only one member of the top six is fit and five replacements are required, as has happened at this year's event, then what's the point?

Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick all qualified only to withdraw in advance, Andre Agassi played one match and departed, and Rafael Nadal didn't even manage to make it onto the court.

Roger Federer still isn't 100% fit, but at least he's still standing, and thank goodness for that because he's the only star left.

 
Of the eight players who arrived in Shanghai, Agassi and Nadal later withdrew

In the last 24 hours alone the organisers have twice felt the need to come out and publicly apologise to the spectators.

You can view this in two ways.

Shanghai has signed up to host the Masters Cup for the next three years. The organisers have spent millions of pounds on the organisation and they've built this extraordinary stadium which has been described by Federer as the best venue around.

So, having put all this effort in, they wanted to be rewarded with a good tournament. And they clearly haven't been.

The organisers feel sorry for the fans and so do I.

There is a desire to raise the profile of tennis here but it's difficult to sell the likes of Mariano Puerta, Fernando Gonzalez and Gaston Gaudio to a nation which isn't overly-familiar with the sport.

On the other hand, the organisers have offered a discount to ticket-holders here for next year's tournament as compensation and, in my opinion, that was a step too far and rather insulting to the players who have turned up.

  The whole of the sport needs to get together round the table, put personal issues to one side and say what can we do to do change this sport for the good of everyone
 

I also think the criticism of Agassi, after he pulled out with an ankle injury, was a bit of a shame. He did not come here, collect his cheque and then leave in the space of 24 hours.

He turned up a week before the tournament, got as fit as possible, managed to struggle through his match against Nikolay Davydenko and had to pull out.

The simple fact is you cannot force unfit players to play.

What's happening in Shanghai also happened at last month's Paris Masters, which is one of the best-supported events on the circuit.

But because Paris comes so late in the year it was also deprived of many of the best players because of injury.

The main problem is there is too much reliance on personal interest in the sport. For example, every tournament wants theirs to be the best and to have the top players competing.

 
Australian Open champion Safin is forced to watch from the sidelines in Shanghai

There is nothing wrong with that.

But if the players are being enticed to tournaments on a weekly basis, often continent-to-continent, surface-to-surface, then burnout is inevitable.

Another problem that in my mind is at the root of increasing injury among players, is that tennis has become too slow.

Courts are slower (Ivan Ljubicic described this one here in Shanghai as "The French Open indoors") and the balls have become heavier to encourage longer rallies and more exciting tennis for the fans.

But what that means is that players are running around the court more, the balls are being struck harder because of racquet technology and - in basic terms - it is more of a strain to return the ball than it ever used to be.

 Agassi issues burnout warning  

If there was more pace to the courts then perhaps more players would be encouraged to play at the net, shortening rallies and the pressure on bodies would be less intense. But this has to be debated at a higher level.

All of the competing interests in the sport need to get round the table, put personal issues to one side and say what can be done to change tennis for the good of everyone.

The authorities should take this as a wake-up call to say 'what are we going to do for the common good of this sport?'

For all the talk of player burnout, it might just be bad luck that all these injuries coincided with the start of the tournament.

It might have been coincidence in Shanghai, but these issues need to be addressed at the highest level to avoid the risk of it happening again next year.





 E-mail this to a friend   Printable version  




Links to more Tennis stories


In This SectionDavydenko seals semi-final placeFederer backs Shanghai organisersRusedski fails to overhaul HenmanFederer through to Masters semisHenman plans Doha start to 2006Agassi warns over player burn-outInjured Nadal out of Masters CupGaudio defeats Puerta in MastersAgassi pulls out after tame loss"The ATP should straighten out the Masters series, with no back-to-back tournaments" - UHave Your SayChina crisisBoxing could help MurrayTickets to the Masters Tennis!Tickets to the Aberdeen Cup!Jade Curtis diaryTell us about your tennis clubFederer crowned world number oneEdgy Federer wins Shanghai openerAgassi vows to carry on playingHenman uncertain over rib injuryAuckland date for in-form MurrayDefiant Berdych wins Paris titleRoddick calls for shorter seasonRusedski bid dashed by DavydenkoMauresmo wins French battle in LAUnbeaten Pierce battles into semiDavenport stays top of the worldElectronic help for WTA umpiresMauresmo triumphs in PhiladelphiaOn-song Frazier wins Quebec crownKeothavong suffers Quebec defeatMistry and Jeremiasz secure titleAgassi's two-pronged attackRusedski's serving tipsBBC Sport online/interactive schedule  

  SEE ALSO
Federer backs Shanghai organisers
16 Nov 05 |  Tennis
Injured Nadal out of Masters Cup
14 Nov 05 |  Tennis
Agassi pulls out after tame loss
14 Nov 05 |  Tennis



RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
ATP
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


ALSO IN THIS SECTION
Davydenko seals semi-final place
Federer backs Shanghai officials
Rusedski fails to eclipse Henman
Federer through to Masters semis
 | What is RSS?

 
 
 
 E-mail services | Sport on mobiles/PDAs  

 
Back to top

 

[TEPaul]

Michael:

If golf went to that same kind of year end top eight player series tennis has I could get pretty excited if seven of them were not up to snuff and didn't show or couldn't start, as long as Tiger showed up and they filmed him hitting some balls on the range before collecting his $9 million check and departing. It's got to be as interesting watching Tiger hit practice balls if he went through his entire "shot-making" arsenal---certainly every bit as interesting as watching these guys just flog it in tournaments as they do today!  

[James Bennett]

from the shanghai tournament quote, above

Another problem that in my mind is at the root of increasing injury among players, is that tennis has become too slow.

Courts are slower (Ivan Ljubicic described this one here in Shanghai as "The French Open indoors") and the balls have become heavier to encourage longer rallies and more exciting tennis for the fans.

But what that means is that players are running around the court more, the balls are being struck harder because of racquet technology and - in basic terms - it is more of a strain to return the ball than it ever used to be.

Agassi issues burnout warning  

If there was more pace to the courts then perhaps more players would be encouraged to play at the net, shortening rallies and the pressure on bodies would be less intense. But this has to be debated at a higher level.

____________________________________________________

sounds to me like 'firm and fast' is also under review for the tennis court!

James B