>10.4.2013 1:30, TT kirjoitti:
>> Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each
>> other than in the past:
>Which I, of course, already knew and argued many times.
i made a commitment this yr to try to free some time to delve slightly
deeper into numerical data. i enjoy your data based posts.
there is a flaw with this study IMO. doesn't discredit the study, but
just doesn't prove what it sets out to. the flaw is it's ignoring
grass saying not enough data, when in fact grass is the surface most
of us are referring to when we say the surfaces have converged. grass
has changed in a big way.
AO - still slow HC
RG - still slow clay
USO - still fast HC
Wim - now much slow grass historically speaking
no matter who agrees or not, the top guys want severely to have a game
that can win wimbledon, and the baseline game as we know for a decade
now is capable of winning it on this grass. just so happens that the
top 4 guys have focused on a game that will win present day wimbledon,
RG and AO, and they happen to be so far ahead of their cohorts that 1
of those guys also takes USO.
if we want to use this type of thing to compare cross eras, all
hypothetical junk anway, we should do it using historical avg's of
surfaces, say past 40yrs.
>> "If surfaces are converging, why is there a bigger difference in aces
>> now than there was 10, 15, or 20 years ago? Why don t we see hard-court
>> break rates getting any closer to clay-court break rates?
>> However fast or high balls are bouncing off of today s tennis surfaces,
>> courts just aren t playing any less diversely than they used to. In the
>> last 20 years, the game has changed in any number of ways, some of which
>> can make hard-court matches look like clay-court contests and vice
>> versa. But with the profiles of clay and hard courts relatively
>> unchanged over the last 20 years, it s time for pundits to find
>> something else to complain about."