The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by TT » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:30:02


Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each
other than in the past:

http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver...

"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."

 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by TT » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:30:55

10.4.2013 1:30, TT kirjoitti:

Quote:
> 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.

Quote:

> http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver...

> "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."

--
She swore she'd never succumb to men's desires again. But even a village
spinster's life miles from temptation can't save her from a sister with
no shame whatsoever. Or a heart that longs for more, whatever the cost...

 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by bob » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:54:30

Quote:

>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.

Quote:
>> http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver...

>> "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."

bob

 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by ca1hou » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:40:00

Quote:

> Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each

> other than in the past:

> http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver...

> "If surfaces are converging, why is there a bigger difference in aces

> now than there was 10, 15, or 20 years ago? Why dont we see hard-court

> break rates getting any closer to clay-court break rates?

> However fast or high balls are bouncing off of todays tennis surfaces,

> courts just arent 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, its time for pundits to find

> something else to complain about."

Simple it called a increase in racquet technology
 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by MBDun » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:50:37

Quote:

> Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each other than in the past: http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver... "If surfaces are converging, why is there a bigger difference in aces now than there was 10, 15, or 20 years ago? Why dont we see hard-court break rates getting any closer to clay-court break rates?

I expected better from the article...

Especially compared to this (which I have linked earlier): Instead of gutfeelings and selected samples this uses objective data:

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/46.%20GrandSlamSta...

.mikko

 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by Professor » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:17:02

Quote:

> Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each

> other than in the past:

> http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver...

> "If surfaces are converging, why is there a bigger difference in aces

> now than there was 10, 15, or 20 years ago? Why dont we see hard-court

> break rates getting any closer to clay-court break rates?

> However fast or high balls are bouncing off of todays tennis surfaces,

> courts just arent 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, its time for pundits to find

> something else to complain about."

I don't think it's much to do with the courts, but rather the fact that the balls now are much bigger than they used to be. Why does no-one ever mention this?
 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by bob » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:12:19

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:50:37 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc

Quote:


>> Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each other than in the past: http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver... "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?

>I expected better from the article...

the article comes right out and ignores grass. which is the main pt of
contention. not USO cement.

Quote:
>Especially compared to this (which I have linked earlier): Instead of gutfeelings and selected samples this uses objective data:
>http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/46.%20GrandSlamSta...
>.mikko

bob
 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by felange » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:12:36

Quote:
> I don't think it's much to do with the courts, but rather the fact that
> the balls now are much bigger than they used to be. Why does no-one ever
> mention this?

We always talk about this? In addition though, the modern balls are often
fuzzing up quickly on heavy granulated surfaces, further slowing the game.
 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by TT » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:42:35

10.4.2013 7:50, MBDunc kirjoitti:

Quote:

>> Interesting study which tells us that surfaces are NOT more alike each other than in the past: http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-conver... "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?

> I expected better from the article...

> Especially compared to this (which I have linked earlier): Instead of gutfeelings and selected samples this uses objective data:

> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/46.%20GrandSlamSta...

> .mikko

I think it's a pretty good idea what OP study is doing, maybe writing
and presentation could've been better.

The study you posted shows btw that the game is faster now(most
obviously seen from the graph "points per game"). So comparing these two
studies we get that the game has become faster but the gap between
clay&hard is still the same.

Which means that speed of play on both clay&hard has gotten faster.
Rather ironic that the current consensus seems to support the opposite
when it comes to hard, based on "feel" and agendas.

 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by TT » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:51:50

10.4.2013 16:12, felangey kirjoitti:

Quote:
>> I don't think it's much to do with the courts, but rather the fact
>> that the balls now are much bigger than they used to be. Why does
>> no-one ever
>> mention this?

Not sure how that is relevant when comparing convergence between clay&hard.

Quote:

> We always talk about this? In addition though, the modern balls are
> often fuzzing up quickly on heavy granulated surfaces,

In that case the hard courts should have gotten relatively faster than
clay courts since clay doesn't fuzz up the balls. (since the difference
between clay&hard has stayed the same according to this study).

Quote:
> further slowing
> the game.

The ITF study Mikko posted shows that the game has gotten faster. At
least serves have.
 
 
 

The Mirage of Surface Speed Convergence

Post by grif » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:00:51


Quote:
> 10.4.2013 16:12, felangey kirjoitti:
>>> I don't think it's much to do with the courts, but rather the fact
>>> that the balls now are much bigger than they used to be. Why does
>>> no-one ever
>>> mention this?

> Not sure how that is relevant when comparing convergence between clay&hard.

>> We always talk about this? In addition though, the modern balls are
>> often fuzzing up quickly on heavy granulated surfaces,

> In that case the hard courts should have gotten relatively faster than
> clay courts since clay doesn't fuzz up the balls. (since the difference
> between clay&hard has stayed the same according to this study).

>> further slowing
>> the game.

> The ITF study Mikko posted shows that the game has gotten faster. At
> least serves have.

Fed thinks that guys are serving better now.

ROGER FEDERER:  A little bit.  I got guys serving better I think
overall, if you look historically as well.  First, second serve, the
speed, the kick players are able to put on.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=84921