Mens Tennis Forums banner

What do you think?

Isn't about time for the ATP/ITF to remove clay from the main tour?

6K views 91 replies 57 participants last post by  Ilovetheblues_86 
#1 ·
They removed carpet a few years back, a wonderful surface that produces wonderful matches in the past and let clay going, where we usually get is grindfests and matches full of pushing, moonballing and also favoring stamina over talent. :shrug:

But enough is enough, this current clay season is showing the worst level of tennis in the entire history of the sport IMHO, with terrible matches full of endless rallies and even with very talentless players like Ramos Vinolas on the verge of a M1000 final.

Wouldn't be better for the game to have half of the season on outdoor hard, 30% on grass (with a M1000) and 25% of carpet (or indoor hard)?

Fortunatelly Federer already saw the truth and decided to skip the season of tennis in the mud. :cool:
 
#2 · (Edited)
how absurd, awful troll thread


clay generally takes a clever player who can mix in variety and CONSTRUCT points. If anything on faster hardcourts construction is less relevant because someone can just servebot or bash their way to winners.

Clay is not necessarily more boring, its just slower. For people who love fast paced results (cough brain dead consumers these days), of course lightspeed conditions where the match drama elevates quicker will be preferred.

But the concept that its mud that only helps physically fit players is absurd. Robin Soderling didn't play sublime tennis and upset Nadal in 2009 because he was fitter than Nadal, he won because he constructed the points better and intelligently chose when to go for his shots.

And at its core clay has been a part of the sport practically since its inception
 
  • Like
Reactions: redshift and MWW
#41 · (Edited)
And at its core clay has been a part of the sport practically since its inception
Grass can lay claim as has been part of the sport practically since its inception, and yet I've never seen you protesting whenever pocahontas fangirls dissing grass as relic from the past and should be removed altogether.

Aesthetically, grass tennis is the best of all. HC tennis has also produced the majority of most entertaining tennis in the past 20 years. How many stunning legendary tennis we've seen from RG in the past 20 years compared to AO, WIMBY and USO?
Probably 2009 Nadal-Soderling. Even 2015 Wawrinka-Nole was a beatdown. Meanwhile there are SO MANY legendary and most entertaining tennis on AO, WIMBY AND USO in the past 20 years. I rarely saw anyone include clay matches in their top 10 or top 20 greatest matches of all times, with maybe 2006 Rome Fed-Nadal as the only exception.

And I agree that clay favors stamina over talent. Not sure what you mean by clay favoring those with better point construction. It happens equally on all courts, except for the very fast or the very slow ones.

Those who are relatively much weaker on other surfaces can achieve disproportionately much greater results on clay. Witness Muster, Kuerten, Nadal (yes, his non-clay results are much much weaker compared to his clay), Coric, Costa, Ferrero, Bruguera, Vilas, etc. How's their non-clay stats compared to clay ones?

It's almost like a different sport.
 
#6 ·
Desperate Fraudturds are desperate, Rafa keeps winning, the butthurt keeps increasing :lol:
 
#8 ·
It's not a troll thread, it's a legit question.

ATP wants to test ways of making the matches short (sets of 4 games, no-ad and other bizarre things). Wouldn't be easier to only make tournaments on faster surfaces?

Clay is obviously an obsolete surface for professional tennis. String technology and physiology advancements make impossible to play proper tennis on the surface.

Just stay 2m behind the baseline retrieving everything, until tour opponent gets gassed out, then attack the short ball after the 80 shot rally. If you can do it for about 3-4h, most likely you will win pretty much every match. :sad:
 
#39 · (Edited)
Just stay 2m behind the baseline retrieving everything, until tour opponent gets gassed out, then attack the short ball after the 80 shot rally. If you can do it for about 3-4h, most likely you will win pretty much every match. :sad:
People are regularly doing this on HC, watch where Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are behind the baseline at times, and they can stay there! Natural countering ability is boosted on HC more than clay because HC gives a regular trajectory. I will say it is harder to counter heavy shots on clay than the same on HC.

Anyhow we all know the reason for this thread. Federer is AWOL and Grigor can't do anything here :hug:

I prefer grass than clay or hard. Grass requires skills to win matches than hard or clay, you might need a good volley skill to succeed than from the baseline game. A slower surface will grind players to fatigue and whoever has more stamina wins the match, not skill. You see many drop-shots in clay than other surface and grass tend Once you are fatigue, you'd attempt to end points shorter which led to unforced errors and others will take advantage of it and win matches with lots of energy left especially the pushers. In term of tactics, clay has more variety than hard court and grass. So in my opinion for each surface, skill, grass > hard > clay. Tactical varieties plays, clay>grass>hard. So in overall play, grass > hard=clay.
so you're saying on grass, you just hit the ball and on clay you need to think about what you are doing?
I have once described claycourt tennis as like a game of chess. I suppose that HC is like pong and grass must be like checkers as everything keeps advancing forward. I do like the traditional grass like at Halle. The pace is frenetic and exciting and you do move in a lot and rely on reflexive capabilities. However, Wimbledon grass, especially centre court has degenerated and is hard to hit through. Reflexive and tactical tennis gives two different sides of the coin but both are exciting to watch. Unfortunately, a lot of modern HCs being slow removes these aspects and you get a lot of slugging about.
 
#9 ·
Let's give this a try for the remaining matches here in MC, I cannot wait for King Lucas to school Dull and Mugmos. :yeah:

But overall I'd prefer various surfaces for every tournament. With proper scheduling you can get rid of all servebots, grinders and pushers in just a couple of rounds. :smoke:
 
#14 ·
Attacking tennis can be played on clay. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed the way Goffin was playing against Djokovic in the 3rd.

And Federer-Djoko RG 2011 is one of my all-time favourite matches.

We need more aggressive minded players like Wawrinka and Federer instead of doing away with the surface.
 
#15 ·
Attacking tennis can be played on clay. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed the way Goffin was playing against Djokovic in the 3rd.
Attacking tennis wasn't played in today's match. Goffin's tactic was pretty much wear down Djokovic by relentless moving the ball from one side to another. Zero variation, pretty much every winner in this match was a result of tireness and consequently a short ball being handled in a favorable situation (good spot + opponent tired and late on the play).
 
#16 ·
It's a bit of a joke that 3 masters are on clay but nothing on Grass. I'm not saying they should get rid of clay completely but they should even things out a bit more by having less clay and more Grass tournaments. 23 clay tournaments a year compared to just 8 for Grass is a complete joke.
 
#18 ·
I'm just gonna quote myself on the much more important issue of elevation. Every unbiased intelligent analyst of the game recognizes this as the most important issue in the sport.


http://www.menstennisforums.com/2-g...os-quito-one-most-beautiful-stories-ever.html

"You know how Nadal fans say that he would be goat if more than one slam was one clay.

Burgos would be a multi slam champion if more slams were played at Quito's 2,850 metres (9,350 ft) or higher.

I think the ATP places all the slams at sea level so that their PR favourite Federer can play at his preferred altitude.

I'm getting really tired of the ATP's altitude homogenization. Sure it's good that they have a couple 250s on high altitude but that's not enough.

The ATP should have one slam in the mountains of Himalaya or the Andes in South America, to give us that exciting fast air tennis. To contrast that they should put one middle eastern slam next to the shores of the dead sea 430.5 metres (1,412 ft) below sea level, for the ball to move slower and give us that intelligent, calculating slow speed salty tennis. This way low country specialists like Haase and Sijsling would get an opportunity to showcase that beautiful tennis we all know they have."
 
#26 ·
I'm with you on clay being a pretty boring surface compared to hard and grass. That being said, I still like having variety so I don't think clay should be removed. I'm not pleased there aren't any grass masters 1000s though.
 
#29 · (Edited)
I think the reason people like clay is because long rallies add to the tension, but I'm finding that too many of the matches became focused on rallies with the goal of putting youself in the better position to hit a dropshot and win the point. This happens sometimes on slow HC as well, which is what makes Djokovic-Murray matches unwatchable. And, of course, an important part of constructing the point is simply being fitter than your opponent.

On top of that, some of the courts are simply unsuitable to attacking tennis, Monte Carlo for example is too slow, balls die as soon as they hit the ground, it's no surprise Nadal is the biggest winner of Monte Carlo as even past his prime he can grind people all day. Playing attacking tennis on clay is like taking a Ferrari to a dirt course, when you need a Jeep for that.

Clay should be 25% of the tour, but 33% of the M1000s are clay, not to mention all the smaller tournaments scattered throughout the year. Monte Carlo may not be mandatory, but people will play it anyway because it's prestigious and it takes place near the actual principality. Wimbledon being the most prestigious slam is not enough compensation for the lesser amount of play that exists on grass compared to clay these days.
 
#35 ·
It's not a troll thread, it's a legit question. I'm aware of the Ruins section and I would create the thread there if trolling was the purpose.

ATP wants to make the matches shorter and even coming with bizarre ideias, like sets of 4 games.

Would it be more simple just to stop doing tournaments in this obsolete surface, where most of the matches are very long and extremelly boring.

This OP was a good poster. Now he is honestly one the worst and most annoying.
This is a troll/offtopic post though, the thread is not about what people think about the OP. :shrug:
 
#32 ·
This OP was a good poster. Now he is honestly one the worst and most annoying. Clay is the second best surface and probably the best surface to play tennis on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWW
#33 ·
I prefer grass than clay or hard. Grass requires skills to win matches than hard or clay, you might need a good volley skill to succeed than from the baseline game. A slower surface will grind players to fatigue and whoever has more stamina wins the match, not skill. You see many drop-shots in clay than other surface and grass tend Once you are fatigue, you'd attempt to end points shorter which led to unforced errors and others will take advantage of it and win matches with lots of energy left especially the pushers. In term of tactics, clay has more variety than hard court and grass. So in my opinion for each surface, skill, grass > hard > clay. Tactical varieties plays, clay>grass>hard. So in overall play, grass > hard=clay.
 
#34 ·
Upgrade Halle, Stuttgart or Queens to M1000 status and we'll be fine. 10 M1000's is a better number.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top