Federer and Nadal asked for a change in the Paris-Bercy surface [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer and Nadal asked for a change in the Paris-Bercy surface

scoobs
10-29-2007, 04:06 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

Sunset of Age
10-29-2007, 04:09 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

Indeed. :( :( :(

This is a disgrace to the sport. Even if it's my two fav players involved in this - I think it's an atrocity.

I'm rooting for Murray to win even more than I already did now. :ras: ;)

Jimnik
10-29-2007, 04:10 PM
Soon the ATP will invent a new general surface that pleases everyone and demand all tournaments to intall it.

Sunset of Age
10-29-2007, 04:13 PM
Soon the ATP will invent a new general surface that pleases everyone and demand all tournaments to intall it.

:bigcry: don't give them ideas... :sad:

Deboogle!.
10-29-2007, 04:32 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.I actually just got sick to my stomach reading this.

ReturnWinner
10-29-2007, 04:38 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

i would say adapted to Federer and Nadal, the two who whinned, do u think atp would care about Montañes or Starace opinion? :o

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 04:39 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

That's odd. Federer asking for a court to be slowed down? :confused: :lol:

Why are these organizers seceding control of their tournaments like that? This must be one of the few places where it's done. Hewitt has routinely complained that the Aussies pay no attention to his requests. Henman, well we know what they did with the grass and what that did for his results.

Until now I thought the USO was the only place where they have consciously made the courts the best they can for their own players, but now Paris joins in, and not for their home players. Too weird!

danton
10-29-2007, 04:39 PM
I actually just got sick to my stomach reading this.

Totally agree the system should overall be fair for everyone whether you're no1 or 100. There should be a selection of surfaces throughout the year but i'm struggling to think of a fast surface most HCs are now Med-fast. I think Nottingham grass was fast but that's all I could think of.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 04:40 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.


Source?

Merton
10-29-2007, 04:41 PM
Carpet is obviously dying, but the cause of its death is sad, it is just not fitting for today's top players games. Never mind that styles go in waves, once it is dead it will be hard to resurrect. It is one thing to curtail it due to health hazards but I doubt there is a case that it is more dangerous than hardcourts. Another thing would be to die due to hardcourts having lower cost. I haven't seen the case for that either.

This is a case where the tournament organizer succumbed to bullying and the ATP stood by watching.

scoobs
10-29-2007, 04:47 PM
Source:
http://www.grandchelem.net/mon_weblog/2007/10/jean-franois-ca.html

The relevant passage, in French, is

Vous êtes donc allé vers les joueurs en dépêchant Jean-François Bachelot pour connaître leur desiderata, est-ce que leur soucis principal c’était la surface ?
C’était en grande partie la surface. C’est sûr que pour deux d’entre eux, c’était une condition sine qua non de leur venue.

C’est qui les deux ?
Federer et Nadal. Le numéro 1 et numéro 2. Et pour des raisons tout à faire recevables. Nadal trouvait que la surface ne prenait pas ses effets donc son jeu n’avait plus aucune valeur. C’était vrai, la surface prenait moins les effets. Federer c’était un problème psychologique, il bloquait : « Je trouve moins bien mes appuis… »

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 04:53 PM
Thanks. So I take it Jean Francois is the tournament director with Pioline or something?

This was not funny .... :rolleyes: :o


Oui d’ailleurs on lui a dit « Comme tu ne vas pas gagner Roland-Garros et que tu ne le gagneras jamais, il faut que t’aies un titre à Paris, viens jouer à Bercy… ». Non je plaisante.


Source:
http://www.grandchelem.net/mon_weblog/2007/10/jean-franois-ca.html

The relevant passage, in French, is

Vous êtes donc allé vers les joueurs en dépêchant Jean-François Bachelot pour connaître leur desiderata, est-ce que leur soucis principal c’était la surface ?
C’était en grande partie la surface. C’est sûr que pour deux d’entre eux, c’était une condition sine qua non de leur venue.

C’est qui les deux ?
Federer et Nadal. Le numéro 1 et numéro 2. Et pour des raisons tout à faire recevables. Nadal trouvait que la surface ne prenait pas ses effets donc son jeu n’avait plus aucune valeur. C’était vrai, la surface prenait moins les effets. Federer c’était un problème psychologique, il bloquait : « Je trouve moins bien mes appuis… »

cmurray
10-29-2007, 05:50 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

I'll be frank - I'm more irritated at the tournament directors than I am at Nadal and Federer. Players are CONSTANTLY complaining about surfaces. The problem is that Bercy conceded. Furthermore, it says something sad that the success of a tournament lays almost exclusively on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal. Players don't play at tournaments ALL THE TIME because of surface (Roddick and clay anyone?).

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 06:02 PM
I'll be frank - I'm more irritated at the tournament directors than I am at Nadal and Federer. Players are CONSTANTLY complaining about surfaces. The problem is that Bercy conceded. Furthermore, it says something sad that the success of a tournament lays almost exclusively on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal. Players don't play at tournaments ALL THE TIME because of surface (Roddick and clay anyone?).

Paris is in a bit of a different spot, because they have a history of losing top players because of their position on the calendar. So that might explain why, maybe. Having said that, I think they might have guessed that No.1,2 would have shown up given the new bonus pool regardless of surface.

If it was an American tournament maybe they too would have succumbed to an American player's request for surface fiddling around. I don't think Roddick alone is enough to change slow clay into fast clay in Europe even if he asked for it. I don't think it would matter at all to be honest.

Sunset of Age
10-29-2007, 06:14 PM
I'll be frank - I'm more irritated at the tournament directors than I am at Nadal and Federer. Players are CONSTANTLY complaining about surfaces. The problem is that Bercy conceded. Furthermore, it says something sad that the success of a tournament lays almost exclusively on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal. Players don't play at tournaments ALL THE TIME because of surface (Roddick and clay anyone?).

Good point.
It's sad that Raf and Rogi feel the need to exert their power in this manner, but it is even more sad that tournament directors actually listen to them.

It shows how SICK the ATP (in its being of a board for TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS rather than for players) has become, thinking it's dependent on only two players for its succes.

Come on Muzza, take that title now. :angel:

Fee
10-29-2007, 06:28 PM
Totally agree the system should overall be fair for everyone whether you're no1 or 100. There should be a selection of surfaces throughout the year but i'm struggling to think of a fast surface most HCs are now Med-fast. I think Nottingham grass was fast but that's all I could think of.

San Jose was pretty damn quick this year. They wanted to speed it up from last year and they went a bit too far. I'm sure it will be slowed down a bit again next year.

scoobs
10-29-2007, 06:35 PM
San Jose was pretty damn quick this year. They wanted to speed it up from last year and they went a bit too far. I'm sure it will be slowed down a bit again next year.
Yes they wanted to help the home boys - they wanted Roddick to win. All they got for their troubles was Karlovic in the final, and Murray beating both Roddick and Karlovic to win the thing again :lol:

Sjengster
10-29-2007, 06:58 PM
Wow, that is disgusting. Saying that you won't play a big event because the surface isn't good for your game, would Federer and Nadal make the same complaint about RG and the US Open respectively? I really liked that low-bouncing court of old, it made aggression a real priority since the ball just wouldn't stay at a comfortable height for very long.

It's laughable that the sport is supposed to be making big reforms and is simultaneously indulging in craven practices such as this, it's the ultimate example of short-term thinking based entirely on milking your two big cash cows.

stebs
10-29-2007, 07:07 PM
Wow, that is disgusting. Saying that you won't play a big event because the surface isn't good for your game, would Federer and Nadal make the same complaint about RG and the US Open respectively? I really liked that low-bouncing court of old, it made aggression a real priority since the ball just wouldn't stay at a comfortable height for very long.

It's laughable that the sport is supposed to be making big reforms and is simultaneously indulging in craven practices such as this, it's the ultimate example of short-term thinking based entirely on milking your two big cash cows.

Perhaps in the future Federer will be asked again about his defeats to Nadal on clay, he will answer that obviously it's tough because the surface suits Nadal and we will arrive in paris to see grass so Feds can complete his career slam.

However, although we are slating the players it is the tournaments decision to accomodate for them. I don't think this surface being implemented last year would've seen the top 2 playing, more likely it is just an over-reaction. Most players have complaints about half the tournaments out there, it was just that Paris NEEDED Federer and/or Nadal this year so they went over board to help out.

Deboogle!.
10-29-2007, 07:39 PM
I'll be frank - I'm more irritated at the tournament directors than I am at Nadal and Federer. Players are CONSTANTLY complaining about surfaces. The problem is that Bercy conceded. Furthermore, it says something sad that the success of a tournament lays almost exclusively on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal. Players don't play at tournaments ALL THE TIME because of surface (Roddick and clay anyone?).It's poor that Bercy conceded, but I think it's poor if the two top players say "I will not play this important event unless you change the surface." there's complaining and there's ultimatums - Tim complained about the slowing down of Wimbledon but didn't make ultimatums, even Lleyton complained vociferously about the AO surface but never made any ultimatums - these guys actually made an ultimatum. Andy doesn't like clay, but he never ever complains about a particular tournament's surface. that's very very selfish of those two and I think they share the blame with whomever actually listened.
Yes they wanted to help the home boys - they wanted Roddick to win. All they got for their troubles was Karlovic in the final, and Murray beating both Roddick and Karlovic to win the thing again :lol:Except that Andy didn't ask for it to be sped up - he had won it twice just the way it was :lol: Plus, he said he didn't like it, that it was about the fastest court he had ever played on and it was tough to even hit the ball. So if that was their goal (which no one ever actually said it was except for people here:lol: ) it was a dumb one to make it that fast - that benefits no one really :lol:

scoobs
10-29-2007, 07:56 PM
The tournament director at San Jose said it was.

DrJules
10-29-2007, 08:11 PM
Totally agree the system should overall be fair for everyone whether you're no1 or 100. There should be a selection of surfaces throughout the year but i'm struggling to think of a fast surface most HCs are now Med-fast. I think Nottingham grass was fast but that's all I could think of.

On anything faster, tennis will descend into a serving contest. Particularly, in the modern era of physically taller and stronger players. In the 90's at Wimbledon they often gave details of how little time the ball was in court. I believe it possibly reached its peak in the Sampras vs. Ivanisevic final of 1994 when high paying spectators saw a serving contest with hardly any tennis.

Even on this "slow" court I expect the vast majority of points not to reach 10 strokes.

RickDaStick
10-29-2007, 08:15 PM
I only got to watch a little today but the court looked really damn slow also looking at the match stats from today, the ace totals are pretty low compared to other indoor tournaments in recent weeks

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 08:20 PM
It's laughable that the sport is supposed to be making big reforms and is simultaneously indulging in craven practices such as this, it's the ultimate example of short-term thinking based entirely on milking your two big cash cows.

It will be yet funnier if Federer and Nadal tank out in the early rounds. The tournament directors will probably learn their lesson. Btw, Federer has asked not for surface changes but for a different starting schedule at either AO or RG and it has fallen on deaf ears. Nadal was extremely vocal about his position on Wimbledon scheduling-- fell again on deaf ears. So really, players complain all the time. It is the spineless nature of some tournament directors that makes the difference. Paris is one :bigclap:

It's poor that Bercy conceded, but I think it's poor if the two top players say "I will not play this important event unless you change the surface." there's complaining and there's ultimatums - Tim complained about the slowing down of Wimbledon but didn't make ultimatums, even Lleyton complained vociferously about the AO surface but never made any ultimatums - these guys actually made an ultimatum.

You are quite a bit overboard here. Where is the ultimatum? They made it clear that the venues do not suit them, but there is no ultimatum and certainly the part about "I will not play this important event unless you change the surface" is attributable only to you, not them.


Andy doesn't like clay, but he never ever complains about a particular tournament's surface. that's very very selfish of those two and I think they share the blame with whomever actually listened.


Yes he doesn't complain. He just doesn't show up!! :lol: To be utterly honest, he probably knows it would not matter if he complained because except for Houston, no other clay tournament would really change drastically without his presence and any any such complaints from Roddick would fall on deaf ears for a clay tournament in Europe.

DrJules
10-29-2007, 08:30 PM
The major reason that Nadal and Federer have withrawn in the past is the cumulative effect of playing leading to the Paris Open i.e. they claim to be exhausted.

Changing the surface is probably the last thing they wanted. I expect that they really wanted the week off and any "good" reason would help.

Not sure I believe the surface reason!

scoobs
10-29-2007, 08:34 PM
I don't think that's it because I read that this surface was tested on players around Roland Garros time so this surface change was planned for a while. And the other article posted earlier clearly states surface change was a "condition" of Federer and Nadal playing.

Truc
10-29-2007, 08:39 PM
You are quite a bit overboard here. Where is the ultimatum? They made it clear that the venues do not suit them, but there is no ultimatum and certainly the part about "I will not play this important event unless you change the surface" is attributable only to you, not them.J.-F. Caujolle (director of Marseille and also co-director of Bercy this year) does use the expression "condition sine qua non" in the interview Scoob quoted.
But I think he exaggerates that issue a lot in all his interviews (as it was the only thing they could do to try to please Fed and Nadal).

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 08:41 PM
The major reason that Nadal and Federer have withrawn in the past is the cumulative effect of playing leading to the Paris Open i.e. they claim to be exhausted.

Changing the surface is probably the last thing they wanted. I expect that they really wanted the week off and any "good" reason would help.


I think they wanted their bonus money. After not playing for 4 years or something, why would Federer arbitrarily alter his schedule so much? $$ :inlove: $$
Fatigue in past years might have something to do with it, certainly for Federer at least, because he has played many more tournaments going into this part of the season in the past.


I don't think that's it because I read that this surface was tested on players around Roland Garros time so this surface change was planned for a while. And the other article posted earlier clearly states surface change was a "condition" of Federer and Nadal playing.

The surface at Bercy was tested on Roddick, Moya, Gasquet etc. during the French Open (Jean-Paul makes a dig at Moya who seemed to be testing it on behalf of Nadal).

DrJules
10-29-2007, 08:47 PM
I think they wanted their bonus money. After not playing for 4 years or something, why would Federer arbitrarily alter his schedule so much? $$ :inlove: $$


So were they going to come regardless of the surface.:devil:

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 08:50 PM
J.-F. Caujolle (director of Marseille and also co-director of Bercy this year) does use the expression "condition sine qua non" in the interview Scoob quoted.
But I think he exaggerates that issue a lot in all his interviews (as it was the only thing they could do to try to please Fed and Nadal).
I read the whole interview and I saw that. But I was looking for an exact quote to see an ultimatum -- but there is nothing like that. There are implied/connotations/double levels/innuendos --- I find this surface has little benefit for my style, and this surface does not support my movement as well. That is all that's there.

It's well understood what they are trying to do/say, but it is a real leap (hence, my saying the poster went overboard) to say ultimatums, and even make one up to drive home the point.

R.Federer
10-29-2007, 08:52 PM
So were they going to come regardless of the surface.:devil:
I absolutely think so. Who gives a #$%T of playing a few rounds on a surface badly designed for the joints or the style of play, when you leave with a US$1.5m after (maybe) just a few rounds? ;)

IMO it is 70% cash reasons, and 20% points/lead reasons and 10% other reasons for Federer at least to be present at this tournament this year. He has not played it for years!

Deboogle!.
10-29-2007, 10:52 PM
You are quite a bit overboard here. Where is the ultimatum? They made it clear that the venues do not suit them, but there is no ultimatum and certainly the part about "I will not play this important event unless you change the surface" is attributable only to you, not them. Excuse me? It is not attributable to me at all. :rolleyes: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=6196867&postcount=15 Looks like ultimatum to me. Don't know where scoobs got that, but it's hardly his style to make things up and exaggerate.
Yes he doesn't complain. He just doesn't show up!! :lol: To be utterly honest, he probably knows it would not matter if he complained because except for Houston, no other clay tournament would really change drastically without his presence and any any such complaints from Roddick would fall on deaf ears for a clay tournament in Europe.He has never said a word about Hamburg :shrug: He shows up there when he's healthy. Please. :rolleyes: Let's not turn this into another Andy discussion, this is not about him.

shotgun
10-29-2007, 10:58 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

Not surprising. I personally never bought that "ambassadors for the sport" :bs:.

edit: I'm creating a separate thread for this, because it's completely off-topic.

mir
10-29-2007, 11:04 PM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

They should both just stay away from Bercy, they did the last couple of years so....
outrageous indeed :rolleyes:
God forbid another player on the tour might have a chance to win a match.

scoobs
10-29-2007, 11:31 PM
Excuse me? It is not attributable to me at all. :rolleyes: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=6196867&postcount=15 Looks like ultimatum to me. Don't know where scoobs got that, but it's hardly his style to make things up and exaggerate.
He has never said a word about Hamburg :shrug: He shows up there when he's healthy. Please. :rolleyes: Let's not turn this into another Andy discussion, this is not about him.
I posted a link as to where I got that from, an interview with the co-director of the tournament, though it is in French. I used the word "condition", not "ultimatum" but there's plenty of hairs to be split over that distinction and whether there's any difference.

As to the side discussion about San Jose, no I don't believe any of the players requested that the court be sped up, but I remember watching an interview with tournament director Bill Rapp early on in the week this year at San Jose where he specifically said that "our players" serve pretty big and they (the tournament) felt like they could get a bit more pop off the court so they left off a layer of the court that would have slowed it down to 2006 speeds and that's why they did it. As you stated, it certainly didn't help and it didn't change the outcome of the event either.

wowfed
10-29-2007, 11:56 PM
How do you guys know that only Rog and Rafa have asked for the change ? It could be that other players have also been complaining. Obvioulsy news gets more focus and hype if the top players speak about it.

cmurray
10-30-2007, 12:06 AM
Excuse me? It is not attributable to me at all. :rolleyes: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=6196867&postcount=15 Looks like ultimatum to me. Don't know where scoobs got that, but it's hardly his style to make things up and exaggerate.
He has never said a word about Hamburg :shrug: He shows up there when he's healthy. Please. :rolleyes: Let's not turn this into another Andy discussion, this is not about him.

honestly, I have to disagree here, Deb. We don't know the circumstances AT ALL. Neither of them are ever that eager to play Bercy to begin with. How do we know that the tournament directors didn't come to them and say "what do we need to do to get you to play here?"

And Andy is VERY relevant to the topic because He is a very good example of a player who makes little effort on clay, the surface he doesn't like. So if we're going to throw around accusations of players not putting forth equal effort on all surfaces, then we have to include Roddick in there as well.

Ruski
10-30-2007, 12:14 AM
This change of surface - slower speed and high ball bounce.... will suit Nadal the best!

Marek.
10-30-2007, 12:18 AM
The tournament directors should have just ignored those two. This is pretty pathetic IMO.

Paul Banks
10-30-2007, 12:25 AM
The interview says it is the tournament that went to the players to ask them what improvents they would like. The surface issue mostly came up. Then they asked players to test a new surface during Roland Garros (Roddick, Gasquet, Nalbandian, Moya). I don't see anything wrong with listening to players opinion about the surface, they didn't just ask Federer and Nadal from what I understand.

The guy does say though that Fed and Nadal made the condition the surface had to be changed for them to play, but there is always 2 sides to a story. We don't know the context, how it was said, etc.

Deboogle!.
10-30-2007, 12:25 AM
I posted a link as to where I got that from, an interview with the co-director of the tournament, though it is in French. I used the word "condition", not "ultimatum" but there's plenty of hairs to be split over that distinction and whether there's any difference.Sorry, I didn't mean to blame you for anything or put words into your mouth, I was just responding to the accusation that I was the one who came up with it. condition, ultimatum, pretty much the same thing to me.
honestly, I have to disagree here, Deb. We don't know the circumstances AT ALL. Neither of them are ever that eager to play Bercy to begin with. How do we know that the tournament directors didn't come to them and say "what do we need to do to get you to play here?" Because that's not how it was worded. I didn't make stuff up, i just responded to what was here. If that's what happened and Rafa and Fed just said, well we don't love the surface, then of course, they are not to blame if the tournament is spineless enough to just bend over to them. But that's not the impression i got from what was stated here, I can only comment on what I read. I never stated anything as fact, obviously none of us know. And Andy is VERY relevant to the topic because He is a very good example of a player who makes little effort on clay, the surface he doesn't like. So if we're going to throw around accusations of players not putting forth equal effort on all surfaces, then we have to include Roddick in there as well.I still don't see how this is relevant to the topic at hand. To me the problem here is that a tournament changed the surface to benefit 2 players, whoever those players are. This has nothing to do with giving effort on a surface, where did that become a part of the discussion? It's not relevant at all, just like it's not relevant that a lot of claycourters don't like grass - none of them complain about it either, they just don't show up to the optionals (and sometimes to wimbledon itself). Federer is a great hardcourt and indoor player, his effort is also irrelevant to this. What's relevant is that the tour is bending over for 2 players and seemingly ignoring everyone else. If it's true that San Jose's organizers tried to change the surface to benefit Americans, that would be just as wrong. But you're going to have to explain to me how effort level on a particular surface is relevant, because I'm not seeing any logical connection. Disney has these "private meetings" with Roger and Rafa, now a tournament is openly changing its surface for them. It's disturbing to me and clearly others as well, those of us who care about the sport as a whole and who are fans of lower-ranked players and who enjoy variety amongst the surfaces. Who the specific players are and what the specific surface are isn't even relevant.

If we want to have a discussion about effort level on different surfaces, that's a fair conversation and certainly an important one, but I completely fail to see the relevance to that discussion in this thread.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 12:27 AM
Well if you want my opinion (and the beauty of an internet forum is you get it anyway) then saying "changing the surface is a condition of me playing your event next time) is indistinguishable from issuing an ultimatum like "if you don't change the surface then I will pull out again

wcr
10-30-2007, 12:32 AM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

Guess why the change in playing conditions at Wimbledon: slower surface, heavier ball and seeding from 16 to 32?

nobama
10-30-2007, 12:37 AM
OK I'm confused. In order to earn this new bonus money players are required to show up in Madrid and Paris. So why would Fed and Nadal demand a surface change as a condition of their participation when not showing up would cost them bonus $$? If, as some have suggested, Fed's going to come to Paris to tank a match and collect his $1.5M why would he need the surface changed to do that? :shrug:

scoobs
10-30-2007, 12:40 AM
OK I'm confused. In order to earn this new bonus money players are required to show up in Madrid and Paris. So why would Fed and Nadal demand a surface change as a condition of their participation when not showing up would cost them bonus $$? If, as some have suggested, Fed's going to come to Paris to tank a match and collect his $1.5M why would he need the surface changed to do that? :shrug:
I'm guessing the surface change condition was made some time ago, since they were testing it with the players around the French Open and so it probably pre-dates the "stuff their mouths with money so they can't moan" scheme.

nobama
10-30-2007, 12:41 AM
This change of surface - slower speed and high ball bounce.... will suit Nadal the best!Hmm...someone who was at the tournament today posted in the Fed forum that while the court is slower than it was last year it's still medium to medium/fast. Changing from carpet to hard doesn't automatically equal slow, high bouncing.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 12:46 AM
It's still medium fast but it seems to take topspin better, the bounce seems higher, so this will make it look slower as well.

Paul Banks
10-30-2007, 12:48 AM
All this speculation is based on one sentence in a foreign language interview. You know, sometimes people say thing that do not correspond exactly to the reality. Maybe it is actually the tournament that made sure to pick a surface that would please Federer and Nadal. Then it's easy to pretend it's them who made the demand.

mangoes
10-30-2007, 12:49 AM
You don't have to look far.

Federer and Nadal made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.

Nadal said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: topspin not that effective) and Federer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

I think it's outrageous that the top 2 players should combine in this way to effectively demand a surface be adjusted at a tournament, but there we are.

As I have said elsewhere, it used to be that the players had to adapt their game as best they could to the surface, but now it seems the surface is expected to be adapted to the players.

If the surface change came about in the exact manner this article suggest, then Roger and Rafa did make a 'beneath the table' ultimatium:o :o

I am disappointed to read this article. I completely disagree with their actions if true. No tennis player should levy this type of demand on a tournament. I'm disappointed that Federer had a part in this.

I'll be frank - I'm more irritated at the tournament directors than I am at Nadal and Federer. Players are CONSTANTLY complaining about surfaces. The problem is that Bercy conceded. Furthermore, it says something sad that the success of a tournament lays almost exclusively on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal. Players don't play at tournaments ALL THE TIME because of surface (Roddick and clay anyone?).

I'm irritated with Nadal and Federer more than with the directors. I feel for the positions within which the directors found themselves. A tournament is a business at the end of the day. We don't know how much revenue the tournament loss yearly by the no. 1 and 2 not showing up. And while it's quite sad to consider this point, the truth is that a masters event loses some of it's "bang" if neither Roger or Rafa show up. A case could be made that much of this power has been handed to Roger and Rafa by Mr. Disney via his constant consultations with the top 2 over many issues. I do think it's terrible that the directors gave into their requests, but how much choice did they have after considering the $$$ bottom line.

wcr
10-30-2007, 12:49 AM
Hmm...someone who was at the tournament today posted in the Fed forum that while the court is slower than it was last year it's still medium to medium/fast. Changing from carpet to hard doesn't automatically equal slow, high bouncing.

If it's now HC it depends on how much sand they add to the mix. The more sand, the more the surface grabs the ball - thus slowing it down and having it bounce higher.

elessar
10-30-2007, 12:56 AM
If it's now HC it depends on how much sand they add to the mix. The more sand, the more the surface grabs the ball - thus slowing it down and having it bounce higher.

I can't really comment on the bounce because I haven't watched guys who used a lot of top spin ... From what I saw it was reasonnably paced and Youzhny's slice seemed to take not to badly

wcr
10-30-2007, 12:57 AM
If the surface change came about in the exact manner this article suggest, then Roger and Rafa did make a 'beneath the table' ultimatium:o :o

I am disappointed to read this article. I completely disagree with their actions. No tennis player should levy this type of demand on a tournament. I'm disappointed that Federer had a part in this.



I'm irritated with Nadal and Federer more than with the directors. I feel for the positions within which the directors found themselves. A tournament is a business at the end of the day. We don't know how much revenue the tournament loss yearly by the no. 1 and 2 not showing up. And while it's quite sad to consider this point, the truth is that a masters event loses some of it's "bang" if neither Roger or Rafa show up. A case could be made that much of this power has been handed to Roger and Rafa by Mr. Disney via his constant consultations with the top 2 over many issues. I do think it's terrible that the directors gave into their requests, but how much choice did they have after considering the $$$ bottom line.


Do you have a link to the article that you can post here? I'd like to read it before passing judgement on anyone. If the old Spanish Armada could demand - and receive - the kinds of changes made at Wimbledon, I hardly take issue with Federer or Nadal speaking their minds about Bercy. I've attended many matches at Bercy and it was a very fast surface, especially when tennis was the equivalent of target practice to the likes of Goran Ivanisivic and Pete Sampras. The best thing I ever saw at Bercy was an hour of Guy Forget practicing when a match ended early due to injury. He was in no particular hurry to hit those sublime backhands one after the next.

clever1980
10-30-2007, 01:00 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A27882633
Here is an article I came across related to surface change in Bercy. It seems it was all planned and carried out by organizers.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 01:00 AM
All this speculation is based on one sentence in a foreign language interview. You know, sometimes people say thing that do not correspond exactly to the reality. Maybe it is actually the tournament that made sure to pick a surface that would please Federer and Nadal. Then it's easy to pretend it's them who made the demand.
Well, in fairness, to the French, it's just an interview :)

cmurray
10-30-2007, 01:03 AM
Because that's not how it was worded. I didn't make stuff up, i just responded to what was here. If that's what happened and Rafa and Fed just said, well we don't love the surface, then of course, they are not to blame if the tournament is spineless enough to just bend over to them. But that's not the impression i got from what was stated here, I can only comment on what I read. I never stated anything as fact, obviously none of us know. I still don't see how this is relevant to the topic at hand. To me the problem here is that a tournament changed the surface to benefit 2 players, whoever those players are. This has nothing to do with giving effort on a surface, where did that become a part of the discussion? It's not relevant at all, just like it's not relevant that a lot of claycourters don't like grass - none of them complain about it either, they just don't show up to the optionals (and sometimes to wimbledon itself). Federer is a great hardcourt and indoor player, his effort is also irrelevant to this. What's relevant is that the tour is bending over for 2 players and seemingly ignoring everyone else. If it's true that San Jose's organizers tried to change the surface to benefit Americans, that would be just as wrong. But you're going to have to explain to me how effort level on a particular surface is relevant, because I'm not seeing any logical connection. Disney has these "private meetings" with Roger and Rafa, now a tournament is openly changing its surface for them. It's disturbing to me and clearly others as well, those of us who care about the sport as a whole and who are fans of lower-ranked players and who enjoy variety amongst the surfaces. Who the specific players are and what the specific surface are isn't even relevant.

If we want to have a discussion about effort level on different surfaces, that's a fair conversation and certainly an important one, but I completely fail to see the relevance to that discussion in this thread.

No, that wasn't how it was worded. But since when do we trust journalists to tell the whole story? I'm simply taking the information I DO have about the situation and I'm applying logic to work out a probable scenario. What do we know about Bercy? The promoters have been bemoaning the lack of big names for years. We also know that Roger and Rafa have been skipping this tournament with regularity since they've been "Roger and Rafa"...with nary a peep about anger over the surface. Does it seem likely then, that all of a sudden the tournament would be SO important to them that they BOTH approach organizers with a list of demands? I don't think so.

More likely, the Bercy people went up to them and said "what can we do to change your mind about playing here?" But that wouldn't make for as good a story as portraying the world numbers one and two as arrogant bullies. The fact of the matter is that most tournaments will do ANYTHING to get them in the draw. Why? Because Federer and Nadal ARE tennis right now.

The topic of putting forth effort on all surfaces was raised numerous times in this thread. I was simply responding to it. And on that issue, you have to admit that guys like Roddick and Blake are FAR bigger culprits than Rafa and Roger could EVER be.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 01:07 AM
I watched a lot of Bercy today, it is clearly slower than it has been over the years and Fed/Nadal saying something like this doesn't surprise me at all.

Pioline knows Bercy had suffered a lot from withdrawals and backed down, while not a fan of carpet tennis at all, there does need to be some diversity among surfaces.

mangoes
10-30-2007, 01:07 AM
Hopefully, a reporter will ask Roger and Rafa about this and each will expain his role in this story. Based on the director's words, I don't agree with Roger and Rafa doing this. But, there is a very good chance the director was spinning his words:shrug:

HNCS
10-30-2007, 01:08 AM
this very surprising. i've always known toni and rafa complaining about hardcourts. but this is the first time i've heard federer complain. but then i think he complained during the houston masters as well...

Sunset of Age
10-30-2007, 01:10 AM
It's a sad, sad thing, if the ATP Tournament Directors think that all of their success is dependent on Raf & Rogi showing up at all.

What a demise. :sad:

nobama
10-30-2007, 01:10 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A27882633
Here is an article I came across related to surface change in Bercy. It seems it was all planned and carried out by organizers.
If the link you quoted is accurate, then #1, the bonus pool was in place since the beginning of the year, and #2 the surface change was to make Paris similar to other events like Madrid and Shanghai.

*bunny*
10-30-2007, 01:12 AM
And the fact that Rafa has never played in Bercy... :shrug:
(He may have practiced there though, I don't know.)
So, is this what, they're representing other players' opinions as well?

I think it's more interesting to keep the surface variety as it is now. They shouldn't change surface just because top players didn't like it unless there is some risk of injury involved like a surface that is too sticky or slippery. But top players will continue to skip Paris regardless of the surface change or bonus once they've secured a TMC berth and feel the wear and tear of the season.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 01:14 AM
this very surprising. i've always known toni and rafa complaining about hardcourts. but this is the first time i've heard federer complain. but then i think he complained during the houston masters as well...

Yes, it was the court itself that Federer complained about Houston, not the surface.

elessar
10-30-2007, 01:14 AM
It's a sad, sad thing, if the ATP Tournament Directors think that all of their succes is dependent on Raf & Rogi showing up at all.

What a demise.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I sat in last year's final of a MASTER SERIES event watching davydenko demolish Herbaty, so yes top players showing up makes all the difference. This wasn't just done for Federer and Nadal but for the top 8 players who play shanghai next week and will have the benefit of not having to adapt to a totally different surface. And given the fact that all the top 10 (barring Roddick) showed up, I'd say the changes didn't just please federer and Nadal

nobama
10-30-2007, 01:16 AM
If the surface change came about in the exact manner this article suggest, then Roger and Rafa did make a 'beneath the table' ultimatium:o :o

I am disappointed to read this article. I completely disagree with their actions. No tennis player should levy this type of demand on a tournament. I'm disappointed that Federer had a part in this.



I'm irritated with Nadal and Federer more than with the directors. I feel for the positions within which the directors found themselves. A tournament is a business at the end of the day. We don't know how much revenue the tournament loss yearly by the no. 1 and 2 not showing up. And while it's quite sad to consider this point, the truth is that a masters event loses some of it's "bang" if neither Roger or Rafa show up. A case could be made that much of this power has been handed to Roger and Rafa by Mr. Disney via his constant consultations with the top 2 over many issues. I do think it's terrible that the directors gave into their requests, but how much choice did they have after considering the $$$ bottom line.I suspsect we'll never really know what the 'truth' is, but that still won't stop us from believing what we want to believe. ;) At this point I'm not going to take one article as the gospel truth, especially when another link was posted which seems to indicate otherwise. Anyway I'm not sure why Federer would lobby for anyone for a slow, high bouncing court. :scratch:

scoobs
10-30-2007, 01:16 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way but I sat in last year's final of a MASTER SERIES event watching davydenko demolish Herbaty, so yes top players showing up makes all the difference. This wasn't just done for Federer and Nadal but for the top 8 players who play shanghai next week and will have the benefit of not having to adapt to a totally different surface. And given the fact that all the top 10 (barring Roddick) showed up, I'd say the changes didn't just please federer and Nadal
Perhaps...and I totally take your point about the Davydenko-Hrbaty splat match - Bercy last year was not good for tennis at all.

I just wonder how much of this was done via the Players Council, which, you would think, is an appropriate forum for the players to use and the tournament to use to reach agreement on these points, and how much was it just by taking into account that Federer and Nadal made it a "condition" of them playing

mangoes
10-30-2007, 01:16 AM
It's a sad, sad thing, if the ATP Tournament Directors think that all of their success is dependent on Raf & Rogi showing up at all.

What a demise. :sad:

It may not be that they think their success is dependent on them showing up.......such may be the reality. A masters tournament does lose some of it's importance to the public when neither Roger or Rafa play it.

If the link you quoted is accurate, then #1, the bonus pool was in place since the beginning of the year, and #2 the surface change was to make Paris similar to other events like Madrid and Shanghai.


Which makes more sense for the change in surface :shrug:

Sunset of Age
10-30-2007, 01:17 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way but I sat in last year's final of a MASTER SERIES event watching davydenko demolish Herbaty, so yes top players showing up makes all the difference. This wasn't just done for Federer and Nadal but for the top 8 players who play shanghai next week and will have the benefit of not having to adapt to a totally different surface. And given the fact that all the top 10 (barring Roddick) showed up, I'd say the changes didn't just please federer and Nadal

I can only HOPE you are right about this, but it doesn't actually feel very good to me at all... :)

wcr
10-30-2007, 01:17 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A27882633
Here is an article I came across related to surface change in Bercy. It seems it was all planned and carried out by organizers.

Thanks for the link. Sounds like reasonable changes to me - especially about the surface playing the same as the two previous events so the players have less concerns about injuries. I wonder if this link had been provided at the beginning of this thread would most of the posts have gone off on such weird, nutty tangents. I don't spend enough time on this board to know if it's just the way things work around this joint.

nobama
10-30-2007, 01:18 AM
But top players will continue to skip Paris regardless of the surface change or bonus once they've secured a TMC berth and feel the wear and tear of the season.Besides Roddick, which top players have decided to skip Paris this year?

mangoes
10-30-2007, 01:18 AM
I suspsect we'll never really know what the 'truth' is, but that still won't stop us from believing what we want to believe. ;) At this point I'm not going to take one article as the gospel truth, especially when another link was posted which seems to indicate otherwise. Anyway I'm not sure why Federer would lobby for anyone for a slow, high bouncing court. :scratch:

That's why I started with an "IF":D

scoobs
10-30-2007, 01:19 AM
Thanks for the link. Sounds like reasonable changes to me - especially about the surface playing the same as the two previous events so the players have less concerns about injuries. I wonder if this link had been provided at the beginning of this thread would most of the posts have gone off on such weird, nutty tangents. I don't spend enough time on this board to know if it's just the way things work around this joint.
Well it's another source, the original source, though, had an interview with the tournament director so I guess it's a question of what you prefer to believe and what you're prepared to believe.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 01:21 AM
Oh Fed and Nadal would never politic for something to be in their favour.

nobama
10-30-2007, 01:24 AM
It may not be that they think their success is dependent on them showing up.......such may be the reality. A masters tournament does lose some of it's importance to the public when neither Roger or Rafa play it.




Which makes more sense for the change in surface :shrug:Yes. I don't know which article is more correct, but if the court is slower and the ball bounces higher I cannot imagine Federer pushing for that. It seems plausable to me that the TD surveyed the players to find out what changes they would like and one of the changes was a surface similar to TMC. Whether that came in the form of an ultimatum from the top 2 is the question I guess. IF that was the case, then I agree with you it's wrong and should never have happened.

*bunny*
10-30-2007, 01:26 AM
Besides Roddick, which top players have decided to skip Paris this year?
Compared to the past couple of years, this year is seeing most top 10 players participating, which is good for the tournament. Now Mr Disney seems to be keen on his planned sanctions on those who skip Masters, er, super 500 or whatever events, and there is the bonus money, so maybe there will be fewer players who dare withdraw from Bercy in the future. But I can see there will always be a few top players feeling like pulling out, citing one reason or another.

elessar
10-30-2007, 01:26 AM
Perhaps...and I totally take your point about the Davydenko-Hrbaty splat match - Bercy last year was not good for tennis at all.

I just wonder how much of this was done via the Players Council, which, you would think, is an appropriate forum for the players to use and the tournament to use to reach agreement on these points, and how much was it just by taking into account that Federer and Nadal made it a "condition" of them playing

http://www.fft.fr/bnpparibasmasters/2007/?id=3121

Here are the links to interviews of the tournament directors (I believe you speak french) and it's pretty clear that having federer and Nadal at Bercy was pretty much the only thing they cared about. From the way it was worded, they came up to the players and asked them what would make it easier for them to play. I don't particularly like the fact that they both have that much power but it is a fact that a tournament without them is much harder to sell to the public so I can't say that I really regret the changes.

PS : Actually I regret one thing : the animations between the day and night session, not that seeing people in their underwear climbing up some sort of drapes isn't my idea of fun :tape:

World Beater
10-30-2007, 01:31 AM
I watched some bercy today and the surface is ridulously slow for an indoor court. slower than Madrid.

Agree with yayomassa.

I do think its a poor change by Bercy but in some respects it makes sense. Back in the 90's, the masters were on carpet. So it made sense to have all the indoor events on a carpet like surface. things have changed now. I personally feel that the masters should still be on carpet because we have enough HC throughout the year.

Federer and nadal are notorious whiners when it comes to surface. Federer has whined about PC at RG many times and whined about the courts at Houston as well.

Nadal whines about HC in general but of course would rather have a HC, which imo is much harder on a body but at least it takes his spin.

wcr
10-30-2007, 01:40 AM
Well it's another source, the original source, though, had an interview with the tournament director so I guess it's a question of what you prefer to believe and what you're prepared to believe.

I know the old surface at Bercy. I watched a lot of matches there back when Goran and Pete were playing. It was more like watching target practice than tennis.

It makes no sense for great players to risk injury to play such an event at the end of what amounts to a year-long season unless they need the points. No matter how much Federer or Nadal are paid, they won't risk injury and I, for one, don't blame them. This is one of the events that should have been cancelled or moved to provide professional tennis players with more time off each year than two weeks for crying out loud.

de Villiers was trying to change the status of the clay court events back in the spring. His bright idea was to lower Monte Carlo and Hamburg status to Tier 1 and move the Madrid indoor event to a springtime masters series clay event. The players - influenced in large part by Federer - killed most of the plan (Hamburg's status was lowered). Federer was also a vocal critic of another de Villier's brilliant plans to have more round robin events to keep players around the events longer to sell tickets. That grand plan died a sudden death in Vegas, remember? And, shame on Roger for being no fan of the Hawkeye system. So far, I have no problem with Roger's outspoken criticisms of de Villier's plans. I wouldn't be surprised if de Villiers has a problem with Roger as, it seems, do many of the posters in this thread.

rosamunda
10-30-2007, 01:45 AM
There was a time when loads of claycourters never bothered to turn up for Wimbledon because the surface simply didn't suit their game. Now the grass is slower they turn up in droves. They may not have said it (because they probably weren't asked) but their refusal to turn up was surely just as much of an "ultimatum" - albeit a silent one - as anything Roger and Rafa may or may not have said regarding Bercy.

If the tournment directors asked them the question, and then chose to act upon the answers, why should we be so annoyed at the 2 players (I, like cmurray, also question the accuracy of the reportage vis a vis context and the ultimatum-esque stance of both players, simply because this version makes for good copy)? It beats me, in any case, how a change of surface would actually suit both of them - their games are at the opposite ends of the playing-style spectrum - I would have thought any change would help one and hamper the other. The fact that they're both turning up this year - along with just about everyone else - would suggest something other than court surface has made the difference..... and I don't buy the appearance money thing - they're both loaded; an extra million or so on top of the gazillions they already have can't honestly make an iota of difference. It seems to me that it's more because there are points to be gained against rapidly developing competition, they feel fine, not too tired, they're in the mood for it for a change etc. And, ok, the surface is now more to their liking (presumably for both of them somehow), but I would venture to suggest that that's just a bonus.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 01:46 AM
I know the old surface at Bercy. I watched a lot of matches there back when Goran and Pete were playing. It was more like watching target practice than tennis.

It makes no sense for great players to risk injury to play such an event at the end of what amounts to a year-long season unless they need the points. No matter how much Federer or Nadal are paid, they won't risk injury and I, for one, don't blame them. This is one of the events that should have been cancelled or moved to provide professional tennis players with more time off each year than two weeks for crying out loud.

de Villiers was trying to change the status of the clay court events back in the spring. His bright idea was to lower Monte Carlo and Hamburg status to Tier 1 and move the Madrid indoor event to a springtime masters series clay event. The players - influenced in large part by Federer - killed most of the plan (Hamburg's status was lowered). Federer was also a vocal critic of another de Villier's brilliant plans to have more round robin events to keep players around the events longer to sell tickets. That grand plan died a sudden death in Vegas, remember? And, shame on Roger for being no fan of the Hawkeye system. So far, I have no problem with Roger's outspoken criticisms of de Villier's plans. I wouldn't be surprised if de Villiers has a problem with Roger as, it seems, do many of the posters in this thread.
Well okay but I'm not sure what you are getting at since both Federer and Nadal are here and they don't actually need the points.

Nor is anyone saying the old surface is unsafe, only that for different reasons neither Federer nor Nadal was a fan of it.

Nor does De Villier's grand plans have anything to do with this, since Bercy was never up for the chop, and the Madrid masters was going to move to spring and be replaced by the Shanghai masters in this part of the season, so Bercy's status was not affected by any of that, nor round robin. In fact, apart from the financial bonus pool reward scheme to bribe the top 4 from playing both of the last 2 AMS events, I don't think De Villiers really enters into this at all, just for once.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 01:47 AM
I watched some bercy today and the surface is ridulously slow for an indoor court. slower than Madrid.

Agree with yayomassa.

I do think its a poor change by Bercy but in some respects it makes sense. Back in the 90's, the masters were on carpet. So it made sense to have all the indoor events on a carpet like surface. things have changed now. I personally feel that the masters should still be on carpet because we have enough HC throughout the year.

Federer and nadal are notorious whiners when it comes to surface. Federer has whined about PC at RG many times and whined about the courts at Houston as well.

Nadal whines about HC in general but of course would rather have a HC, which imo is much harder on a body but at least it takes his spin.

Indoor tennis in the 90s was ridiculous, pretty much just acefests and this is what led to the slowing down of the surfaces and too many people forget this or know this.

Yes, it's true I can see why Pioline had the surface to what it is this year. Federer and Nadal like I said would never want anything for selfish reasons.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 01:49 AM
There was a time when loads of claycourters never bothered to turn up for Wimbledon because the surface simply didn't suit their game. Now the grass is slower they turn up in droves. They may not have said it (because they probably weren't asked) but their refusal to turn up was surely just as much of an "ultimatum" - albeit a silent one - as anything Roger and Rafa may or may not have said regarding Bercy.

If the tournment directors asked them the question, and then chose to act upon the answers, why should we be so annoyed at the 2 players (I, like cmurray, also question the accuracy of the reportage vis a vis context and the ultimatum-esque stance of both players, simply because this version makes for good copy)? It beats me, in any case, how a change of surface would actually suit both of them - their games are at the opposite ends of the playing-style spectrum - I would have thought any change would help one and hamper the other. The fact that they're both turning up this year - along with just about everyone else - would suggest something other than court surface has made the difference..... and I don't buy the appearance money thing - they're both loaded; an extra million or so on top of the gazillions they already have can't honestly make an iota of difference. It seems to me that it's more because there are points to be gained against rapidly developing competition, they feel fine, not too tired, they're in the mood for it for a change etc. And, ok, the surface is now more to their liking (presumably for both of them somehow), but I would venture to suggest that that's just a bonus.
The surface change suiting both of them is not that confusing.

For Nadal it's about the old surface not taking spin at all well so his topspin was ineffective (although never playing Bercy I still wonder how he knew this). The new surface definitely takes topspin better.

For Federer he seemed to have some issue saying he struggled with his balance on the old surface - maybe he found it hard to stay on balance when chasing down balls for some reason? I don't know but evidently the new surface addresses that concern as well.

It's not like Federer and Nadal had opposite issues with the surface so it's not like solving both their concerns would be impossible.

elessar
10-30-2007, 01:50 AM
Yes, it's true I can see why Pioline had the surface to what it is this year. Federer and Nadal like I said would never want anything for selfish reasons.

:lol: exactly just like any players who would have an opportunity to have a say in changing a surface to suit their needs better would selflessly refuse :angel:

hra87
10-30-2007, 01:50 AM
If Nadal and Federer had so much money that they didn't care about making more, why do so many advertisements? Of course they're interested in the money. If you had 50 million, and someone said, hey, show up here for a day and you'll get 1.5 million, you would say no? I don't even care about money really, I never spend any, but it would seem like a WASTE not to take what you've already earned.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 01:50 AM
There was a time when loads of claycourters never bothered to turn up for Wimbledon because the surface simply didn't suit their game. Now the grass is slower they turn up in droves. They may not have said it (because they probably weren't asked) but their refusal to turn up was surely just as much of an "ultimatum" - albeit a silent one - as anything Roger and Rafa may or may not have said regarding Bercy.

It was actually the seeding system at Wimbledon that was used which was more of a problem, but you just passed over that. The surface has slowed that helped, but Wimbledon never gave a shit about them and wouldn't expect them to either.

Merton
10-30-2007, 01:55 AM
I know the old surface at Bercy. I watched a lot of matches there back when Goran and Pete were playing. It was more like watching target practice than tennis.

It makes no sense for great players to risk injury to play such an event at the end of what amounts to a year-long season unless they need the points. No matter how much Federer or Nadal are paid, they won't risk injury and I, for one, don't blame them. This is one of the events that should have been cancelled or moved to provide professional tennis players with more time off each year than two weeks for crying out loud.

de Villiers was trying to change the status of the clay court events back in the spring. His bright idea was to lower Monte Carlo and Hamburg status to Tier 1 and move the Madrid indoor event to a springtime masters series clay event. The players - influenced in large part by Federer - killed most of the plan (Hamburg's status was lowered). Federer was also a vocal critic of another de Villier's brilliant plans to have more round robin events to keep players around the events longer to sell tickets. That grand plan died a sudden death in Vegas, remember? And, shame on Roger for being no fan of the Hawkeye system. So far, I have no problem with Roger's outspoken criticisms of de Villier's plans. I wouldn't be surprised if de Villiers has a problem with Roger as, it seems, do many of the posters in this thread.

Is there any evidence that carpet increases the risk of injuries relative to hard courts? Not that risk of injuries is an important factor, if it were natural surfaces would be preffered.

hra87
10-30-2007, 01:55 AM
It was actually the seeding system at Wimbledon that was used which was more of a problem, but you just passed over that. The surface has slowed that helped, but Wimbledon never gave a shit about them and wouldn't expect them to either.

Could you elaborate about the seeding system?

World Beater
10-30-2007, 01:55 AM
Indoor tennis in the 90s was ridiculous, pretty much just acefests and this is what led to the slowing down of the surfaces and too many people forget this or know this.
.


This is true. But in large part its because everything after the french was much faster than it is now (it made everything seem abnormally fast). I personally like a little variety and since most courts are on the slower side, I wouldn't mind one or two events at the end of the year that force players to finish points at the net.


Yes, it's true I can see why Pioline had the surface to what it is this year. Federer and Nadal like I said would never want anything for selfish reasons.

Every player is selfish, no doubt. The only thing funny is the posters who are suddenly having revelations about their faves, or the haters having an opportunity to bash.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 01:57 AM
Could you elaborate about the seeding system?
Used to be 16 seeds and seeding was entirely at the tournament committee's discretion.

Often they would seed on their belief of grasscourt pedigree, which means a lot of those who tended to post better results on clay, would be bumped down the seeding, sometimes entirely out of the seedings altogether.

Some players like Costa and Corretja took exception to this.

Gulliver
10-30-2007, 01:57 AM
What a storm in a tea cup. I don't believe any of the spin and pointing the finger at the top 2.

As pointed out, Nadal has never played there, and Federer was injured in 2004 and 2005, and 2006 had already played DC and then won 3 tournaments prior (Tokyo, Madrid, Basel with the last 2 having 3/5 sets finals), so didn't do Paris, and I don't blame him.

This year Nadal has had weeks off, Federer played DC, off loaded Tokyo, did his 2 tournaments with 2 best of 3 finals, and is now in better nick to play Paris.

nobama
10-30-2007, 01:58 AM
The surface change suiting both of them is not that confusing.

For Nadal it's about the old surface not taking spin at all well so his topspin was ineffective (although never playing Bercy I still wonder how he knew this). The new surface definitely takes topspin better.

For Federer he seemed to have some issue saying he struggled with his balance on the old surface - maybe he found it hard to stay on balance when chasing down balls for some reason? I don't know but evidently the new surface addresses that concern as well.

It's not like Federer and Nadal had opposite issues with the surface so it's not like solving both their concerns would be impossible.I still can't see Federer lobbying for a slow, high bouncing court. That plays right into Nadal's hands should they meet in the final.

World Beater
10-30-2007, 01:59 AM
For Federer he seemed to have some issue saying he struggled with his balance on the old surface - maybe he found it hard to stay on balance when chasing down balls for some reason? I don't know but evidently the new surface addresses that concern as well.

.

Federer doesn't like it when the balls start flying (this is what happens on a slick carpet like surface). It fu#ks up his baseline game. Did you see Cincy where he was doing his best sampras impersonation on the bh? In the past, he's always struggled with finding his shots at bercy.

There is a reason why 90's players serve and volleyed on carpet.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 02:00 AM
I still can't see Federer lobbying for a slow, high bouncing court. That plays right into Nadal's hands should they meet in the final.
Well it's not slow. It's slower than it was. As has been said, it used to be like a shooting gallery for the spectators on the centre service line.

And it's not high bouncing. It's not like Miami. It's just a bit more topspin friendly than it was.

And frankly, is Federer really worrying about seeing Nadal in a hardcourt final? He hasn't done since Dubai 06 and that's not looking like changing anytime soon.

rosamunda
10-30-2007, 02:01 AM
It was actually the seeding system at Wimbledon that was used which was more of a problem, but you just passed over that. The surface has slowed that helped, but Wimbledon never gave a shit about them and wouldn't expect them to either.

I didn't "just pass over it" because I'm not aware of what you're talking about, All I know, being a Brit Wimbledon watcher for decades, is that it was a fairly constant theme that the great clayers avoided it like the plague. I don't recall any comments at the time by commentators etc about the seeding system being the reason for their absence. I obviously wasn't listening.:p (Wimbledon, I agree, has always been a law unto itself about seedings. I guess that's what you alluding to.)

nobama
10-30-2007, 02:02 AM
Used to be 16 seeds and seeding was entirely at the tournament committee's discretion.

Often they would seed on their belief of grasscourt pedigree, which means a lot of those who tended to post better results on clay, would be bumped down the seeding, sometimes entirely out of the seedings altogether.

Some players like Costa and Corretja took exception to this.Didn't this happen at the US Open as well? I seem to remember one year (96 perhaps) where they did some tinkering with the seeding (or at least tried to).

scoobs
10-30-2007, 02:03 AM
Didn't this happen at the US Open as well? I seem to remember one year (96 perhaps) where they did some tinkering with the seeding (or at least tried to).
May have done - I didn't get to see the US Open back in those days, unfortunately, so I don't know.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 02:04 AM
This is true. But in large part its because everything after the french was much faster than it is now (it made everything seem abnormally fast). I personally like a little variety and since most courts are on the slower side, I wouldn't mind one or two events at the end of the year that force players to finish points at the net.

I am happy that they have slowed the surfaces down to an extent on a personal view, but for the overall good I am not keen that the clay has been quickened ( less complaints about that of course). At the same there needs to be variety and the faster surfaces should be fairly quick, but not like the ice rinks that were used previously.

Every player is selfish, no doubt. The only thing funny is the posters who are suddenly having revelations about their faves, or the haters having an opportunity to bash.

The psyche is a wonderful thing.

cmurray
10-30-2007, 02:04 AM
Every player is selfish, no doubt. The only thing funny is the posters who are suddenly having revelations about their faves, or the haters having an opportunity to bash.

Of course each player looks out for his own interests. I wouldn't think anyone on here would be delusional enough to think otherwise. OTOH, you never know......

nobama
10-30-2007, 02:06 AM
Well it's not slow. It's slower than it was. As has been said, it used to be like a shooting gallery for the spectators on the centre service line.

And it's not high bouncing. It's not like Miami. It's just a bit more topspin friendly than it was.

And frankly, is Federer really worrying about seeing Nadal in a hardcourt final? He hasn't done since Dubai 06 and that's not looking like changing anytime soon.With this years Paris draw? Probably. :lol:

elessar
10-30-2007, 02:08 AM
Well it's not slow. It's slower than it was. As has been said, it used to be like a shooting gallery for the spectators on the centre service line.

And it's not high bouncing. It's not like Miami. It's just a bit more topspin friendly than it was.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about the surface, I thought I had watched a different tournament reading some of the comments in here:p

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 02:10 AM
I didn't "just pass over it" because I'm not aware of what you're talking about, All I know, being a Brit Wimbledon watcher for decades, is that it was a fairly constant theme that the great clayers avoided it like the plague. I don't recall any comments at the time by commentators etc about the seeding system being the reason for their absence. I obviously wasn't listening.:p (Wimbledon, I agree, has always been a law unto itself about seedings. I guess that's what you alluding to.)

Basically this was the reason that the Slams went to 32 seeds because of this issue.

Corretja, Costa, Moya, Muster and Kuerten who were the biggest critics of the seeding system at Wimbledon stated that was their biggest problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2001/06/12/atpseeding010612.html

Ferrero: "If the seedings are decided according to the results of previous years, there are a lot of chances I won't go."

Corretja pulled out of Wimbledon last year after not being seeded. He said he will wait until the seedings are announced next Monday before deciding whether to play.

"I'd like to play Wimbledon, but I first want to see where I'm going to be seeded," Corretja told the Daily Telegraph.

"We'll wait until the last moment," his brother and agent, Ivan Corretja, told the Daily Mail.

"We asked for the ATP Tour to respect and help us and Wimbledon is the tournament where they must do it."

World Beater
10-30-2007, 02:11 AM
Of course each player looks out for his own interests. I wouldn't think anyone on here would be delusional enough to think otherwise. OTOH, you never know......

you would be surprised. just look through this thread.

Gulliver
10-30-2007, 02:12 AM
I bet neither Federer nor Nadal make the final anyway.

cmurray
10-30-2007, 02:12 AM
Thanks for confirming what I thought about the surface, I thought I had watched a different tournament reading some of the comments in here:p

Its only "slow" to those of us who remember what it used to be like. :lol: A skating rink comes to mind.

R.Federer
10-30-2007, 02:12 AM
Excuse me? It is not attributable to me at all. :rolleyes:

You're excused :lol:
And here is your quote:
It's poor that Bercy conceded, but I think it's poor if the two top players say "I will not play this important event unless you change the surface." I believe that is attributable only to you. Can you find anything in the article which quotes them saying anything like that? This is a quote which I have only seen inyour post. Don't think scoobsuk has anything in his post either which quotes them.

He shows up there when he's healthy. Please. :rolleyes: Let's not turn this into another Andy discussion, this is not about him.
You seem to have dragged him into this in your earlier post :shrug: :

Except that Andy didn't ask for it to be sped up - he had won it twice just the way it was :lol: Plus, he said he didn't like it, that it was about the fastest court he had ever played on and it was tough to even hit the ball. So if that was their goal (which no one ever actually said it was except for people here:lol: ) it was a dumb one to make it that fast - that benefits no one really :lol:

Just an FYI: we will never know which players ask for what, because most of the time these pleas will fall on deaf ears. Only some of this makes the news, and usually it is when it actually does end up in some change or when the player openly talks about it. So who knows whether Henman asked Wimbledon for something in private, Hewitt asked the AO organizers, Roddick the USO organizers, or etc.

World Beater
10-30-2007, 02:15 AM
Thanks for confirming what I thought about the surface, I thought I had watched a different tournament reading some of the comments in here:p

i'm not sure. i think its fuc#ing slow for an indoor court. I mean you know its slow when feliciano lopez has time to run around every bh and hit a fh.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 02:16 AM
You seem to have dragged him into this in your earlier post :shrug: :


In fairness, no she didn't. Fee mentioned San Jose being faster this year and *I* mentioned Roddick and Debs responded to that....the whole San Jose thing was a side discussion.

elessar
10-30-2007, 02:19 AM
Its only "slow" to those of us who remember what it used to be like. :lol: A skating rink comes to mind.

I've been going there for ten years but I don't really remember how quick it was before 03 or 04 when the majority of players already played a baseline game, so maybe that's why the changes didn't shock me as much. Thx for your input though;)

elessar
10-30-2007, 02:21 AM
i'm not sure. i think its fuc#ing slow for an indoor court. I mean you know its slow when feliciano lopez has time to run around every bh and hit a fh.

Are you sure it's slow ? Because I distinctly remember Lopez hitting a BH winner:confused:

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 02:21 AM
i'm not sure. i think its fuc#ing slow for an indoor court. I mean you know its slow when feliciano lopez has time to run around every bh and hit a fh.

It's slower, but not sure if I'd put it to to that level. LaLo just moves very well. :p

mangoes
10-30-2007, 02:21 AM
Are you sure it's slow ? Because I distinctly remember Lopez hitting a BH winner:confused:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

R.Federer
10-30-2007, 02:22 AM
In fairness, no she didn't. Fee mentioned San Jose being faster this year and *I* mentioned Roddick and Debs responded to that....the whole San Jose thing was a side discussion.
Thus, I should not be asked whether to or not to change this into "an Andy discussion". If his name is entered into a post, then it is reasonable expectation that I can respond with his name in it. And that is what I did. Btw, is Andy Roddick off limits on a tennis board? :confused:

Btw, apparently you are the source of the ultimatum quote :lol: :mad: -- not that I see it in your post, but that is what the poster Debogle writes.

cmurray
10-30-2007, 02:23 AM
I've been going there for ten years but I don't really remember how quick it was before 03 or 04 when the majority of players already played a baseline game, so maybe that's why the changes didn't shock me as much. Thx for your input though;)

:lol: :hatoff:

Honestly, they didn't really shock me - I just noticed a big difference. Maybe in person it doesn't seem so slow?

R.Federer
10-30-2007, 02:25 AM
There will only be one fitting end to this mini drama. Two R1 losses for the recipients of the US$1.5m and .75m pay checks, leaving behind Pioline and his slow courts. Perfect!

elessar
10-30-2007, 02:28 AM
:lol: :hatoff:

Honestly, they didn't really shock me - I just noticed a big difference. Maybe in person it doesn't seem so slow?
Or maybe because the last memory I had of Bercy was that infamous final where I was so bored that time seemed to slow down :confused:

cmurray
10-30-2007, 02:29 AM
Or maybe because the last memory I had of Bercy was that infamous final where I was so bored that time seemed to slow down :confused:

Ah. You mean last year's show stopper? I could see how that would make the whole excruciating experience seem to drag on forever. :hug: You poor thing. They should have paid YOU to go see the final.

Jimnik
10-30-2007, 02:35 AM
:haha: I enjoyed watching Davy win his first TMS. :angel:

elessar
10-30-2007, 02:35 AM
Ah. You mean last year's show stopper? I could see how that would make the whole excruciating experience seem to drag on forever. :hug: You poor thing. They should have paid YOU to go see the final.

That's exactly what I tried to tell them to bargain my way into the practice court but apparently it didn't work :sad:

Magus13
10-30-2007, 02:42 AM
The fact is that they are going to play the Masters and want a surface similar to the one thet are going to play on on and similar to the ones that theyy just played on in Basel/Madrid. They both played their mandatory 8 Masters Events, clinched their spot in the year end tournament, and are not obligated to play Paris. Why should they goto Paris if its going to hurt them in Shanghai. Remember Paris needs them at this point in the season more than Nadal/Fed need Paris. I would have no problem with Paris keeping carpet and also no problem with Fed/Nadal sitting it out.

wcr
10-30-2007, 02:46 AM
I didn't "just pass over it" because I'm not aware of what you're talking about, All I know, being a Brit Wimbledon watcher for decades, is that it was a fairly constant theme that the great clayers avoided it like the plague. I don't recall any comments at the time by commentators etc about the seeding system being the reason for their absence. I obviously wasn't listening.:p (Wimbledon, I agree, has always been a law unto itself about seedings. I guess that's what you alluding to.)


Your observations about the changes at Wimbledon are right on the money. Wasn't it one of the old Spanish Armada who said that "grass is for cows?" The surface and ball change were huge for the clay court specialists as evidenced by transformation of Wimbledon from a grass court event at the start of week 1 to a clay court event at the start of week two. The seeding changes from 16 to 32 and adding weight at seeding time for players by their ATP ranking as opposed to their grass court prowess made a huge impact on their results as well. In general the Spaniards were getting more openly critical - if not down right hositle - toward Wimbledon by the year until the changes were made.

World Beater
10-30-2007, 02:49 AM
Your observations about the changes at Wimbledon are right on the money. Wasn't it one of the old Spanish Armada who said that "grass is for cows?" The surface and ball change were huge for the clay court specialists as evidenced by transformation of Wimbledon from a grass court event at the start of week 1 to a clay court event at the start of week two. The seeding changes from 16 to 32 and adding weight at seeding time for players by their ATP ranking as opposed to their grass court prowess made a huge impact on their results as well. In general the Spaniards were getting more openly critical - if not down right hositle - toward Wimbledon by the year until the changes were made.

wasn't that rios. :confused:

wcr
10-30-2007, 02:55 AM
wasn't that rios. :confused:

No. Earlier than Rios. Earlier than Agassi. Origin Spain circa Manolo Santana. The Spaniards haven't been happy about it for a long time.

cmurray
10-30-2007, 02:56 AM
wasn't that rios. :confused:

I thought it was Safin. :shrug:

R.Federer
10-30-2007, 02:57 AM
wasn't that rios. :confused:No it was Lendl

ReturnWinner
10-30-2007, 03:01 AM
wasn't that rios. :confused:

yes Rios said too.

R.Federer
10-30-2007, 03:02 AM
Lendl coined it

Ivan Lendl missed Wimbledon in 1982, uttering what has since become a cliché among clay courters: 'Grass is for the cows'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A601750

wcr
10-30-2007, 03:03 AM
yes Rios said too.

Many players have said it. The origin predates Agassi, Rios, Sanchez-Vicario, Lendl ....

ReturnWinner
10-30-2007, 03:03 AM
Many players have said it. The origin predates Agassi, Rios, Sanchez-Vicario, Lendl ....

and Vilas...

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 03:05 AM
wasn't that rios. :confused:

Rios just didn't like England, but the point is. It wasn't grass that was the main problem with those players when it came to them not playing Wimbledon.

Even in the 90s it was the same problem with these comments by Muster.

The 28-year-old Austrian, who is competing in Halle, Germany, said: "It doesn't matter that I've never won a match at Wimbledon. I'm still No 2 in the world and I think I should be seeded, maybe three or four, but at least in the top four. I think to seed the No 2 player in the world No 7 is quite respectless.

"If we seed like this we should have a ranking for each surface. We should have a clay court ranking, a grass court ranking, then OK. But I don't think it's right that this is the only tournament that does it. I think it's a joke."

His manager-coach, Ronnie Leitgeb, said: "Never in the history of Wimbledon has a world No 2, a former No 1, been seeded so low. That's a subtle way of saying they don't want him. This is further proof that the people in Britain don't value Thomas."

World Beater
10-30-2007, 03:11 AM
and Vilas...
OT

didnt william renshaw say clay is for pigs?:confused:

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 03:11 AM
OT

didnt william renshaw say clay is for pigs?:confused:

Nah, that was RonE.

World Beater
10-30-2007, 03:16 AM
Nah, that was RonE.

I am mistaken. RonE predates William Renshaw.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 03:16 AM
I am mistaken. RonE predates William Renshaw.

Dwight Davis.

soraya
10-30-2007, 05:07 AM
Didn't this happen at the US Open as well? I seem to remember one year (96 perhaps) where they did some tinkering with the seeding (or at least tried to).

It actually happened if I remember correctly. Kafelnikov refused to play at the US open that year. One of the beneficiary was Agassi who was ranked below but accepted a higher seeding.

ASP0315
10-30-2007, 05:24 AM
good
if nadal doesn't make the finals here. He should retire then. ;)
i wouldn't mind a slow surface but what kind of balls they are using here. ?

Beforehand
10-30-2007, 05:30 AM
The 28-year-old Austrian, who is competing in Halle, Germany, said: "It doesn't matter that I've never won a match at Wimbledon. I'm still No 2 in the world and I think I should be seeded, maybe three or four, but at least in the top four. I think to seed the No 2 player in the world No 7 is quite respectless.

"If we seed like this we should have a ranking for each surface. We should have a clay court ranking, a grass court ranking, then OK. But I don't think it's right that this is the only tournament that does it. I think it's a joke."

His manager-coach, Ronnie Leitgeb, said: "Never in the history of Wimbledon has a world No 2, a former No 1, been seeded so low. That's a subtle way of saying they don't want him. This is further proof that the people in Britain don't value Thomas."

That's quite a lot of whining there.

Nadalfanatic
10-30-2007, 06:14 AM
:bow: to whoever made this decision. Too many courts have gotten sped up this year. Time for some courts to be slowed down. Plus it gives Nadal a better chance. :D

DrJules
10-30-2007, 07:51 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way but I sat in last year's final of a MASTER SERIES event watching davydenko demolish Herbaty, so yes top players showing up makes all the difference. This wasn't just done for Federer and Nadal but for the top 8 players who play shanghai next week and will have the benefit of not having to adapt to a totally different surface. And given the fact that all the top 10 (barring Roddick) showed up, I'd say the changes didn't just please federer and Nadal

That is far too sensible to be true.:lol: :lol: :lol:

But would be an excellent reason.

Or Levy
10-30-2007, 07:52 AM
Am I insane? I seem to recall the surface being problematic and causing injuries? Wasn't that an issue once? At least to Rafa.

DrJules
10-30-2007, 07:53 AM
Besides Roddick, which top players have decided to skip Paris this year?

The bonus pool thi year; far fewer withdrawls.

DrJules
10-30-2007, 07:58 AM
Indoor tennis in the 90s was ridiculous, pretty much just acefests and this is what led to the slowing down of the surfaces and too many people forget this or know this.

Yes, it's true I can see why Pioline had the surface to what it is this year. Federer and Nadal like I said would never want anything for selfish reasons.

Agreed.

The surface change may be beneficial to that forgotten group, spectators.

DrJules
10-30-2007, 08:00 AM
Federer doesn't like it when the balls start flying (this is what happens on a slick carpet like surface). It fu#ks up his baseline game. Did you see Cincy where he was doing his best sampras impersonation on the bh? In the past, he's always struggled with finding his shots at bercy.

There is a reason why 90's players serve and volleyed on carpet.

Federer has not played since 2003. This may be part of the reason.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 08:08 AM
That's quite a lot of whining there.

Not really when you look at the fact that no other Slams do surface ranking, that was more of an issue then than now.

MariaV
10-30-2007, 08:22 AM
I still can't see Federer lobbying for a slow, high bouncing court. That plays right into Nadal's hands should they meet in the final.

Fed is best mates with Nadal now so he's gotta help his best mate a little, no? ;) He is a very kind person, after all. ;)

rwn
10-30-2007, 08:37 AM
Fed is best mates with Nadal now so he's gotta help his best mate a little, no? ;) He is a very kind person, after all. ;)

Of course ;) It also helps that Nadal has only 1 win against Federer off clay since march 2004.

Castafiore
10-30-2007, 09:11 AM
GrandChelem is perhaps not the best of sources. They pretty much focus on all things Federer and Nadal in their tennis blog (not all the time but that focus is there) so the Bercy TD probably did say that but did GrandChelem paint the right picture, the full context? As far as I can see, not just Federer and Nadal was asked about their opinion on the surface and not just those two wanted a change of surface. GrandChelem make it out as if the number 1 and 2 were the ones to give an ultimatum but looking at other articles about it, it's not just those two who thought about skipping Bercy if the surface had stayed the same, but obviously, nobody gives a damn should the number 20 skip Bercy for that reason.

For me, it's got nothing to do with having uniformity throughout the year. There needs to be a variety. That's obvious. However, leading up to an event, there needs to be a bit of continuity. The fact that many players skipped Paris was mainly because 1) it's at the end of a long season and boxed in between two other big events and 2) it doesn't offer a good preparation in between Madrid and Shanghai due to the specifics of the surface? Right?



Source:http://www.20minutes.fr/article/191348/Sport-Bercy-refait-surface.php

« Ce changement est la conséquence de l'évolution du jeu. L'engagement physique est tel qu'il compresse la mousse. Les joueurs veulent savoir s'ils vont glisser sur 5 ou 20 centimètres. Il y a aussi une volonté d'uniformité avec les autres tournois indoor de fin de saison. Ce n'est pas la surface en elle-même qui provoque les blessures, c'est plus le fait de changer souvent de surface qui fait peur aux joueurs », indique Didier Ailloud, responsable du marché tennis chez Gerflor.

Un souci de continuité qui n'est pas passé inaperçu. « C'est bien de pouvoir jouer sur une surface quasi identique à Madrid, à Bâle puis à Bercy », assure Paul-Henri Mathieu, qui n'aurait peut-être pas participé à ces trois tournois cet automne si le revêtement avait été différent.
My attempt to translate it:

“This change is a result of how the game has evolved. The physical commitment is such that it compresses the foam (?). The players want to know if they’re going to slide 5 or 20 centimeters. There’s also a wish for uniformity with the other indoor tournaments at the end of the season. It’s not the surface itself that provokes the injuries, but it’s more the fact of often having to change surface that scares the players”, indicates Didier Ailloud, responsible of the tennis branch at Gerflor.


That consideration for continuity has not gone unnoticed: “It’s good to be able to play on a surface that’s nearly identical in Madrid, in Basel and then in Bercy” assures Paul-Henri Mathieu who would perhaps not have taken part at those three tournaments this autumn if this resurfacing did not take place.

BodyServe
10-30-2007, 09:15 AM
:bow: to whoever made this decision. Too many courts have gotten sped up this year. Time for some courts to be slowed down. Plus it gives Nadal a better chance. :D

Except San Jose,which courts have been speed up?

Veronique
10-30-2007, 09:48 AM
Perhaps it helps to read the whole article to understand the context. In an effort to attract more spectators, the Bercy organizers have made a few changes including starting the tournament on Sunday, inviting musicians, and are planning many other activities like circus and such during the course of the week. They approached Roger and Rafa to inquire why they don't like playing in Paris. The players gave their honest opinions, never demanding that the surface be changed to accomodate them. The tourney organizers went out of their way to make it happen in order to attract them, thus attracting more spectators. So I don't get what the disappointment is about.

Claroo
10-30-2007, 10:08 AM
The organizers have to reach some goals if they want to keep their MS status : important viewing figures, ticket sales, etc. The ATP was quite clear abour it : if before 2009 (or 2010), there were not 100,000 people coming to the tournament (in one week), they would lose their status.
So I guess the best way for them to match it is to be sure that the two top players are coming. :shrug:

Sunset of Age
10-30-2007, 10:28 AM
Perhaps it helps to read the whole article to understand the context. In an effort to attract more spectators, the Bercy organizers have made a few changes including starting the tournament on Sunday, inviting musicians, and are planning many other activities like circus and such during the course of the week. They approached Roger and Rafa to inquire why they don't like playing in Paris. The players gave their honest opinions, never demanding that the surface be changed to accomodate them. The tourney organizers went out of their way to make it happen in order to attract them, thus attracting more spectators. So I don't get what the disappointment is about.

This sounds sensible. The more I read about this 'incident', the more I think you're being spot on here. I guess it's all a storm-in-a-teacup.

RonE
10-30-2007, 10:30 AM
Absolutely disgraceful if it is true.

First Goat and Pig should have just kept their mouths shut. They should be good enough to be able to adjust to the court conditions and not vicea versa.

Second, shame on the tournament directors for succumbing to those demands (I guess after so many withdrawals in the past they are desperate for the top players to show and will do anything to haul in the extra $$$ by making sure the top of the crop are there)

Third- does ATP stand for Apathetic Timid Pansies? Where are they when they are needed to step in?

R.I.P carpet indoors.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 10:41 AM
This sounds sensible. The more I read about this 'incident', the more I think you're being spot on here. I guess it's all a storm-in-a-teacup.

Expected answer.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 10:42 AM
The trouble with all this is that carpet tennis is being squeezed out of existence. It's not going to be used anymore for the TMC because it's not a "fair" surface for the slower surface players, so that surface is now always going to be a medium paced hard court. And because there's no sort of carpet court swing, the pressure will continue to convert tournaments into surfaces similar to that used for the TMC and now the 2 TMS events in this part of the season, or players will see no value in playing there.

Action Jackson
10-30-2007, 10:44 AM
The trouble with all this is that carpet tennis is being squeezed out of existence. It's not going to be used anymore for the TMC because it's not a "fair" surface for the slower surface players, so that surface is now always going to be a medium paced hard court. And because there's no sort of carpet court swing, the pressure will continue to convert tournaments into surfaces similar to that used for the TMC and now the 2 TMS events in this part of the season, or players will see no value in playing there.

I see your point scoobs for the most part, but it's good that you put fair in inverted commas.

nobama
10-30-2007, 10:47 AM
The bonus pool thi year; far fewer withdrawls.
Bingo.

nobama
10-30-2007, 11:04 AM
The trouble with all this is that carpet tennis is being squeezed out of existence. It's not going to be used anymore for the TMC because it's not a "fair" surface for the slower surface players, so that surface is now always going to be a medium paced hard court. And because there's no sort of carpet court swing, the pressure will continue to convert tournaments into surfaces similar to that used for the TMC and now the 2 TMS events in this part of the season, or players will see no value in playing there.
That's why it doesn't surprise me that players would lobby to have Paris switched to a surface similar to Madrid & TMC. Moscow is no longer carpet. I believe Basel is switching to hard too.

scoobs
10-30-2007, 11:11 AM
There'll be no carpet events at all in 2009 will there, I can just see it.

You may see it at the odd DC tie where the home captain is feeling REALLY spiteful but that'll be it.

BalkanBoy
10-30-2007, 12:13 PM
WoW, what's next? They'll maybe ask to be recieved as presidents? Poor girls.

TennisGrandSlam
10-30-2007, 12:38 PM
Rafa always wants to use lefty heavy top spin to supress Rogi's single backhand.

Corey Feldman
10-30-2007, 01:49 PM
lol

Roger Fediva and Rafael Nadiva these two should be known as

absolutely unreal what they have turned into this year.

rocketassist
10-30-2007, 02:06 PM
This is fucking sad. De Villiers says the players matter the most, but really he means the very top players only.

Tennis is dying. 3 set TMS finals, changes of surface, blue USO-like courts at the AO, 1st round byes in the clay and American masters, failed round robin?

We now have six hard court masters and three clay ones. IMHO there should be a grass one anyway, but a carpet one is a good change. Now it's gone, regardless of whether it says Gerflor on the court.

Stop killing our fucking sport you morons.

RIP carpet tennis.

Beforehand
10-30-2007, 04:02 PM
Not really when you look at the fact that no other Slams do surface ranking, that was more of an issue then than now.

I guess I can't comment on the past, having not watched then, but it's a rather ludicrous whining/complaint to have nowadays, for sure.

nobama
10-30-2007, 05:44 PM
This is fucking sad. De Villiers says the players matter the most, but really he means the very top players only.

Tennis is dying. 3 set TMS finals, changes of surface, blue USO-like courts at the AO, 1st round byes in the clay and American masters, failed round robin?

We now have six hard court masters and three clay ones. IMHO there should be a grass one anyway, but a carpet one is a good change. Now it's gone, regardless of whether it says Gerflor on the court.

Stop killing our fucking sport you morons.

RIP carpet tennis.Seems to me if players really wanted carpet tennis there would be more tournaments played on that surface. Have any of the players in Paris this week complained that the surface was changed from carpet to hard?

Naide
10-30-2007, 05:49 PM
:baby:

rofe
10-30-2007, 05:54 PM
Seems to me if players really wanted carpet tennis there would be more tournaments played on that surface. Have any of the players in Paris this week complained that the surface was changed from carpet to hard?

That is the right way to look at it. If the players are not complaining about carpet going the way of the dodo then why should the ATP have carpet tournaments? Just to pacify some die-hard fans? Seems to me that the ATP has taken the stance that matches played on super fast surfaces are losing spectators. If that is indeed true and the ATP is making more money by introducing more uniformity of surfaces then we as fans of tennis played on a variety of surfaces will just have to grin and bear it.

Mind you, the ATP desperately wants new and/or casual spectators. They are aware that people like you or me will watch tennis anyway since we have so much invested in this sport.

Bobby
10-30-2007, 06:14 PM
It's so sad that two players think they are bigger than the game. If this story is true, it clearly shows that these two should really look in the mirror. They act like they are the ones running the ATP.

rofe
10-30-2007, 06:41 PM
It's so sad that two players think they are bigger than the game. If this story is true, it clearly shows that these two should really look in the mirror. They act like they are the ones running the ATP.

Depends on how to look at it. The tournament director apparently asked then what it would take for them to play in the tournament and they were both upfront about it. The director then used that input to change the surface.

I don't think it is such a big deal. The tournament wants to make money by attracting the biggest stars and the players want the best possible surface for the game. I think the crux of the problem was that the 8 players participating in Shanghai could not use Bercy to fine tune their game for Shanghai and that is why you don't hear the other players complaining about the change.

BalkanBoy
10-30-2007, 06:44 PM
I just found this "Federer c’était un problème psychologique, il bloquait : « Je trouve moins bien mes appuis… »" This quote is from the interview in french and it means that Federer complained because of psychological problems hahahah :haha: :smash: :bigclap: :bolt: :shrug: :baby: :scratch: :spit: :help: :retard: :eek: :rolleyes: :lol: :wazzup: :cuckoo: :crazy: :bigcry: :bs: :rolls: :timebomb: and that's all the reactions I had after reading this

nobama
10-30-2007, 07:07 PM
That is the right way to look at it. If the players are not complaining about carpet going the way of the dodo then why should the ATP have carpet tournaments? Just to pacify some die-hard fans? Seems to me that the ATP has taken the stance that matches played on super fast surfaces are losing spectators. If that is indeed true and the ATP is making more money by introducing more uniformity of surfaces then we as fans of tennis played on a variety of surfaces will just have to grin and bear it.

Mind you, the ATP desperately wants new and/or casual spectators. They are aware that people like you or me will watch tennis anyway since we have so much invested in this sport.I think that's the crux of the issue. Quite honestly I don't think most players care if it's indoor carpet or indoor hard. If they did I'm sure we'd be hearing someone complain about it. Like certain players did about Shanghai in 2005.

maria_marie
10-30-2007, 09:28 PM
well this change of the surface might have happened by the request of Fed and Rafa but as you see Bercy has never had a better line-up than this year. There's only one top 20 player missing so I think the chance of the surface turned out positive for the tournament. I miss the good old violet carpet though...

FiBeR
10-30-2007, 09:49 PM
disgraceful :o

PeteCentral
10-30-2007, 11:28 PM
Hernandez, the all around claycourter from Burgos, and Mayer, the german master, asked for a change in the Braunschweig surface.

Hernandez and Mayer made a change to the surface a condition of them playing.
Hernandez said the surface "gave no value to his game" (read: slice not that effective) and Mayer said he had balance problems on the old surface.

alfonsojose
10-31-2007, 05:47 AM
:eek: It's a lie. How could you dare. They love the sport. They're not money whores who think in their own interests first :angel:

R.Federer
10-31-2007, 05:58 AM
well this change of the surface might have happened by the request of Fed and Rafa but as you see Bercy has never had a better line-up than this year. There's only one top 20 player missing so I think the chance of the surface turned out positive for the tournament.

Well let's see how long before they are out of the tournament. If they try to conserve and don't do their best (yes it is difficult to prove) then it is all round bad ---- get their cash, turn the courts into a product of their personal taste allegedly due to their "ultimatums" :rolleyes: :lol: and Vamoose.

I still cannot get my head around the idea that Federer is here to try to win.

Saumon
10-31-2007, 07:44 AM
People are never happy with what they have. This morning I heard the tournament director complaining that now they have too many top players and it makes scheduling matches difficult. :haha: :cuckoo: He said that they all want to play in the same time slot (late afternoon, early evening) but that some will have to play in the morning or on court 1. :o

DrJules
10-31-2007, 07:51 AM
People are never happy with what they have. This morning I heard the tournament director complaining that now they have too many top players and it makes scheduling matches difficult. :haha: :cuckoo: He said that they all want to play in the same time slot (late afternoon, early evening) but that some will have to play in the morning or on court 1. :o

Last year too few this year too many.

I can image the next thread being about Federer (early evening) and Nadal (afternoon) receiving favourable times.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

DrJules
10-31-2007, 07:53 AM
Well let's see how long before they are out of the tournament. If they try to conserve and don't do their best (yes it is difficult to prove) then it is all round bad ---- get their cash, turn the courts into a product of their personal taste allegedly due to their "ultimatums" :rolleyes: :lol: and Vamoose.

I still cannot get my head around the idea that Federer is here to try to win.

They should require them to win a match to qualify for the pool.

rwn
10-31-2007, 08:35 AM
People are never happy with what they have. This morning I heard the tournament director complaining that now they have too many top players and it makes scheduling matches difficult. :haha: :cuckoo: He said that they all want to play in the same time slot (late afternoon, early evening) but that some will have to play in the morning or on court 1. :o

It almost looks like you're talking about the posters on MTF. Last year they were complaining that the top players didn't play. Now everybody is complaining because the top players get a surface they love to play on and get paid for playing.:haha::cuckoo:

nobama
10-31-2007, 10:40 AM
Well let's see how long before they are out of the tournament. If they try to conserve and don't do their best (yes it is difficult to prove) then it is all round bad ---- get their cash, turn the courts into a product of their personal taste allegedly due to their "ultimatums" :rolleyes: :lol: and Vamoose.

I still cannot get my head around the idea that Federer is here to try to win.Well he probably is now just because just to spite everyone who thinks he's going there to tank and collet his $1.5M.

nobama
10-31-2007, 10:47 AM
They should require them to win a match to qualify for the pool.But what if a player legitimately gets beat and it's not a tank? In Masters events top players can get difficult 1st round/2nd round matches.

oz_boz
10-31-2007, 09:25 PM
Booo. Keep the carpet.

ReturnWinner
10-31-2007, 10:34 PM
What Nadal said after Volandri about the surface:
Nadal: "Well, always the play in Paris is very special for me. But, well, the court is so much better than the last years, no? It's slow and easier for the players and for the public for sure. It's nicer surface than the other.

Forehander
11-01-2007, 01:43 AM
dude shut up, they changed it for other reasons.

rocketassist
09-07-2009, 09:36 PM
Buuuuuuuump.

Top player bias at its best.

HeretiC
09-07-2009, 10:16 PM
I almost wrote AGAIN?! :lol:

LinkMage
09-08-2009, 12:43 AM
This was a fucking disgrace. Moving from carpet to one of the slowest hard courts ever seen.

They should move it back to carpet, but the ATP is full of idiots.

Action Jackson
11-11-2010, 11:32 AM
Bump

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 11:35 AM
The surface this year is perfect. Slow enough that it doesn't make for an ace borefest and fast enough so Nadal had to pussy out. Tennis wins. :D

acionescu
11-11-2010, 11:37 AM
And you troll :D

nole_no1
11-11-2010, 11:43 AM
Too fast for you Rafito? :sad:

Action Jackson
11-11-2010, 11:52 AM
The surface this year is perfect. Slow enough that it doesn't make for an ace borefest and fast enough so Nadal had to pussy out. Tennis wins. :D

This Antonius is good.

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 11:53 AM
The surface this year is perfect. Slow enough that it doesn't make for an ace borefest and fast enough so Nadal had to pussy out. Tennis wins. :D

Nah, he's just replicating the former world no. 1 who skipped this event on at least 3 previous occassions, and put in half-arsed efforts on the occassions that he has bothered to show up.

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 11:55 AM
Nah, he's just replicating the former world no. 1 who skipped this event on at least 3 previous occassions, and put in half-arsed efforts on the occassions that he has bothered to show up.

:hug:

Jomp1
11-11-2010, 11:57 AM
Federer and Nadal can say whatever they want this year but surface looks great and gives plenty of good tennis!

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 12:07 PM
:hug:

Can't think of a suitably sarcastic response, so you just post an emoticon instead? Figures.

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 12:09 PM
Can't think of a suitably sarcastic response, so you just post an emoticon instead? Figures.

You were the one trying to come up with a sarcastic response and miserably failed at it, hence the hug smiley, go figure... ;) :hug:

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 12:12 PM
You were the one trying to come up with a sarcastic response and miserably failed at it, hence the hug smiley, go figure... ;) :hug:


Oh right. So please could you explain why it's acceptable for Federer to repeatedly skip this event, but if Nadal does it he's running scared?

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 12:13 PM
Oh right. So please could you explain why it's acceptable for Federer to repeatedly skip this event, but if Nadal does it he's running scared?

Are you trying to say that both Nadal and Fed are equally comfortable on fast courts? :scratch: surely you cannot be serious...

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 12:18 PM
Are you trying to say that both Nadal and Fed are equally comfortable on fast courts? :scratch: surely you cannot be serious...

Not suggesting that at all. Only an idiot would think otherwise. But you are saying that Nadal pulled out of this event because he recieved prior info that the courts are playing fast. In which case, why didn't he pull out of the US Open, and why did he play in Tokyo if he was so worried about playing on fast courts?

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 12:20 PM
why didn't he pull out of the US Open, and why did he play in Tokyo if he was so worried about playing on fast courts?

USO is a slam, not comparable to a TMS. Tokyo gives (lots of :o) appearance fees, Bercy doesn't.

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 12:23 PM
USO is a slam, not comparable to a TMS. Tokyo gives (lots of :o) appearance fees, Bercy doesn't.

So you acknowledge that the US Open and Tokyo are played on fast courts? Nadal won both of those events, so which kind of distorted logic have you then used to presume that Nadal is too scared to play in Bercy?

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 12:32 PM
So you acknowledge that the US Open and Tokyo are played on fast courts? Nadal won both of those events, so which kind of distorted logic have you then used to presume that Nadal is too scared to play in Bercy?

I never acknowledged that USO or Tokyo were as fast as Bercy :shrug: they are faster than clay, granted, still way slower than Bercy.

philosophicalarf
11-11-2010, 12:40 PM
This year's Tokyo and this year's Paris are fairly similar in speed through the court, Tokyo perhaps has a slightly lower bounce. USO is a fair bit slower, although the balls are faster than either (so rallies are at a higher average pace).

Nieminen has played all three, on his blog talking about Paris....
"I think this surface is one of the fastest on the Tour together with the surface in Tokyo and a couple of more"

One of the "couple" would be Montpellier, that's a similar speed to Paris. The other would be either San Jose, or perhaps Cincinnati, but they're not quite as quick.

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 12:53 PM
With a "decent" field no way Nadal would've won Tokyo anyway...

Matt01
11-11-2010, 12:57 PM
With a "decent" field no way Nadal would've won Tokyo anyway...


:lol:

Don't be so bitter :awww:

bhathiya9999
11-11-2010, 12:59 PM
So wat will be the next surface??

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 01:00 PM
:lol:

Don't be so bitter :awww:

Not bitter in the least, dear :shrug: just pointing out why it's no rocket science as for why Nadal withdrew from Bercy :o :)

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 01:01 PM
:lol:

Don't be so bitter :awww:


He can't help it. He still hasn't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why it was OK for Federer to skip Bercy on multiple occassions, but if Nadal skips it then he's running scared.

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 01:10 PM
He can't help it. He still hasn't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why it was OK for Federer to skip Bercy on multiple occassions, but if Nadal skips it then he's running scared.

If Fed was withdrawing clay tournies then you'd have a point :shrug: :hug:

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 01:19 PM
If Fed was withdrawing clay tournies then you'd have a point :shrug: :hug:

Remind me, how many times had Fed even come close to winning Bercy?

Plus nowadays there are only 3 mandatory clay events (one of which almost has the characteristics of a hardcourt), as opposed to 8 mandatory hardcourt events plus the WTFs, so it is hardly comparable.

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 01:23 PM
Plus nowadays there are only 3 mandatory clay events (one of which almost has the characteristics of a hardcourt), as opposed to 8 mandatory hardcourt events plus the WTFs, so it is hardly comparable.

How many of those mandatory hardcourt events actually have the characteristics of a clay court? Most of them, but Bercy is not anymore one of them and for some reason it's the one Rafa doesn't bother attending :o

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 01:31 PM
How many of those mandatory hardcourt events actually have the characteristics of a clay court? Most of them, but Bercy is not anymore one of them and for some reason it's the one Rafa doesn't bother attending :o

If that's the case, then please explain why Nadal has been so successful to the point of owning everyone on a clay court, but hasn't repeated that total domination on these hardcourts that have the same characteristics?

You're clearly deluded if you believe that Nadal has run scared due to the speeding up of the surface. Yes, it would have made winning the event that much more difficult, but to say he's running scared is just pathetic. No point 'arguing' this with you.

Plus you have STILL failed to come up with a reason as to why is was acceptable to skip Bercy on all those occassions, but not Nadal.

bokehlicious
11-11-2010, 01:34 PM
If that's the case, then please explain why Nadal has been so successful to the point of owning everyone on a clay court, but hasn't repeated that total domination on these hardcourts that have the same characteristics?

You're clearly deluded if you believe that Nadal has run scared due to the speeding up of the surface. Yes, it would have made winning the event that much more difficult, but to say he's running scared is just pathetic. No point 'arguing' this with you.

Plus you have STILL failed to come up with a reason as to why is was acceptable to skip Bercy on all those occassions, but not Nadal.

Nadal will be running like a rabbit in London, everyone knows that. If he were really injured no way he could recover that quickly, he just knows too many people own him on fast courts so it's better for his "legacy" to pull out, just like at Wimbledon last year...

Corey Feldman
11-11-2010, 01:48 PM
Plus you have STILL failed to come up with a reason as to why is was acceptable to skip Bercy on all those occassions, but not Nadal.you know, Nadal skipped Bercy all those years Fed did as well :lol:

Fed was defo injured in 04. 05.. he missed Basel and Madrid as well

in 06 he won US Open, Tokyo, DC matches, Madird and Basel weeks before it

delpiero7
11-11-2010, 01:59 PM
you know, Nadal skipped Bercy all those years Fed did as well :lol:

I'm well aware of that.

Fed was defo injured in 04. 05.. he missed Basel and Madrid as well

in 06 he won US Open, Tokyo, DC matches, Madird and Basel weeks before it

Yes, but which injury kept him from playing in Bercy in '06? He was fit enough to win all those events prior to Bercy, and to win the Master's Cup after it.

Sillyrabbit
11-11-2010, 02:21 PM
Quit while you're ahead as the argument is really going nowhere, it's not like you're arguing with someone sensible.

nobama
11-11-2010, 03:03 PM
And this thread was bumped because???

tribalfusion
11-11-2010, 04:04 PM
Nadal will be running like a rabbit in London, everyone knows that. If he were really injured no way he could recover that quickly, he just knows too many people own him on fast courts so it's better for his "legacy" to pull out, just like at Wimbledon last year...

I think "everyone knows" what you think of Nadal and that he makes your puny world seem even punier when he performs well.

Also nice that you somehow just "know" who can legitimately sit out an event and who can't, why they do so and who is injured when.

Keep up the lame work as always and pick up the slack from Federer's Mate.

Henry Chinaski
11-11-2010, 04:21 PM
And this thread was bumped because???

because it's about the surface speed in Bercy and therefore pertinent to the hottest topic in tennis at the moment maybe.

But then this is MTF, so maybe not

nobama
11-11-2010, 05:25 PM
because it's about the surface speed in Bercy and therefore pertinent to the hottest topic in tennis at the moment maybe.

But then this is MTF, so maybe not

All the posts after were tolling so that's why I asked.

Matt01
11-11-2010, 05:56 PM
Not bitter in the least, dear :shrug: just pointing out why it's no rocket science as for why Nadal withdrew from Bercy :o :)


For once you're right. It's really no rocket science that Nadal withdrew because of a shoulder injury.


He can't help it. He still hasn't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why it was OK for Federer to skip Bercy on multiple occassions, but if Nadal skips it then he's running scared.


:hatoff:

scoobs
11-11-2010, 06:01 PM
Is there any point to this discussion?

I posted this thread in 2007 because it seemed very clear that unless Paris Indoors altered the surface, they were going to struggle to get Federer and Nadal to play the event, since for different reasons, they didn't care for the surface that was used.

But this is 2010, and clearly the surface has changed again and been sped up from the slow to medium indoor hardcourt it was changed to.

So is there anything here still to discuss?

Henry Chinaski
11-11-2010, 06:03 PM
There's nothing further to discuss no, but I think there is an interesting discussion in the early part of the thread that adds some context to the current debate about the Bercy surface so it was worth bumping.

Paylu2007
11-11-2010, 07:42 PM
the world is going to end in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that should worry to rafatards!

Action Jackson
11-11-2010, 09:31 PM
And this thread was bumped because???

You wanted to where it was said Federer and Nadal wanted the surface changed. They got the surface changed from carpet, the early part of the thread gives the background to that.

Looner
08-25-2012, 10:53 PM
Seeing as this thread has a large bump history, I can only say this one thing

BUMP

nobama
08-26-2012, 12:36 AM
Seeing as this thread has a large bump history, I can only say this one thing

BUMP

And the point of bumping ths now is? :scratch: