Wimpledon Redux 2011 – The End of the Short Game Part 2

Today’s version of Wimbledon, “Wimpledon” or “Wimpy” is a side to side sport with little movement up or down towards the net.  In basketball we have the 3 pointer, the slam dunk and the mid range jumper.  In football the short yardage run, the trap play, mid-range passing games and the long bomb.  In baseball the singles hitter, hit and run plays, suicide squeezes and the long ball.  In tennis, we have side to side movement and not much else.

Changing the Rules to Pump up Tennis has Failed!

As stale tennis goes, “Wimpy” is heads above anyone else.  Not certain what it wanted to be, in 2001 after a 5 set final between Goran Ivanisevic and Patrick Rafter, featuring 40 aces or about 1 every two games.  (You can re-watch that match here) The powers that be feared that the power service game would take over the last major fast surface tournament on the tour.   The tourney directors killed what made Wimbledon unique and turned it into just another tourney.  First they accepted the 32 seed draw approach which reduced upsets of the top seeds then they slowed down the surface in an effort to reduce aces and the power game.  As Greg Garber of ESPN explained, “Once, grass was the fastest surface in tennis. But after Goran Ivanisevic and Patrick Rafter turned the 2001 final into an ace-fest, Wimbledon slowed things down. The original mix was 70 percent rye grass and 30 percent creeping red fescue, but now it is 100 percent rye. Because rye sits up higher than fescue, the greater friction slows the ball down. Plus, players say, the balls are bigger today than they’ve ever been. The result is a higher bounce than before”  The consequences were immediate.  Wimpledon’s ratings plummeted by a million viewers and has not reached the heights of the 2001 finals since as documented by Nielsen.

This year you wear red and I’ll wear blue. 

 Next year I’ll wear red and you wear blue. 

Wimpy’s final has featured the first seed against the second seed in seven of the last eight years.   In several cases one year’s final is replayed the next.  Americans, faced with the same match they saw the year before with the same predictable result, turned off their televisions.  Ratings have sunk for Wimpy from an all time high of more than 8 million people watching the Bjorn Borg vs John McEnroe match in 1981 to less than 2 million people watching last year’s Rafael Nadal win.  Percentage wise, more than 4 percent of Americans watched pro tennis in 1980 versue less than 1% today.  One third the variety and more predictability equals less than one third the fans.  Tennis is in the dumpster, in the ESPN universe it is behind high school sports and soccer but narrowly maintains its advantage over mixed martial arts and poker.   ESPN has just acquired the rights for all US broadcasts of Wimpy for $40 million annually, or about  a 30% discount from the US Open.

They Might be Giants

Besides the predictability factor the game has suffered the unintended advent of giants which makes it far less accessible to the average fan.  As you remember, the court was changed to slow the ball down and stop giant tennis players hurling aces at each other.  However, slowing the court down assisted the giants as the ball popped up and they no longer had to bend down to hit balls.   In the 30 years before the change in surfaces, a dozen players over 6’4” reached the last 16 at Wimbledon (Philippoussis, Safin, Stich, Todd Martin,Rosset,  Rusedski and Krajicek), all were serve and volleyers.  Since the rules changed 10 years ago, a dozen people over 6’4” (Karlovic, Safin, Popp, Del Potro, Rusedski, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Querrey, Soderling, Ancic, Cilic, Berdych, etc) have more frequently reached the round of 16.  Outside of Karlovic, none of the new players are true serve and volleyers.

The “Isner-angle”

Slowing down the surface has had almost no effect on the number of aces as giant tennis players don’t need velocity to hit the ace.  Instead they hit angle serves as Jon Isner displayed when he hit 113 aces in 100 service games in last years record-setting Wimpy match for duration against Nicholas Mahut .   Mahut hit 103 aces.  There were a total of 216 aces in a total of 188 games or more than an ace a game.  So much for effectiveness in stopping the big serve.

We call the new service angle , the “Isner-angle” for a serve that could not be hit consistently in tennis in the past without the advent of the new tennis giants and new racquet technology.  The serve lands on the sideline but about 1 to 2 feet before the service line.  It is unreturnable since a player would have to run 5-6 steps to catch a ball going on average 120 mph.  If a player moves over to get the ”Isner-angle”, then Isner types can easily serve the ball down the middle.  Watch this video of Isner’s serve.  After his jump, he is well inside the baseline hitting the ball about 2 feet in front of it from a fully extended height between 10-11 feet.

Since there is no variety or chance of upset in the game, and since 7 of the last 8 finals have been between the first and second seed, a tennis viewer need ask two questions.  Who is playing?  Didn’t I see that last year?  In it’s utter predictability, American tennis viewership is near dead.

Tennis Viewership is On Life Support, Change the Rules

Like a 12 steps program, Wimpledon must admit its failure and fix the surface and big server problem to restore the game to it’s prior grandeur.  Look at other pro sports.  When Wilt Chamberlain was too big for basketball they changed the rules specifically for him, they widened the lane and initiated the 3 second rule.  In baseball when too many home runs were being hit, they raised the pitcher’s mound.

In this case it is easy to restore 3 surfaces of varying speed and eliminate the “Isner-angle”.  Though Andy Roddick has the fastest serve in tennis, he has proven beatable at the majors due to his lack of variety in the serve.  Likewise he gives away where his serve is going well in advance with a non-disguised lean in one direction or the other.  So the issue is the big guys and in particular, the “Isner-angle”.  The existing solution to the “Isner-angle” doesn’t work.  Isner and the other giants on the tour continue to hit the angle serve.

The rules change have not eliminated the ace for the small percent of men who hit angles, but it has slowed down the surface for 100% of the people who play at Wimpy as well as the US Open.  This has killed the short and mid tennis game, as baseliners take out anyone who dares to rush the net as approach shots bounce higher and slower than ever.  The big serve has not turned out to be the threat perceived by pro tennis management, but the “Isner-angle” has brought in an era of giant angle servers who win on every surface as the ball bounces up so they can take massive swings at it.  Also a legion of long range only tennis players have arisen, few different from the other in style of play but clogging the game so no new names can move in to popularize the sport.  As of this writing only one teenager is in the ATP top 100 rankings.

Our solution is to make “Isner-angle” serves illegal by drawing a box or line that eliminates the angle.   Who would be impacted?  Only a handful of giant players who are on the tour purely because of their ability to hit angle serves and have a foot and half serving advantage when including arm length over a 6 foot tall opponent.  Add another 1 to 2 feet advantage with a jump serve and giants have a 2-3 foot advantage on angles vs a 6 foot tall player.  Of those giants, only a small percent of their serves would be impacted while making the overall matches more competitive and adding to the diversity of the game.

But how do you call points where the lines are altered?  It is very easy to use shot spot to call these points and to have a wire into linesemen’s ears that tells them where the ball landed.  If the concern is over short balls, a second linesman can be setup directly across the umpire in a high chair to cover short balls on that side.

How does tennis manage this wrinkle in the game?  The same way the NBA or NFL does.  Every year they have a meeting and would decide what angle of  serves should be allowed.  It’s Wimpledon’s choice to revive tennis or not.

Wimpledon Redux 2011 – The End of the Short Game part 1

Another fortnight has passed and we have crowned Novak Djokovic  Wimpledon champion.  We coined the phrase, “Wimpledon” last year to decry the end of the short (serve and volley) game and the absence for the most part of the middle game in the Wimbledon championships.  With mostly a long (baseline) game on display for Wimpledon, one third the variety i.e. no middle or short game, has earned tennis one third the fans as tennis ratings have plummeted since the 1980 glory days.  With less fans there will much less money as ESPN has announced that “Breakfast At Wimpledon” will be a pay tv affair going forward and that Wimpledon will be tape delayed on ESPN on ABC.

As we know, Wimpledon adopted the 32 seed tournament format to reduce the number of early round upsets.  Draws no longer open up as they did for 18 year old John McEnroe in 1977, who got to the semifinals of Wimbledon without facing a seed until the quarterfinals.  Television ratings soared.  McEnroe’s tv ratings throughout his career were some of the highest ever.  Instead we have this anesthized version of the game without any risk.  In the last 8 years, the first seed has faced off against the second seed in the Wimpledon final 7 times as ratings go into the abyss.  With more predictability and less game diversity, no one is watching.  

What about the tennis?  Averaging about 20 net approaches a match during the tourney, many in reaction to dropshots, Djokovic routined the slowest grass surface tournament in history.  In his own version of “No Mas”, Nadal approached the net 9 times in the final. 

Roberto Nadal???

As we reasoned last year, Djokovic may have put up a barrier to Rafael Nadal taking our all time Number 1 ranking.  Though Nadal is solidly the top player ever on clay he remains a player with only 4 fast surface grand slams.  We doubt Nadal will win another hard surface slam as there are now several players, Djokovic, Tsonga, Murray, and Del Potro who can provide a difficult match against him.  We’ll know more as we get closer to the US Open where Nadal will be the defending champion.

Djokovic is having a dream season, the sort that only John McEnroe, Mats Wilander and Roger Federer have put together, defeating opponents with overwhelming force on their way to 3 slams in one year.  Only Federer has been able to put such a season together twice against lesser competition.  But Djokovic is no spring chicken.  He started as a pro at 17 year old and has played almost 500 matches.   As a point of reference, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick haven’t won a slam since well before their 300^th career matches and Marat Safin didn’t win a slam after his 500^th match.  Bjorn Borg and Mats Wilander, two other defensive players, were the  same age (24) when they won their final slams.

Because the title went to Djokovic and he has now won his third slam, our all time great SHOTS ranking of Nadal and Federer continues to improve as we award points for wins by peers in the same era.

Nadal’s Future on Faster Surfaces

As we predicted in our last blog post, there was a lot of uncertainty around Nadal winning another Wimbledon.  Djokovic’ dominance over Nadal this year is symbolic of the inevitable downturn of 2 handed players as they get close to and pass 25 years.  Worse for tennis, they have a glut of 2 handers in their mid 20s crowding out new-comers with the likes of Tsonga, Murray, Monfils and Berdych.

As seen in the loss to Tsonga and as we predicted before the tourney and here a year ago, Federer doesn’t have the gas to win a best of 5 sets tournament any more.  His points are too long and he doesn’t have the same volume of easy points as Sampras.  When Sampras played, his typical point was a big serve of which many were unreturnable or a net rush which was 3 steps to the net plus agility.  Either way, points ended quickly.  With Federer, it’s uncertain how long any of his points will last and as a result, he becomes ragged after a second set against tough competition in the later rounds.

As for Nadal, we think any future Wimpledon wins are less likely but aren’t counting him out as the only players to win Wimpledon’s after 28 years old have been left handers, Connors and Ivanisevic.

Goodbye Williams Sisters?  Goodbye Roddick?

We also wave an early goodbye to the Williams sisters.  No individuals have contributed more to the women’s game in the last 20 years.  Though most of tennis royalty viewed them as great “athletic” talents, they were questioned early and often on their discipline and knowledge of the game’s nuance’s.  Early on they suffered the slings and bows of Martina Hingis and an inherently elitist / country club tennis environment but look at them now.

Martina Hingis Mocks Venus Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok3L5r5YxLM&feature=related

Watch the above video and Martina Hingis at the 1:19 mark taunting Venus.

In our ratings system, Serena and Venus rank 4 and 8 all time and if they hadn’t had to play each other in many slam finals, either may have been rated higher.  They’ve outlasted not just a generation entering against Steffi Graf and then Martina Hingis, but also outlasted all their peers such as Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, then another generation in Justin Henin and Kim Clijsters but an entirely different generation heralded by Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic.

The fact that they are still in the hunt when a fifth generation of tennis player plays i.e. Caroline Wosniacki, etc, shows what remarkable players they are and how different they are from their peers.  Though Sharapova and other tennis beauties take months to years off from the tour for their commercial and sponsorship endeavors, the Williams sisters are in movies, doing reality tv, pushing out a clothing line while reaching twice as many slam finals as any person who started on the tour at the same time or since they began.  All while mourning the early and unwarranted passing of a sibling.

Here’s hoping that as they retire a new generation appears on the tour with the same sort of mettle.

With a great serve, like Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick will always be a darkhorse at Wimpledon.  But his forehand is no longer dominant and his movement continues to decline.  And for the other Americans, a bright spot is Ryan Harrison, the youngster who made it to the third round.  Despite Patrick McEnroe FLUBBING another wildcard entry, this one was squandered on James Blake a first round loser, much like he squandered his Roland Garros wildcard on Tim Smyczek another first round loser rather than the younger Donald Young, Harrison played tough.  He fought through 3 rounds of qualifying and lost in his 6th match of the tourney in a 5 setter to iron-man David Ferrer.

Welcome Back Chrissie!

Another bright spot was the addition of Chris Evert to the broadcast and her chemistry with Mary Carillo proved remarkable.   Whereas the McEnroe brothers are expert at the top flight aspects of the men’s game and Carillo with Pam Shriver are technically strong, Evert really addresses championship level psychology in a way the others can’t.

Though tormented as a teen tennis angel in all white, she was anything but.  Evert was tennis’ black mambo.  A cold assassin crushing all-time greats at will.  After being subjugated by Martina Navratilova on fast surfaces, she was able to make a final grand slam push and beat Navratilova in her mid 30’s on Australian hard courts to cap off one of the greatest tennis careers of all time.

Her personal life was just as climactic dating tennis playboy, Jimmy Connors, marrying Brit John Lloyd, dumping him for skier Andy Mills and then moving onto the Shark himself, Greg Norman.  She hasn’t had a life story, it’s been a saga.  Evert’s and Connors tv ratings were sky high and they ushered in a tennis golden age.

From her father’s old barbeques at Holiday Park to the Chris Evert tennis academy, anything that is associated with Evert and tennis benefits.  Keep her on tv.

And what of Wimbledon.  We typically watch Wimpledon with a sense of mourning of the short game and the end of the serve and volley style brandished by any all time great before 2002 who won the championship more than once, including Bjorn Borg.  We’ll cover this in our Wimbledon redux – Part II

Nadal Sticks a Fork in Federer’s Legend

Rises to Number 2 All Time – All Surface

After 15 days and 2 rain delays, Rafael Nadal has cemented his position as the greatest player of his era.  A traditional tennis champion, he emerged as a 19 year old wunderkind, dominating the clay court circuit going on to win the French Open 5 out of 6 years and accomplishing the longest clay court winning streak in men’s history.  With victories over Roger Federer on all 3 slam surfaces the last time they played and a 2 slam win streak over players not named Federer, Nadal entered the US Open finals awaiting the winner of the Roger Federer – Novak Djokovic semi-final.

Federer was the talk of the tournament and of the sumer circuit.  He hired Pete Sampras’ coach, Paul Annacone, and played with new abandon approaching the net at every chance.   For 4 sets and 9 games Federer executed the style Annacone had burnished in the forges of Pete Sampras’ instinctive game.  But then in the last 3 games, Federer changed styles, coming to net only once, reverting to his all-court / baseline style, ultimately losing the match.

The tennis world gasped and in a moment messages went out to the tennis player and coaching twitter world that roughly paraphrasing read like this: “Federer is not 100% committed to Annacone’s strategy”, “Federer can’t win tight or long matches anymore”.   Djokovic baked Federer for 3 hours, stuck a fork in him and said “He’s done”.

The number one ranked Nadal who had measured Federer like no other in the sport (14-7 head to head record) took his 80% finals winning record into the last match of the tournament and clocked Djokovic with devastating serves rivaling Federer’s speed while laying waste to Djokovic’s serve with 26 break point chances.   The fork was in Nadal’s hands this time.  Victorious, Nadal is the first person to win The French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open consecutively since Rod Laver and he has completed a career grand slam.

In his own humble style Nadal has gone about becoming the second greatest player of all time based on our championship quality ranking, SATERICCON.  The myopic tennis media and sponsor world focused primarily on Federer, humiliating Nadal with tennis vans painted with #2 ranked Federer’s image carrying him to matches and the exaggerated coverage of the Federer William Tell commercial.  Luke Jensen claimed Nadal had peaked years ago.  Tennis hasn’t treated Nadal as the number 1 player he was in 2008, coming back from an injury, but instead went right back to Federer as number 1 as if Nadal’s on-court ferocity were a hiccup in tennis history or as if Federer would have won the French Open and Wimbledon in 2009 had he faced Nadal at either tournament.

A man of Spanish lineage hasn’t been so disrespected by the tennis world since Jack Kramer paid Tony Trabert  $80,000 and Pancho Gonzalez $15,000 on the fledgling pro tour, despite Gonzalez’ year in, year out domination of the circuit and his 74-27 record vs. Trabert.  We have already discussed how Federer is the Larry Holmes of the tennis era with Sampras as it’s Muhammed Ali, on our blog.

Nadal has emerged onto the tennis  world like the Mike Tyson of the sport leaving devastation and ruin to all those who challenged him.  While Federer was the Gentleman Jim of the sport winning in an oh-so Swiss manner, Nadal has been all fire facing off against Federer with a boxer’s gait and bounce.   He is a man supremely confident in his athleticism, skills and mental fortitude.

So where does Nadal rank on the all time – all surface list?  Nadal has moved ahead of John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg within a handful of points behind Pete Sampras.  One more grand slam victory over a talented pool in Australia or any Grand Slam to come and he will pull ahead in Sampras on an all-court basis in terms of greatness (primarily due to his dominance over Federer).

And what of Federer?  Our model re-calculates greatness based on how other players you beat perform at future Slams.  Federer is now riding Nadal’s coattails in our rankings.  Federer moves ahead of Becker to 9^th on an all court basis and is within a point of surpassing Wilander based on his record at slams against Nadal.  On a fast court basis he moves within one point of Borg at 5^th place.  Any combination of Nadal winning a slam or Federer beating another slam winner in winning a slam will put Federer ahead of Borg but nowhere close to Stefan Edberg in 4^th place.

Cumulative All Surface Rank
via SATERICCON Analysis
1		Sampras
2		Nadal
3		Borg
4		McEnroe
5		Connors
9		Federer

What is the career trajectory of Nadal at this point?  As we mentioned before, Borg retired at 25 after winning his 6^th French Open and becoming convinced he could not beat McEnroe after 3 successive fast surface defeats at Slams.  Wilander didn’t win another slam after his tour de force over Lendl at the 1988 US Open.  We think Nadal will win one or two more slams but his period of dominance is likely to be over within the next two years.

The only two handers to consistently challenge for and win slams after 25 years of age were Connors and Agassi.  Neither were counter punchers or defensive players like Nadal has been for much of his career but instead they were aggressive baseliners, hugging the lines, looking to end points quickly.  To become more Agassi than Borg, Nadal needs to modify his game significantly (as he has done already) continuing to add punch to the serve, shortening points, being more opportunistic, and more importantly, shortening his strokes.  It is doubtful even with his weight training assisted body that he will continue to be able to defend,  get around his two handed backhand or have the massive rotation on his forehand as younger and more agile players come onto the court.

Slams at Age	23	24	25	post 25	Total Slams
Borg	2	2	0	0	11
Nadal	1	2	???	???	9
Connors	0	1	0	3	8
Agassi	0	1	1	5	8
Wilander	0	3	0	0	7

And what of Men’s tennis with it’s two major brands, Federer and Nadal sunsetting and not one teenager in the ATP top 100 ?  Will tennis wise up to its ways and go back to diversified surfaces as golf has different courses?  Will it correct the error it made by slowing down 100% of the tennis court when only 12.5% (the service box) may (or may not) have been in need of change?  What about the inflated record consequences of the 32 seed era which guarantees the higher your seed, the easier your path to a title?  No  one seems concerned about the convergence in results.  Records which occurred once every twenty years have now happened 3 times in 11 years with Agassi, Federer and Nadal recording career Grand Slams.  By sheer chance Agassi won the 2^nd least compelling career surface slam in the professional error.  Rule changes instituted by the ATP and other tennis authorities allowed Federer to win the weakest career slam . This is like 3 players hitting more than 65 home runs in 11 years, it just doesn’t happen without assistance (in this case administrative).  But in tennis, records are being broken with abandon, and there are 50 men over 25 years old in the top 100 who have no chance of ever winning a grand slam.  So what next new talent in the sport is a young fan to cheer?

Next, the economics of the US Open.

Wimpledon and the Inflated Tennis Era

Fans at the 1980’s Wimbledon tennis finals between Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker would wonder what they’re watching if they entered a “hot tub time machine” and saw the 2010 semifinals.  2001 rule changes by tennis corporate rule makers diluted the value of a Slam victory and inflated the likely number of wins for any all time great.  Wimbledon court was slowed the same year to align better with the other surfaces all but removing the serve and volleyer from contention in the game.  Wimbledon has become “Wimp”ledon.

In 2000, tennis was faced with the loss of their “Greatest Open Era Generation”.  Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Stefan Edberg, and the aging Sampras, Agassi and Gustavo Kuerten were all heading to the tennis court in the sky.  They were also the “Greatest Marque Generation” with championship level players from high net worth countries besides the U.S. including Germany, Sweden, France, a well-liked player of East Asian descent and a great South American champion.

Sponsors and Slams revolted as the brand dissipated.    Independently controlled Slams wanted to seed by surface and sponsors were concerned about the relative no-names or surface specialists  (read “unbranded players”) who could pull an upset in an early round and ruin attendance and tv viewership for later rounds.  Unable to bridge the discrepancy between relative talent on different surfaces corporate tennis decided to save the brand moving to the 32 seed (A32) approach which limited all the Grand Slams with the exception of Wimbledon from seeding by surface.  A32 reduced risk and the number of tough matches a top ranked player would play in succession saving them only for the later rounds.  Like McGwire and Sosa in baseball’s home run era, by inflating statistics, in this case the number of times the top players reached later rounds and finals, they could market the brand and hide underlying problems in the game while satisfying sponsors.  Like baseball, this resulted in smashing hard won tennis records and metrics as high seeds win more slams than ever due to A32.  Tennis corporatist’s stewardship of the game’s integrity is questionable with A32.  When considering their disastrous PEDs testing program after 25 years of scandal or inability to develop metrics to measure tennis athleticism across eras it is awful.

A32 business decisions impacted the game’s integrity with intended and unintended consequences that were many and immediate.   Besides minimizing surface specialist challenges, older champs in decline would typically fall into the 17-32 unseeded rankings slots but now had no “puncher’s” chance to knock off younger, high seeds in earlier rounds when they were well-rested.  This would then open up the draw for a deep run into a tournament and for new contenders to emerge.  Falling out of the top 32 for a tennis Pantheonist was equivalent to retirement as almost every all-time great has fallen out of the top 100 within a year of falling out of the top 32 rankings.

A concrete example of this was Federer’s US Open victory over a 35 year old Agassi in 2005 after Agassi had already played 3 consecutive 5 setters the prior 6 days, the finals played on one day’s rest.    It was a triumph of a player in his prime against one with an expired warranty and more than 1,000 pro matches under his belt.  Agassi’s prior match record to Federer before turning 33 was 3-0 including a shellacking at the US Open where Federer won 7 games.  Low-seeded Sampras faced a similar uphill battle in decline, losing to Hewitt in 2001 after performing a Slam Triple defeating the last 2 players to beat him at the Open, Rafter and Safin (the year before, he beat Hewitt).

Meanwhile Federer (82%) has an almost identical winning record against a weaker non-slam field to Sampras after 874 matches.  He has played about 55% as many slam winners as Sampras and played 30% the matches against tennis Pantheonists than Sampras and less than 20% the matches than Connors and Lendl.  Simply put, Federer won slams in an era with a dearth of challengers in a system favoring champions.

The “Slam Triple” is a metric we’ve created that marks when a player in a slam defeats 3 prior slam winners in a row, typically to reach the finals or win the tournament.  A32 has decimated this metric.  12 times on fast surfaces between 1973 and 2001 a player had to defeat 3 slam winners in a row to either win a slam or get to the finals.  Sampras did it 3 times.  It is another measure of the difficulty of a tennis tournament.  Post A32, no fast surface slam winner has beaten 3 slam winners consecutively to win or reach the finals of a slam.  Federer had a chance in 2009 but instead lost his 3^rd consecutive slam final on a 3rd surface to Nadal in Australia.

In addition, since A32, the top seed  has not won Roland Garros which speaks to the spurious use of seeding by ranking across surfaces.  When incorporating the slam triple for clay courts, we find multiple occurrences by Pantheon players as Ivan Lendl did it in 1984, Jim Courier did it twice to win his two French Opens in 1991 and 1992 and Rafael Nadal did it to win the 2007 Roland Garros.  Between the 1990 US Open and 1993 Wimbledon the slam triple was accomplished 7 times (in those 12 tournaments) by 5 different Pantheon players.  Clearly the most competitive era in tennis.  Thomas Muster and Yevgeny Kafelnikov won slam triples later in 1995 and 1997.

Wimbledon’s decision to slow down the surface and balls with A32 eliminated some of the power player’s advantage as seen by the contrast in the serve and volley slugfest of 2001 with dozens of net approaches by both players and 40 aces to the 2002 baseline tournament with 7 aces in total and few jaunts to the net.  Tennis commentators and former pro serve and volleyers:  Paul Annacone, John McEnroe and Darren Cahill, all commented on how balls no longer skid, they popped up while match after match saw multiple lengthy baseline rallies.

Commentators  blame racquet technology, but racquet technology doesn’t alter physics much when a ball skids 6 inches high.  The biggest change is most players are hitting down on the ball at a height equal to or over the net height which favors the groundstroker.  Indeed, no serve and volleyers made it to 2010’s quarterfinals.   Federer averaged net approaches on less than 15% of his total points in the tournament before elimination, averaging a measly 118 mph first serve for the tournament (well below some of Sampras 125 mph average service speed in many matches).

Wimbledon used to see the days of a hard charging Boris Becker, John McEnroe or Pat Cash coming to the net at all costs to avoid the balls skidding bounce.   Frequently the players would hit the ground before the ball, as grass tennis was a crazy form of hockey and rugby.  It wasn’t unusual for players to face off blasting volleys a few feet from each other.  You are lucky to see players get within a court length of each other in a match today and Nadal who frequently plays 10-20 feet behind the baseline remains the best all court player left in the draw.  Today’s tennis is like a basketball game where players only shoot 3 pointers.  What about using the rest of the court?  When this happened in the NBA threatening to ruin the game, they changed the rules.

Another consequence has been the advent of serving giants like Ivo Karlovic, John Isner, Tomas Berdych and Sam Querrey.  Though tennis has slowed the ball, the geometry of the game has made it easier for big men who can serve at greater angles and speed as the balls now pop up at stroke level for taller players rather than forcing them to bend to hit skidding balls.  In 2001 3 seeds were 6’4” or taller.  This year there were 10 such seeded players prior to Ivo Karlovic dropping out of the tournament.   Only Berdych, a baseliner made it to the semifinals.  Gone is the “serve and volleyer”, now we have the ”serve and rallyer”.

Other consequences are what to do as favorites begin downward progressions.  Federer is at the age where Sampras saw marked decline and has lost in successive slam quarterfinals.  Nadal at 24 is closing on the age where Borg retired (25) and is the same age when Wilander won his last slam.  Unless Nadal dramatically changes his game to reduce wear and tear and reliance on backcourt movement, it is likely that tennis will see substantial changing of the guard within the next 2 years.  And then what for the tennis brand as A32 starves its young talent of wide open draws?  Next, a framework for determining all time greats.

Unexpected Consequences of A32 Era
*		No First Seed Wins Roland Garros in 8 years.
*		Serve and Volleyers become Serve and Rallyers – Wimpledon
*		Slam Triple, Eradicated
*		Diminished New Branding Possibilities (What to do as Federer winds down and Nadal reaches 26, old age for 2 handers)
*		Super-Sized Players
*		Greater Difficulty for Older Champions to Win Tournaments