Does Anyone Actually Miss The "Faster Court" Tennis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does Anyone Actually Miss The "Faster Court" Tennis?

Jaffas85
09-27-2007, 03:03 PM
I often hearing people complaining about how the courts have slowed down but I think, overall, that it's great.

On T.V. today excerpts of the 2001 Federer-Sampras match from Wimbledon were shown and the court was playing so fast that there were barely any long (or longish) rallies and all the points, especially points originating from Sampras, were so quick thus I found that I was barely interested at all and kept flicking the channel.

Tennis is much more interesting to watch now because we are able to see longer rallies where the different games, contrast and strategies are more clearly highlighted as opposed to very rapid point ending shots that used to happen again and again and again etc. etc.

The faster courts of the past might have been better for seeing more explosive aces but otherwise I think the game has only vastly improved as it's forced players to raise their game in order to win points and matches.

BTW, I still think it's important that Wimbledon maintains a faster surface, as well as the U.S. Open, but not freakishly, and 'boringly', fast like it was over 5 years ago.

Fumus
09-27-2007, 03:05 PM
The big servers miss it.

Rogiman
09-27-2007, 03:08 PM
I miss the variety.

Not saying all surfaces should be lightening quick, but some of them definitely should.

Players nowadays switch from clay to grass to hard without changing anything in their games and that, IMO, is disgusting.

Burrow
09-27-2007, 03:09 PM
Yes.

tennis2tennis
09-27-2007, 03:12 PM
I miss the variety.
agree completely its the CONTRAST in surface speed that makes it fun watching who'll adapt better...you can't help but feel clay-courters have a better deal than grass players (with exception of Halle and Queens)...that's what makes bjorn so phenomenal he conquered both surfaces when they were SO DIFFERENT…

Deboogle!.
09-27-2007, 03:16 PM
I agree. It's not like I wish clay were sped up, I just wish the ones that used to be fast were still just as fast. I like first-strike and serve-volley tennis sometimes. Sue me.

LeChuck
09-27-2007, 03:18 PM
I miss the variety.

Not saying all surfaces should be lightening quick, but some of them definitely should.

Players nowadays switch from clay to grass to hard without changing anything in their games and that, IMO, is disgusting.

I agree. Nowadays we are basically seeing hardcourt tennis being played on hard, clay and grass. I miss the days the days when we saw hardcourt tennis being played on hard, claycourt tennis being played on clay, and grasscourt tennis being played on grass.

jasmin
09-27-2007, 03:53 PM
I miss the variety too.

Apemant
09-27-2007, 04:08 PM
Nowadays, you get to see endlessly long rallies. I'm not sure how that's supposed to excite me more. Maybe because I'm anticipating an unforced error to occur at any point or something like that.

Yeh, I also think it's shortsighted to make all courts play the way it allows for long rallies. It's not that I don't LIKE them - in fact, I do - but frankly, who would like to eat only chocolate all year long?

Tennis IS about variety, it's what makes it great. Narrowing it to its 'best' part doesn't make it better, it makes it poorer.

groundstroke
09-27-2007, 04:34 PM
I would love some faster court tennis, yes.

stebs
09-27-2007, 04:35 PM
Some fast courts would be good for sure and grass should allow for S&V play but on the whole I agree that people who call the modern baseliners boring should watch some 90's tennis. Players who aren't even big servers would be in ace fests often on grass.

adee-gee
09-27-2007, 04:41 PM
Even on quick surfaces I'm not sure too many people would come to the net anymore, the standard of passing shots has seriously improved.

star
09-27-2007, 04:43 PM
I'd love to see someone play like Stefan Edberg and Pat Rafter again. :)

stebs
09-27-2007, 04:59 PM
Even on quick surfaces I'm not sure too many people would come to the net anymore, the standard of passing shots has seriously improved.

Yes, but if you can take control of the point more easily with a groundstroke then it is far more likely to see a lot of people finishing points at the net.

I mean in a perfect world there would be a surface which would be really quick during the rallies but the serves would be slowed down a little so that you still actually get rallies but they are more attack minded. A shame that it's not possible.

R.Federer
09-27-2007, 05:08 PM
I do. Some surfaces can be quick. Not everything need play like versions of clay, it's so monotonous.

madmanfool
09-27-2007, 05:09 PM
Off course i miss the faster court tennis. I wish grass and indoor was speed up again. Nowadays they are rediculously slow.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2007, 05:09 PM
We do miss real tennis, we do.

star
09-27-2007, 09:46 PM
If you watch the Wimbledon matches between Borg and McEnroe it seems so fast. The ground strokes aren't as powerful, but the points are swift. And you know, Adeegee, Borg hit some fairly decent passing shots. ;)

Black Adam
09-27-2007, 09:56 PM
Yep, most of the usually fast tournaments have been slowed down favoring a certain group of players. At least in Davis Cup, we can watch some countries put fast courts. I liked the grass court USA used against Chile in 2006. That is the kind of grass they ought to use at Wimbledon.

scarecrows
09-27-2007, 10:01 PM
you see more and more baseliners and less and less S/V players nowadays

this sucks

Neely
09-27-2007, 11:39 PM
Some people said it right, that we need both very quick and very slow surfaces with variety. Today the difference between fastest and slowest is like |-----| and formerly it was |--------------------|


The funniest thing is when some people complain about clay being sped up, but at the same time they take it for granted that grass, indoor and outdoor surfaces were slowed significantly down.

Lee
09-27-2007, 11:52 PM
Even on quick surfaces I'm not sure too many people would come to the net anymore, the standard of passing shots has seriously improved.

Big thanks to the string technology :shrug:

Yes, but if you can take control of the point more easily with a groundstroke then it is far more likely to see a lot of people finishing points at the net.

I mean in a perfect world there would be a surface which would be really quick during the rallies but the serves would be slowed down a little so that you still actually get rallies but they are more attack minded. A shame that it's not possible.


Or better anticipation/technic on the returner. Take Roddick as example, his fast serve is not as effective as when he first joined the tour. Many more players manage to block his serve back to play.

Lee
09-27-2007, 11:53 PM
And I prefer variety too.

Allure
09-27-2007, 11:54 PM
Yes. Slow courts sucks.

NYCtennisfan
09-28-2007, 12:08 AM
Even on quick surfaces I'm not sure too many people would come to the net anymore, the standard of passing shots has seriously improved.

Probably true. I can't even count up all the times that I have seen excellent FH approaches returned for winners or point ending shots by players 5 feet plus behind the baseline and on the dead run hitting the ball inches from the pavement.

Even on today's courts, you CAN be successful S + V'ing on your 1st serve but have no chance on your second serve. You can't be successful being just a serve and volleyer so you have to develop the rest of your game. If you had courts like the old carpet courts, you would see a lot more success with a FH approach and then foray into net, but you would see a lot more successful passing shots then you did in the 80's nd 90's as well.

NYCtennisfan
09-28-2007, 12:14 AM
i don't see a lot of variety today, just differet players playing their own version of baseline tennis.

Sampras played a lot of quick points true, and most of the time his contemporaries had no answer to that, often having similar styles themselves. But in the occaisional event that he played someone like Agassi, you saw a real nice contrast between a highly defensive vs. a highly offensive game, and it was just beautiful to watch.

Nowadays, you get to see endlessly long rallies. I'm not sure how that's supposed to excite me more. Maybe because I'm anticipating an unforced error to occur at any point or something like that.

But overall, slowing courts down has reduced variety greatly, and yes a lot of times I do miss the 'good old days'.

New string technology has made s+v tennis obsolete because it's nearly impossible to win a good chunk of points off of your 2nd serve by coming in to net. You don't have anyone s + v'ing because nobody wants to come in off of both serves and coming in off of only one serve isn't going to do the trick. Being successful with S + V today would mean being entirely dependant on a good 1st serve %. Somewhere along the line of a slam you would not have a good serving day and face a good returner and that would be that. It's just way too risky so you won't have anyone teaching the serve and volley at academies.

All this is too bad because we don't see a Lendl vs. JMac type of matchup.

Lastly, Agassi was anything but a highly defensive player. ;)

RagingLamb
09-28-2007, 01:03 AM
New string technology has made s+v tennis obsolete because it's nearly impossible to win a good chunk of points off of your 2nd serve by coming in to net. You don't have anyone s + v'ing because nobody wants to come in off of both serves and coming in off of only one serve isn't going to do the trick. Being successful with S + V today would mean being entirely dependant on a good 1st serve %. Somewhere along the line of a slam you would not have a good serving day and face a good returner and that would be that. It's just way too risky so you won't have anyone teaching the serve and volley at academies.

All this is too bad because we don't see a Lendl vs. JMac type of matchup.

Lastly, Agassi was anything but a highly defensive player. ;)

well that sounds like a good hypothesis, but I'd like to see a real test of it.

And I'm not sure you can really test the effectiveness of S&V when the surfaces don't favor it.

GlennMirnyi
09-28-2007, 01:07 AM
It's all because of the plot to slow the surfaces.

HNCS
09-28-2007, 01:16 AM
slow courts getting a little faster, fast courts getting much slower. everthing is gonna turn into the same speed. that's when tennis will go down the drain...

so i agree, variety is the key.

GlennMirnyi
09-28-2007, 01:22 AM
Tennis is already going down the drain.

Action Jackson
09-28-2007, 05:43 AM
The funniest thing is when some people complain about clay being sped up, but at the same time they take it for granted that grass, indoor and outdoor surfaces were slowed significantly down.

No, it's the people who whine about the faster surfaces being slowed down, yet think it's great that clay has been sped up. People want it both ways as usual and of course they forget why the surfaces were slowed down initially.

You know that stuff called lacquer that is used on wooden boards that form the base of carpet surface is dangerous when inhaled in too large quantities.

AnitaOlea
09-28-2007, 06:58 AM
I agree. Nowadays we are basically seeing hardcourt tennis being played on hard, clay and grass. I miss the days the days when we saw hardcourt tennis being played on hard, claycourt tennis being played on clay, and grasscourt tennis being played on grass.


Yeh, I also think it's shortsighted to make all courts play the way it allows for long rallies. It's not that I don't LIKE them - in fact, I do - but frankly, who would like to eat only chocolate all year long?

Tennis IS about variety, it's what makes it great. Narrowing it to its 'best' part doesn't make it better, it makes it poorer.

I couldn't agree more, I enjoy long points but the thing that sucks is that there is no difference between the players depending on the surface, they all play the same tennis (hardcourt tennis) in any surface so the one that wins in one surface wins in them all (Federer, [sorry I'm just sick of watching him in every final]) and that isn't because he's the best tennis player EVER is because the surface doesn't make a difference anymore . One of the latest examples was Serbia-Australia davis cup matches, I enjoyed them but that wasn't claycourt tennis at all... :wavey:

leng jai
09-28-2007, 08:01 AM
Yes, but if you can take control of the point more easily with a groundstroke then it is far more likely to see a lot of people finishing points at the net.

I mean in a perfect world there would be a surface which would be really quick during the rallies but the serves would be slowed down a little so that you still actually get rallies but they are more attack minded. A shame that it's not possible.

Make the service box clay, and the rest of the court grass/hard court.

Jaffas85
09-28-2007, 08:07 AM
How do they slow down grass anyway?

Just let the grass grow longer to slow down the ball?

leng jai
09-28-2007, 08:08 AM
They have fans at the back of the court blowing air against the balls.

Nadalfanatic
09-28-2007, 08:19 AM
How do they slow down grass anyway?

Just let the grass grow longer to slow down the ball?
Sand I believe. A bunch of whiners though around here. Australian Open has equally sped up their courts to what Wimbledon has done. I do agree that Wimbledon should be faster as well as the Australian Open being slower. The French Open is the only slow courts. The other surfaces are medium fast.

stebs
09-28-2007, 11:53 AM
Make the service box clay, and the rest of the court grass/hard court.

Maybe they have clay in the left service box, HC on the right service box and grass at the back of the court. Just add in multi-ball and RR and you have Dsineys idea of tennis heaven.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-28-2007, 01:53 PM
Fast courts are for dumber people.

I prefer the slower courts as it requires a greater intellect.

Humans and tennis are evolving towards greater and greater intellect.

leng jai
09-28-2007, 02:13 PM
Nadal the master tactician.

t0x
09-28-2007, 03:18 PM
Fast courts are for dumber people.

I prefer the slower courts as it requires a greater intellect.

Humans and tennis are evolving towards greater and greater intellect.

Yes, Nadal's run, run, run and run faster style of play clearly means he has a large IQ...

In regards to court speed. To me the USO was the best slam this year, and RG the worst. Maybe it's no coincidence that the fastest one was best and slowest crap?

Neely
09-28-2007, 03:51 PM
No, it's the people who whine about the faster surfaces being slowed down, yet think it's great that clay has been sped up.
Like I and others mentioned correctly, I'm saying in the same vain keep the variety and don't close the gap between (average) fastest and (average) slowest surfaces too much. Lets have some very fast surfaces, even if it only three tournament while some play very slow.

You have to see both sides of the medal. I want to see faster tennis, so of course I'm pissed off when everything got slowed down - and people on the side complain about the opposite surface being sped up. But if you read my words I don't say that tennis should have surfaces which play speed-wise almost the same.

jasmin
09-28-2007, 03:57 PM
Wow slow courts make you smarter...:lol:.

Hatred really messes people up. They say the most off things.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-28-2007, 04:00 PM
Wow slow courts make you smarter...:lol:.

Hatred really messes people up. They say the most off things.

Setting up points and tactics = slow courts

Serving and ball bashing = fast courts

Which requires the greater intellect.

The stupidity on MTF never ceases to amaze me.

GlennMirnyi
09-28-2007, 05:08 PM
How do they slow down grass anyway?

Just let the grass grow longer to slow down the ball?

You change the surface beneath the grass. Before it was really soft, so the ball would barely bounce, now it's harder so the balls are taking spin and bouncing high, something ridiculous.

They have fans at the back of the court blowing air against the balls.

:haha:

Nadal the master tactician.

:haha: :haha:

Setting up points and tactics = slow courts

Serving and ball bashing = fast courts

Which requires the greater intellect.

The stupidity on MTF never ceases to amaze me.

Moonballing isn't tactics.

thrust
09-28-2007, 05:55 PM
I think the variety we have today is great. The USO is a fast hard court, the AO, a bit slower, the FO-slow clay, Wimbledon is grass- perhaps not as fast as it used to be- but still unique. I agree with the person who said that the equipment today has made the return game more aggressive, which prevents a strictly serve and volley game. Is it next year^s AO that will have a different hard surface?

CyBorg
09-28-2007, 06:19 PM
I don't miss fast courts and graphite rackets. I miss fast courts and wooden rackets.

ezekiel
09-28-2007, 06:20 PM
I often hearing people complaining about how the courts have slowed down but I think, overall, that it's great.

On T.V. today excerpts of the 2001 Federer-Sampras match from Wimbledon were shown and the court was playing so fast that there were barely any long (or longish) rallies and all the points, especially points originating from Sampras, were so quick thus I found that I was barely interested at all and kept flicking the channel.

Tennis is much more interesting to watch now because we are able to see longer rallies where the different games, contrast and strategies are more clearly highlighted as opposed to very rapid point ending shots that used to happen again and again and again etc. etc.

The faster courts of the past might have been better for seeing more explosive aces but otherwise I think the game has only vastly improved as it's forced players to raise their game in order to win points and matches.

BTW, I still think it's important that Wimbledon maintains a faster surface, as well as the U.S. Open, but not freakishly, and 'boringly', fast like it was over 5 years ago.


Fast courts ae a myth , it's just that good and elite players are more athletic with better defense

jasmin
09-28-2007, 07:40 PM
You just can't listen to obvious haters.:lol:

oz_boz
09-30-2007, 09:15 PM
Speed up Wimbly and slow down RG. Variety rules.

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2007, 11:47 PM
Ezekiel is dumb as a door.

guga2120
10-01-2007, 12:40 AM
As much as they have slowed down some courts a bit, they have clearly made clay faster. I do think in the 90's alot of courts were really fast, but there are alot of courts really fast today. The US tournaments play the same, the only one that might be different is Wimbledon, and all the clay tournaments which are faster.

It just shows how great Agassi was that he was able to win on slow clay courts and lighting fast hard courts, something Sampras never could have done.

GlennMirnyi
10-01-2007, 12:45 AM
Bullshit. Agassi's wins were all flukes and cakewalk draws.

Allure
10-01-2007, 01:01 AM
Ezekiel is dumb as a door.

That's not right.







Why do you have to insult the door?

Kuhne
10-01-2007, 09:25 PM
The courts are slower but grass is grass, nomatter how much you slow it down it will still be fast and if sampras were on his prime right now he would still be using his serve and volley and doing great with it. the reason why it all seems slower has a little bit to do with the courts but mostly because the game nowadays is more baseline based, we seem to judge the tennis allways from the top players and the top players now a days play baseline tennis so thats why it seems slower.

mineralwater
10-02-2007, 03:48 PM
Yes, Nadal's run, run, run and run faster style of play clearly means he has a large IQ...

In regards to court speed. To me the USO was the best slam this year, and RG the worst. Maybe it's no coincidence that the fastest one was best and slowest crap?

I agree with you. Enjoyed USO most, French Open least, thought USO had the most variety. You do need brains and talent to play with variety. Do need good tactics for clay though but find baseline - side to side, heavy topspin, 20+shot rallies all the time a little dull.:zzz:

Forehander
10-03-2007, 12:18 AM
never played on it in serious tournaments so i wouldn't know. But it'll be good i assume if they sped the grass courts up again

Action Jackson
10-03-2007, 09:08 AM
I agree with you. Enjoyed USO most, French Open least, thought USO had the most variety. You do need brains and talent to play with variety. Do need good tactics for clay though but find baseline - side to side, heavy topspin, 20+shot rallies all the time a little dull.:zzz:

Go watch the indoor events from the mid 90s and the bowling greens of Wimbledon.

abraxas21
04-21-2011, 11:11 PM
yes, i do. they have slowed everything

Topspindoctor
04-21-2011, 11:12 PM
I don't miss fast courts at all.

Sonja1989
04-21-2011, 11:16 PM
I want to just slower courts. :D :D :D

Anyway good to watch videos of that old time but I don't miss it.

Li Ching Yuen
04-21-2011, 11:24 PM
Indian Wells - slow/medium
Miami - slow
Monte Carlo - clay
Madrid - clay/medium
Rome - clay
Toronto/Montreal - slow/medium
Cincinatti-medium/fast
Shanghai - Brutally slow
Paris - fast
London - slow/medium

AO - slow
RG - clay/medium
Wimbledon - grass/medium
USO - medium



I think we need to balance it a little ITF and ATP geniuses. At least pop in a faster tourney somewhere, one that actually counts.

Cheers, love you.

abraxas21
04-21-2011, 11:28 PM
it seems montreal is considerably faster than toronto. at least nadal has said that montreal is one of the fastest tournaments in the ATP.

Li Ching Yuen
04-21-2011, 11:30 PM
it seems montreal is considerably faster than toronto. at least nadal has said that montreal is one of the fastest tournaments in the ATP.

Canada, Cincinnati and the USO will be different than last year. Slower.

They also desperately want to change the balls that they play the USO with. (which make it pretty quick-ish compared to other tournaments)

abraxas21
04-21-2011, 11:31 PM
really? didn't know that.

can you give me a source to find more details plz?

@Sweet Cleopatra
04-22-2011, 12:02 AM
How many times are we going to discuss it! omg, you guys are thread clones posting the same thread over and over. Let me simplify it kids, rackets were wooden and graphite, fast courts with today rackets = no tennis.

Methods of training plus the technology of new rackets made tennis players level so close, with no competition and no real matches, they had to do something to prevent the death of tennis.

Move onnnn it has nothing to do with Nadal.

v-money
04-22-2011, 12:21 AM
I can see how a lot of hardcore tennis fans, especially the ones that followed tennis in the 1990's, would miss it. You guys have to remember that MTF is a collection of such fans (bar the few gloryhunters), we watch a lot of tennis and some have been watching a lot of tennis since the 90's, even more now with the growth of media. This question may bother those that have nostalgia of the good-ole times or those that love the history of the game, but it doesn't bother most casual fans.

We have to remember that a business, which the ATP certainly is, first worries about making money. If they indeed are trying to speed up the courts it's an economic decision. Now I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, so I don't think they are doing this to help Nadal or to build I rivalry, but even that would probably please the casual fan and bring in the money. Most casual fans watch to see the big players play in slams and they love rivalries.

Faster courts in general help to entertain todays fans, who have small attention-spans. In my opinion this is why the ATP has sped it up, for better TV ratings and ticket sales. I don't think this would be a huge deal, other sports evolve all the time to provide more entertainment. The 3-point line in basketball, penalty shootouts in US hockey to avoid ties. Sure such changes may effect the history of the game but history is not going to help you when TV networks don't want to show tennis, as is the case in the US.

In this way I don't mind it hugely, nor do I miss it because I didn't watch in the 90's. Unfortunately history sometimes has to come second, all sports are evolving. Hopefully in years to come we still have something resembling tennis is the historic sense, but the more fanatic fans just have to deal with some of these changes. Doubt that the ATP really cares about some of these conservative die-hard fans.

viruzzz
04-22-2011, 12:33 AM
Deffensive play is for deffensive people.

Nole fan
04-22-2011, 12:40 AM
Don't miss the fast courts at all. Good riddance. :yeah:

barbadosan
04-22-2011, 12:51 AM
For all those who are saying good riddance to the faster courts: It occurs to me that part of the players' complaints about the length of the season may in fact not be all to do with the actual number of tournaments, but that matches are taking much longer to finish, year long, on slow courts everywhere - hence taking more and more physical toll of players. If you're going to be playing 30+ stroke rallies in every match, not just for say, the clay season, then something surely has to give.

In cricket, fast bowlers expend far more energy on long run-ups and bowling at 80-100 mph; their careers are historically way shorter than spin bowlers who have very short run up (more like 2 chips in some cases, and over goes the arm for a slow ball). Be interesting to have the stats men track the trend over the next few years, and see if there is in fact a discernible shortening in the careers of tennis players who will be less and less able to play a short point.

Nole fan
04-22-2011, 12:57 AM
For all those who are saying good riddance to the faster courts: It occurs to me that part of the players' complaints about the length of the season may in fact not be all to do with the actual number of tournaments, but that matches are taking much longer to finish, year long, on slow courts everywhere - hence taking more and more physical toll of players. If you're going to be playing 30+ stroke rallies in every match, not just for say, the clay season, then something surely has to give.

In cricket, fast bowlers expend far more energy on long run-ups and bowling at 80-100 mph; their careers are historically way shorter than spin bowlers who have very short run up (more like 2 chips in some cases, and over goes the arm for a slow ball). Be interesting to have the stats men track the trend over the next few years, and see if there is in fact a discernible shortening in the careers of tennis players who will be less and less able to play a short point.

That's the downside of it. Tennis overall has become a very physical sport. The McEnroes and Borgs of the past wouldn't be able to withstand the pace and strenght of the game today with their conditioning.

Myrre
04-22-2011, 12:58 AM
Where is the challenge in playing on different surfaces, when you can just go out and play your normal game and meet the same type of opponents no matter where you play?

fast_clay
04-22-2011, 01:01 AM
the slowing of the game has, without doubt made the game more accessible...

the purists scream bloody murder every era... with probably the greatest screams being reserved for this era due to it being the enemy of contrasting stylists...

however, unlike other eras, the high technology is there to be able to shape the game in any way the powers that be see fit... that is, however, if there was any hint of an idea from those in control...

sadly, there is no cohesive vision coming from those above... ie; poor leadership...

these days goes like:

Fed: 'you know, i really don't see carpet as a relevant surface moving forward, you know...?'
Rafa: (shrugs)'es silly surface no...? es for clowns, circus time, no...?'
ATP Board Chairman: 'ok then.... fantastic... no more carpet courts... thanks guys... that's a wrap... see you next year...'

Canada, Cincinnati and the USO will be different than last year. Slower.

They also desperately want to change the balls that they play the USO with. (which make it pretty quick-ish compared to other tournaments)

they want to change...? are you serious...?

really? didn't know that.

can you give me a source to find more details plz?

the wilson us open ball... working on abrasive slow-medium indoors, i can tell you straight up and down: there is no faster ball than the Wilson US Open... and, no faster wearing ball either... the ball doesnt fluff up much at all in comparison to other balls... and it doesnt take too long to get quicker at that level of play... contrary to what a lot of ppl may think, but while the courts are actually quicker, in my opinion it is the characteristics of the Wilson US Open ball allow the US Open to be the #1 'fast court' major tournament... strange to say that...

ps: iam not for making the game faster... just... a balance... controlling the balls in use from season to season thru an 11 month period would be perhaps the best way to control and re-introduce that balance... it's not hard for the lay person to imagine: a quicker ball moves thru the air and spends 75% of the strike travelling without contact from the court surface...

Topspindoctor
04-22-2011, 01:06 AM
That's the downside of it. Tennis overall has become a very physical sport. The McEnroes and Borgs of the past wouldn't be able to withstand the pace and strenght of the game today with their conditioning.

McEnroe, yes, but Borg!? Come on, the guy would love today's courts and new Babolat racquets. The guy loved long and brutal rallies back when on clay hitting a winner was almost impossible (due to speed and wooden racquets).

aZZMuXBr_Hk&feature=related

Roamed
04-22-2011, 01:20 AM
Only ~200 days to go until Paris!!1

Synesthetic
04-22-2011, 01:33 AM
Indian Wells - slow/medium
Miami - slow
Monte Carlo - clay
Madrid - clay/medium
Rome - clay
Toronto/Montreal - slow/medium
Cincinatti-medium/fast
Shanghai - Brutally slow
Paris - fast
London - slow/medium

AO - slow
RG - clay/medium
Wimbledon - grass/medium
USO - medium


Shanghai's not that slow, is it? I think it's closer to a medium HC.

barbadosan
04-22-2011, 01:33 AM
That's the downside of it. Tennis overall has become a very physical sport. The McEnroes and Borgs of the past wouldn't be able to withstand the pace and strenght of the game today with their conditioning.

Judging from the number of players retiring hurt from matches, an increasing number of players today can't withstand those elements either, even with the benefit of "conditioning"

fast_clay
04-22-2011, 01:40 AM
Judging from the number of players retiring hurt from matches, an increasing number of players today can't withstand those elements either, even with the benefit of "conditioning"

thats the problem with having a mandatory schedule and not a 'Free Tour'...

players feel less likely to look after themselves and skip an event...

so, you tell me whats better... two or three decent seeds less...? or... two or three of the top seeds actually taking the court and retiring...?

retiring after the people had paid the entry fee...

no, you would actually like delivery on your purchase i think... regardless of who is performing for your money...



but... f*** it... nah.. lets build a professional culture that encourages player to turn up and retire... not only that, let's rob the the fans a little more and scratch 5 set finals... and... hell yeah, 28 and 56 man draws... wow, yeah... that'll do it :silly:

green25814
04-22-2011, 01:43 AM
What's wrong with liking variety? I love great claycourters, but equally I love great S/V players and shotmakers. I'm just angry at how different tennis styles are slowly morphing into one. It makes things considerably less interesting.

eclecticist
04-22-2011, 01:47 AM
the way they are slowing down the HCs and speeding up the clay courts is really detrimental to the game. before, you had true variety of playing conditions, nowadays tennis looks more or less the same on every surface. they should really speed up the game again, and slow down some of the clay courts like rome, madrid, RG. if you don't want to watch fast tennis, watch slow clay. if you don't want to watch slow tennis, watch fast HC.

besides, fast HC increases the quality of tennis imo. since speed is a huge factor on fast HC, players try to take advantage of it by hitting higher quality of shots earlier and more often in the rally for winners. on slow HC, since doing so gives you less of an edge, players just stand behind the baseline and engage in ridiculously boring 20+ stroke rallies.

Filo V.
04-22-2011, 01:52 AM
Balance throughout the schedule would be nice. I don't like how grass plays these days. I preferred faster, lower bouncing grass. I enjoyed Paris and Cincinnati is one of my favorite events, as well as New York. I like fast courts because it usually leads to offensive tennis, and great shotmaking.

rocketassist
04-22-2011, 02:20 AM
Variety. If you all want only slow courts, then you're a biased fanboy/fangirl of your fave who is shit scared to see him lose.

Action Jackson
04-22-2011, 03:00 AM
Don't miss the fast courts at all. Good riddance. :yeah:

You only followed tennis in 2008.

VolandriFan
04-22-2011, 04:19 AM
Speed changes from surface to surface make the season more exciting and give different players a chance to shine at their respective times. They also set apart the elite players from the 'good' players by highlighting their adaptability across the surfaces.

People will always have their preferences, but giving us variety should cater to that. Bring back the slow clay courts and the speedy grass courts!

fast_clay
04-22-2011, 04:35 AM
Bring back the slow clay courts and the speedy grass courts!

simply a condition where there is a contest between the serve and return disciplines would suffice... a contest edging the serve and the server's 1st shot ie; a quality attacking play behind the serve... a condition that would see the grass take slice and reward the mastery of open faced techniques that adorned the game for eras... as they are now closer to extinct than to endangered species...

not an ace fest... just a good battle edging quality attacking skill for a certain amount of time per year... god knows it edges a set of lungs on wheels for most of it at the moment...

oranges
04-22-2011, 04:36 AM
What a topic. Is there anyone who knows anything about tennis who doesn't? Who the fuck wants to watch the same all year around.

Action Jackson
04-22-2011, 04:38 AM
Speed changes from surface to surface make the season more exciting and give different players a chance to shine at their respective times. They also set apart the elite players from the 'good' players by highlighting their adaptability across the surfaces.

People will always have their preferences, but giving us variety should cater to that. Bring back the slow clay courts and the speedy grass courts!

Agree with that, personally I want to see them tested in all conditions. I loved watching the clay guys look like grass gimps and the fast courters looking like clay clowns.

The best players will adjust to the respective challenges.

fast_clay
04-22-2011, 04:45 AM
I loved watching the clay guys look like grass gimps and the fast courters looking like clay clowns.


i never had a problem with the mass exodus of clay from wimbledon of yesteryear... though, it was funny when they did turn up and had a go... gimp is the word... most of the attempts were half hearted - never really embraced the grass spiritually you might say :lol: just a three day trip to london... bit of sight seeing... have a crack... off home...

but many of the clay guys used to take a two week holiday, and still, if it happened today i wouldnt have an issue with it like they did in the 90's... if you know you're a grass gimp and dont want to then fine... other guys like agassi and nadal wanted to repeatedly prove themselves on the surface, helps round out their legacies...

today, sadly, the surface doesnt even ask the question...

Johnny Groove
04-22-2011, 04:51 AM
To me, it should be:

AO- medium speed hard court
IW- slow-medium speed hard court
Miami- slow speed hard court
Monte Carlo- slow clay
Madrid- medium clay
Rome- slow-medium clay
RG- slow-medium clay
Wimbledon- medium-fast speed low bouncing grass
Canada- medium-fast hard court
Cincy- medium-fast hard court
USO- medium-fast hard court
Shanghai- fast hard court
Paris- fast hard court
WTF- fast hard court

So in my fictional world, the AO and IW will be faster, clay will be clay, Wimbledon will be faster, Canada, Cincy, USO, Shanghai, Paris, and WTF would all be sped up as well.

Action Jackson
04-22-2011, 04:55 AM
i never had a problem with the mass exodus of clay from wimbledon of yesteryear... though, it was funny when they did turn up and had a go... gimp is the word... most of the attempts were half hearted - never really embraced the grass spiritually you might say :lol: just a three day trip to london... bit of sight seeing... have a crack... off home...

but many of the clay guys used to take a two week holiday, and still, if it happened today i wouldnt have an issue with it like they did in the 90's... if you know you're a grass gimp and dont want to then fine... other guys like agassi and nadal wanted to repeatedly prove themselves on the surface, helps round out their legacies...

today, sadly, the surface doesnt even ask the question...

Horsti Skoff in 88 was absolutely hilarious. He won Athens on clay on the Sunday before Wimbledon. Flew there to London and played McEnroe on the Monday. He headed a ball over the net, taking the piss and McEnroe having a go at someones antics too much.

It was cause of their protests that the 32 seeds came into play.

Corretja and Muster won big indoor events which were actually fast, then you had the Berasategui embarrassment at the Masters.

The AO is quick enough, since the US Open is fast.

Puschkin
04-22-2011, 08:15 AM
Speed changes from surface to surface make the season more exciting and give different players a chance to shine at their respective times. They also set apart the elite players from the 'good' players by highlighting their adaptability across the surfaces.

People will always have their preferences, but giving us variety should cater to that. Bring back the slow clay courts and the speedy grass courts!

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of this.

DrJules
04-22-2011, 08:43 AM
That's the downside of it. Tennis overall has become a very physical sport. The McEnroes and Borgs of the past wouldn't be able to withstand the pace and strenght of the game today with their conditioning.

Maybe true for McEnroe and most players at the time, but Borg is another matter. Probably the worst example to choose from that period.

Li Ching Yuen
04-22-2011, 08:45 AM
really? didn't know that.

can you give me a source to find more details plz?

I read it on TTW a week ago or something like that. They were talking with one of the director of Cincinatti who confirmed that as of this year they changed the composition of the surface a little, he was also saying that there's great pressure to have the US Open change the Wilson ball, who fast_clay truthfully described earlier.

It's not the courts that make the USO pretty quick, it's the balls.

abraxas21
04-22-2011, 09:54 AM
i see. thanks fast clat and li ching lueng for the replies

HNCS
04-22-2011, 10:30 AM
haven't read through the entire thread. but i don't want the entire tour to be just quick surfaced and all we get is the "serve" "ace" "volley" type tennis. That's pretty boring. But it's also boring if suddenly everyone just stayed at the back and that was it.

I would really appreciate if there was true variety over the course of a year in terms of surface. If it's grass, then there's type of tennis that was born out of grass, and we get a fairly good length of the grass court season. If it's clay then we should good clay tennis, over a solid season. Same with hard court. And obviously there is variety in terms of how we play on each surface.

Overall, appropriate variety is very appreciated. At the moment... it's a trend towards a monosurface. Kills a sport in my eyes.

Li Ching Yuen
04-22-2011, 10:46 AM
I think everybody should accept that once a surface is fast OR slow the tennis that works best on it is entirely different. There's nothing wrong with baseline tennis, in fact it's probably the foundation of how you have to play the game.

BUT

I think everybody gets the wrong idea that if we somehow make all courts of similar pace, no matter the surface or the location we get best of both words, baseline + attacking tennis. The truth of the matter is, we don't, it's actually more lopsided than ever.

Instead of trying this, there should be parts of the season that reward both styles. Why not have a counterpart to Ferrer into the Top10?...If he can get there playing his tennis why doesn't a big server deserve a share of the calendar where he can play into his strengths instead of forcing himself to play like aforementioned player?

Tennis would have evolved if we had BOTH worlds today, baseline tennis that focuses on endurance, tactics and shotmaking and attacking tennis with big serves, volleys, net play, slicing, two-strike tennis etc.

But as things are today, we have one the first style, and it's not even "done" properly so to speak. There are more and more matches consisting of players hunching backhands cross-court for 4 hours straight. Yes, there's a passing shot every 10 minutes or so that makes you stand up but I don't really think that's worth the compromise.

Instead of this marmalade of a calendar we have today I think it would be far more suitable to design it in such a way that tennis is actually different going from season to season, and yes, even if it's at the cost of having different faces into the advanced stages of the tournament.

Superstars are for American Idol, tennis is for tennis players.

Nole fan
04-22-2011, 12:33 PM
You only followed tennis in 2008.

You don't have any idea, clown.

Action Jackson
04-22-2011, 12:45 PM
You don't have any idea, clown.

Good one Mrs. Roncero.

barbadosan
04-22-2011, 12:58 PM
It occurs to me that Tiriac's idea for bigger balls to slow the game down even further might not, in the long run, be a bad one for the effect it would have on the game.

1) What used to be 60-90 minute games are already running near to 3 hours or more; these games would now run even longer - maybe 4 to 6 hours.

2) Tournament directors would start catching fits trying to get their matches completed as a result. Audiences would not likely be hanging around for a game starting at 11 pm (we're not talking AO GS here)

3) More and more players would be retiring or giving walkovers - mainly due to injuries brought on by exhaustion

4) So FINALLY the pendulum would once again start swinging towards faster courts almost as fast as it swung against them, and Mr Tiriac's balls would be summarily disposed of.