Lenders, your posts over the last pages are like a voice of reason. I couldn't agree with you more. Clay should stay clay and Nadal should be able to win his tournaments on it quite easily. However, making Wimbledon a clay tournament in the 2nd week is something that simply MUST change. But this is specific to slams, the speed of courts should be evened out throughout the season just like you said, make some of them super slow, make some super fast and mix up the middle ground for the rest of the tournaments.
Djoko/Murray/Nadal fans seem to always think that people who talk of speeding up the courts want the Sampras era back where serves were 90% of the game everywhere you played. No. Just that serve & volley is 1 more way of playing the game, it's legitimate and there should be some tournaments where that strength should be rewarded. As the most dominant play style in the 90s it has completely disappeared now and that's just as problematic.
We need a middle ground allowing players of all styles a chance to shine and surface specialists to make a come back. I still believe the top 4 would remain the top 4 (it's not like Djoko mugged out on the fast courts of cinci this year now is it? He made a final rather easily) but upsets like Nadal in Wimbledon should happen more as surface specialists get a chance to get the jump on the top players.
Fully agree with this, couldn't have put it better myself
As for whether the top 4 would remain the top 4, I honestly have no idea. I don't have the foreseeing powers to guess what the rankings would be like in completely different circumstances. But regardless of whether or not those four would be the four best players, what I'm pretty confident of is that their ranking positions would not be so stable - I'm not fully convinced they'd be the four best players, but even if they were they'd be overtaken on occasion and have to get their ranking back.
Well said. And thatīs also why I canīt take it seriously when people are talking about these players as the best ever top 4. The reason these guys are playing finals week in, week out is because they can play week in, week out without altering their game one bit. Identical surfaces make for indentical game styles and indentical players. Sampras, Becker, Edberg would all have trashed Nadal, Murray and Djokovic on fast hcīs or indoor carpets.
Agree with this.
But why even go as far as to mention all-time greats lie Sampras, Becker and Edberg? Remember Madrid this year, Nadal was drawn to play Berdych in QF had he lived up to his seeding. I seriously doubt he'd have even taken a set off Berdych in those conditions. There are currently active players who'd not fear those three one bit if they faced them on a surface where they can't run down every ball and retrive everything.
This thread has been going around in circles but I suppose that is its goal
. Manuel, of course, is right about the ATP marketing BS but it's the top Federer's fault. It's not even Murray's fault. To a lesser extent Djokovic but primarily Nadull.
Although the ATP have done this slowing down and homogenisation of their own account, Nadull has been instrumental in all of this and recently Djokovic has revealed he likes to tell people what surface to play on. I've never heard this from Murray or Federer who has said he likes different conditions and enjoys the challenge they present.
With that being said, nothing's going to change soon and it's infuriating because even if Fed wins a lot I'll be quite happy but not as much as before. Nothing beats seeing your fave winning with aggressive, attacking tennis where he's not forced to wait out errors or opportunities to attack in long rallies
You should be happy as a Federer fan imo. He has shown the ability to adapt and excel on any kind of conditions, even past 30yo. Definitely the most complete player/talent I've seen in my tennis watching years, he doesn't need the conditions to be perfectly suited to him to excel because his game is so complete he can adapt to any conditions.