Originally Posted by ClutchOnandWin
I'm ready to listen to anybodies views Burrow, because trust me, I'm not the elitist sort of person and I try and stay open minded. However there is somewhere where you genuinely need to draw the line. I can't help feeling as these tribal wars have panned out across the internet and particularly this board, many people are misled and form misconceptions.
What started out as people making lots of tounge and cheek remarks has almost less to uneducating the younger generation of teenage fans. I see many blinkered opinions thrown across on here. This is a classic example right here. Suggesting tennis was old school or middle era before 2008. lol When I read the title I actually couldn't be bothered to address it but glad you did.
Lot's identify Federer's dominance as the years where court's were fast. lol If one person says something, another copies and they all start saying it eventually and after a period of time, it becomes fact. We have a constant game of chinese whispers going on.
My reasoning behind my own preference of surface variation has absolutely nothing to do with who I prefer. I'll try to keep my reasoning concise.
I think that in the year 2000, the surfaces were almost ideal. Bear in mind, my categorisation of court speed is with respect to those times, which I believe are genuine and valid.
We had an Australian Open which was medium-slow, though due to the nature of Rebound Ace, could speed up (in the heat). Roland Garros was slow. Wimbledon was fast. The US Open was medium-fast. Accordingly, Masters Series tournaments were also varied (with the edition of Carpet, which produced one of my all-time favourite Masters Series finals in Safin Philippoussis).
There was genuine variation thus a variation in playing styles. I have to reitterate once more that racket technology has not improved since almost 20 years (yes, this is true) and string technology has not improved in almost 15 years (also true). Ignoring these irrelevant factors, the sport could just be the same today.
Almost 10 years ago now (I can't believe it, it makes a young man feel old) spectators marvelled at a young powerhouse in Robin Soderling taking out Rainer Schuettler (2003's finalist) in an epic, a resurgent Marat Safin playing powerful all-court tennis to surprise everyone and make the final, Hicham Arazi display ridiculous effortless finesse (especially in taking out Mark Philippoussis), Guillermo Canas counter punch his way past Tim Henman in one of the decade's classics and Roger Federer clinch it at his very best.
A variation of players, playing all-court tennis on what was a medium-slow hard court. Why was there a range of both players with attacking styles and defensive styles and why was there plenty of all-court talents? A lot of that can be attributed to the year round conditions of the tour. That's why a lot of people miss surface polarisation. To me, that's what made tennis tennis.
Today, I long for attacking tennis. Yesterday, I loved the grinder (Canas, for instance), I loved the attacking baseliner (Agassi) and I loved the all-court player (Safin). Funnily enough, I couldn't stand Pete Sampras's personality and pulled for the underdog 9/10 times. If he were playing today, I'd pull for him out of respect for the sport. That demonstrates my impartial attitude. I was never a fan of Federer, but today I will support him 9/10 times.
It has nothing to do with player preference, but the sport itself. I hope for a long career partially in tennis, you don't feel that way if you're a 'player' fan.
I can only speak for myself, that's my take.