Federer: "they have slowed down everything [indoors & grass] " [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer: "they have slowed down everything [indoors & grass] "

abraxas21
06-29-2010, 05:15 AM
Some interesting points after Melzer's match. I've seen these same points many times on this very board so I thought it would be interesting to post them again, coming from someone as important as Federer this time.

Q. How have slower courts and the heavier tennis balls contributed to the decline of the serve‑and‑volley game in your estimation?

ROGER FEDERER: It's tough to say. I obviously came here in the year when I played Sampras, let's say, I was serve and volleying 80% of the first serve, 50% on the second serve.

I remember once speaking to Wayne Ferreira who I was playing doubles with that year actually. He said he used to serve and volley always first serve, 50% of the second serve. And towards the end of his career at Wimbledon, he used to serve and volley 50% of his first serve and not anymore on his second serve.

You wonder, how in the world has that happened? Have we become such incredible return players or can we not volley anymore or is it just a combination of slower balls, slower courts?

I think it's definitely a bit of a combination of many things. If I look back, I think we definitely had many more great volley players in the game back then. When you do have that, you are forced to move in, as well, because you don't want to hit passing shots against a great volleyer over and over again. But because we don't have that as much anymore, everybody's content staying at the baseline.

A bit unfortunate, I think, because I love guys moving in, like a Melzer match today who throws in the occasional serve and volley. You have to throw in great passing shots. It's unfortunate for the games. Unfortunately, they've slowed down everything, indoors, grass. Everything has become so slow, I think that is a bit of a pity.

Q. What have you missed by having that contrast like Sampras and Agassi?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I used to, thank God, still play in that era where I played against serve‑and‑volley players, chip‑and‑charge guys. It was a completely different game plan. Mindset you felt pressure the whole match because you knew it doesn't matter what surface on a couple of shots here and there. You don't get that feeling anymore as much.

careergrandslam
06-29-2010, 05:26 AM
he must be mad switzerland didnt qualify in the football and spain did so he had to make an indirect attack on nadal.
when he is frustrated he makes comments like this to undermine rafa's achievements.

federer has been the biggest beneficiary of the courts slowing down.

guga2120
06-29-2010, 05:26 AM
They've slowed down everything, except the clay, where it is ridiculously faster than it was 10 years ago.

tennisfan856
06-29-2010, 06:17 AM
indoor is still pretty fast, and clay isn't even clay anymore. They hit it so hard that it's become a slippery hard court.

DuMa
06-29-2010, 06:18 AM
i agree with it slowing down. but Fed has no reason to complain really.

MrChopin
06-29-2010, 06:26 AM
They've slowed down everything, except the clay, where it is ridiculously faster than it was 10 years ago.

Did you read the snippet or just chime in with typical claytard wisdom? Let's look at a snippet of a snippet... Fed said: "Unfortunately, they've slowed down everything, indoors, grass." He does not list clay among his examples of surfaces that have been sped up.

And regarding the "faster" surfaces, he's right. Watching Ferrer camp out 2-3m behind the baseline and retrieve against Soderling was sickening.

dabeast
06-29-2010, 06:30 AM
Fed's just telling it like it is. The media is bemoaning the current state of S&V and it is a great pity how all-court tennis has declined so much.

@ careergs, u're seriously wacked.

swebright
06-29-2010, 06:36 AM
Federer always tells the truth.:devil:

He was just answering the question.

abraxas21
06-29-2010, 06:44 AM
They've slowed down everything, except the clay, where it is ridiculously faster than it was 10 years ago.

Read the whole thing. Maybe the title is misleading so I'll edit it.

Fedicilous
06-29-2010, 07:05 AM
Probably current Federer gains more form little bit slower grass and hardcourts. His movement is getting worse and worse, so playing on ultra fast surfaces forces him to make tons of ue, caused by being late to balls.

When Federer was in top form, there was no difference, because he detroyed everyone except Nadal on claycourts.
I guess he wouldn't win Australian Open 2010, if it was like US Open speed.

VolandriFan
06-29-2010, 07:07 AM
Interesting that he doesn't mention the advances in racket/string technology.

Polikarpov
06-29-2010, 07:22 AM
ROGER FEDERER: It's tough to say. I obviously came here in the year when I played Sampras, let's say, I was serve and volleying 80% of the first serve, 50% on the second serve.

God I miss those times.

BackhandMissile
06-29-2010, 09:13 AM
He should be glad they did, otherwise they wouldn't be calling him the GOAT today.

ORGASMATRON
06-29-2010, 09:36 AM
He should be glad they did, otherwise they wouldn't be calling him the GOAT today.

:retard:

the surfaces are a joke today. only reason nadal managed to win 2 slams outside of clay.

bokehlicious
06-29-2010, 09:38 AM
he must be mad switzerland didnt qualify in the football and spain did so he had to make an indirect attack on nadal.
when he is frustrated he makes comments like this to undermine rafa's achievements.

:retard: :retard: :retard:

careergrandslam
06-29-2010, 09:41 AM
He should be glad they did, otherwise they wouldn't be calling him the GOAT today.

this.

federer is a nobody without the slower court speed and better racket technology.
áncic beat him in 2002 at wimby.

federer has had the best technoloy, slowest court speeds and the weakest era.
he should consider himself extremely lucky, because he is about a 7 or 8 slam player without these changes.

yavore
06-29-2010, 09:44 AM
God I miss those times.

Yes, that was fun. 3 hour match and about 3 min actual play. Very interesting indeed ...

tennisfaNo1
06-29-2010, 09:45 AM
wimbledon playing conditions video analysis 2003 vs. 2008 final
from 6:25-7:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8Uyu2ovtA
:(

ORGASMATRON
06-29-2010, 09:48 AM
this.

nadal is a nobody without the slower court speed and better racket technology.
áncic would have slaughtered him 2002 at wimby.

nadal has had the best technoloy, slowest court speeds and the weakest era.
he should consider himself extremely lucky, because he is about a 1 or 2 slam player without these changes.

fixed

Foxy
06-29-2010, 10:09 AM
wimbledon playing conditions video analysis 2003 vs. 2008 final
from 6:25-7:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8Uyu2ovtA
:(

Different spin. You can never hit two exactly the same serves in your life even being the same speed. The other variables are practically infinite. It doesn't prove anything.

tennisfaNo1
06-29-2010, 10:21 AM
Different spin. You can never hit two exactly the same serves in your life even being the same speed. The other variables are practically infinite. It doesn't prove anything.

on MTF any proof, no matter what, is no proof - IF DOESN'T BACK UP our own subjective thoughts (theory):wavey:

ShotmaKer
06-29-2010, 10:38 AM
this.

federer is a nobody without the slower court speed and better racket technology.
áncic beat him in 2002 at wimby.

federer has had the best technoloy, slowest court speeds and the weakest era.
he should consider himself extremely lucky, because he is about a 7 or 8 slam player without these changes.

lol, seriously ? "Special" specimen this Winny the whiner :retard:

Polikarpov
06-29-2010, 10:42 AM
this.

federer is a nobody without the slower court speed and better racket technology.
áncic beat him in 2002 at wimby.

federer has had the best technoloy, slowest court speeds and the weakest era.
he should consider himself extremely lucky, because he is about a 7 or 8 slam player without these changes.

Well he reached QF in 2001. :retard:

dodo
06-29-2010, 10:51 AM
wimbledon playing conditions video analysis 2003 vs. 2008 final
from 6:25-7:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8Uyu2ovtA
:(
lol @ the vid. very first point, Fed slices a 2nd serve return halfway up the net. instant classic.

Sophocles
06-29-2010, 10:53 AM
lol @ the vid. very first point, Fed slices a 2nd serve return halfway up the net. instant classic.

GREATEST MATCH OF ALL TIME. Dribble.

Commander Data
06-29-2010, 11:30 AM
I think it is also true (and I think fed also said that) that the players have physically improved a lot, they can retrieve better then in the past. They are better athlets and move better, So slowing down is only half the story.

MacTheKnife
06-29-2010, 11:32 AM
It's the time of the jack rabbit and golden retriever. Does not take genius to figure that out.

Humerus
06-29-2010, 11:33 AM
Gurl is such a little whinger. Fast grass and carpet be OVA, byotch:hearts:.

careergrandslam
06-29-2010, 11:34 AM
all these technology and court speed talk will become hardly talked about in the future as technology improves further and court speeds will never speed up because the fast courts are the receipe for boring tennis and low ratings.
tennis is more about entertainment than it was in past decades, sport in general is about entertainment, to have entertainment, u gotta have longer rallies, servefests are boring which will turn people off.

im sure wimbledon organsisers researched this well before slowing down their courts.
its all about making money and high tv ratings and brining new fans to the sport.
nadal and federer has brought alot of new fans into the sport, nadal probably more since he plays a different brand of tennis to anything we have seen previously whereas federer is very conventional in his style of play.
i reckon alot of chicks have been brought into following tennis because of nadal, mostly due to his physique and glutes.:lol:

obviously the old school tennis fans will be pissed off due to all these changes, but thats the way things work, nothing stays the same.
that is why nadal is so unpopular among tennis purists, he is not ur conventional text book style player.
he has got his own style and is very successful doing it.

bokehlicious
06-29-2010, 11:36 AM
all these technology and court speed talk will become hardly talked about in the future as technology improves further and court speeds will never speed up because the fast courts are the receipe for boring tennis and low ratings.
tennis is more about entertainment than it was in past decades, sport in general is about entertainment, to have entertainment, u gotta have longer rallies, servefests are boring which will turn people off.

That is actually moonballing that tends to turn most people off.........

careergrandslam
06-29-2010, 11:40 AM
I think it is also true (and I think fed also said that) that the players have physically improved a lot, they can retrieve better then in the past. They are better athlets and move better, So slowing down is only half the story.

ofcourse players are physically stronger, faster, bigger.
thats human evolution.
so many players today are atleast 6 foot tall.

wilh all the improvements in nuitrition, sports scienece, diets, massages, treatment to injuries, improvement in medicine, etc have advanced the sport.
u look at guys like murray and nadal, they are freak athletes.

laurie-1
06-29-2010, 11:50 AM
Very interesting comments by Federer this time.

Even when Mauresmo won Wimbledon in 2006, she said in her on court victory speech that grass was getting slower and slower. Mauresmo will probably be the last player ever to win a slam consistently serving and volleying.

Commander Data
06-29-2010, 11:52 AM
ofcourse players are physically stronger, faster, bigger.
thats human evolution.
so many players today are atleast 6 foot tall.

wilh all the improvements in nuitrition, sports scienece, diets, massages, treatment to injuries, improvement in medicine, etc have advanced the sport.
u look at guys like murray and nadal, they are freak athletes.

Yeah check them out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnoRHOzxs2Q

laurie-1
06-29-2010, 12:02 PM
ofcourse players are physically stronger, faster, bigger.
thats human evolution.
so many players today are atleast 6 foot tall.

wilh all the improvements in nuitrition, sports scienece, diets, massages, treatment to injuries, improvement in medicine, etc have advanced the sport.
u look at guys like murray and nadal, they are freak athletes.

Hehehe.

I'm always amused when Murray's used as an example.

I saw Murray twice last year, once at the French, ripped to shreds by Fernando Gonzalez and then at the Tour Championships in London when he lost to Federer.

Murray may be a great athlete but who cares when he hits powderpuff second serves in the middle of the box (often slower than his female counterparts). His shots often have no stick on them at all, they are simply not heavy and he has the mentality of a 5ft 5 inch counterpuncher player (often waiting for his opponent to mess up).

Murray and Monfils are NOT two examples if you want to talk about the evolution of Mens Tennis. I don't want to watch Men play like wussies.

laurie-1
06-29-2010, 12:18 PM
Yeah check them out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnoRHOzxs2Q

There were on average more guys 6ft plus in the top 10 in those days. Now there a lot of 6 ft 9 giants but everyone knows these guys will NEVER win a Grand Slam tournament and will probably never make the Top 10 - they are journeymen.

From that period?

Stich, Becker, Krajicek, Todd Martin, Rafter, Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov all 6ft 3 plus;

Sampras, Courier, Henman, Moya, Muster, Edberg, all 6 ft plus.

The other thing is, poorly recorded videos from that period are not good representations of the speed of play:

These are better representations from this time period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg0wsQDCE3c (this one has a lot of grass points from 1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gfMYu87GbA - from 1991

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqK78_cqsso - from 1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRG9_7h0TnY - from 1994

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MH9pyrfw4 - from 1991

JolánGagó
06-29-2010, 12:34 PM
mono.

andylovesaustin
06-29-2010, 12:44 PM
Maybe they slowed down the fast courts in particular to balance out the technology?

A while back, I heard John McEnroe say he wished tennis would ban everything but wood racquets. He made the comparison to baseball that if baseball allowed some of the same technology, it would just change the sport too much?

rocketassist
06-29-2010, 01:26 PM
The tour's been slowed down, no secret.

Federer himself is partly responsible, his complaint alongside Nadal's ensured the Paris TD bent over and removed a truly fast surface from its tournament.

bokehlicious
06-29-2010, 01:28 PM
mono.

juice.

Kolya
06-29-2010, 01:52 PM
An attempt to commercially expand tennis to the world, has slowed the courts to make it more entertaining for the casual viewer.

Only a traditional, true tennis fan would sit and watch 1980's serve and volley Wimbledon or the immensely long rallies of Roland Garros back then.

Paylu2007
06-29-2010, 02:07 PM
he must be mad switzerland didnt qualify in the football and spain did so he had to make an indirect attack on nadal.
when he is frustrated he makes comments like this to undermine rafa's achievements.

federer has been the biggest beneficiary of the courts slowing down.

LOL you (rafatards) always take it personal, i never saw the words "spain", "rafa", or "soccer" involved.. and Not everyone cares about who qualifies and who doesnt at the WC... get it over!

But you definetely have a point: Nadal wouldnt be that good if he would have played at the '90s :)

Dimitra
06-29-2010, 02:07 PM
why the heck there is even a thread about this.
Fed is saying what everyone already knows for years now.:rolleyes:

bluefork
06-29-2010, 02:46 PM
Maybe they slowed down the fast courts in particular to balance out the technology?

A while back, I heard John McEnroe say he wished tennis would ban everything but wood racquets. He made the comparison to baseball that if baseball allowed some of the same technology, it would just change the sport too much?

This is probably true. I think most people would like to see a wide variety of playing styles (serve-and-volleyers, aggressive baseliners, counterpunchers, etc.). But I think the problem at this point is that if the courts were sped up, but the racquets stayed the same, we might only get big servers and points under three shots.

Jacques_Ukraine
06-29-2010, 08:20 PM
I'd like to attract attention to answers of Brad Gilbert:
Q: Comparing the game with 10 years ago, what would you say is the biggest technical change you have seen players make?
A: The strings have changed the most. The strings give the players more pop. Players used to change to wide body frames, or longer rackets, but the strings have definitely made the biggest difference. As well, players are much bigger these days—you can’t coach height, and the players are getting more athletic.
There hasn’t been anything revolutionary from a technical standpoint, from backswings to forehands.
Nadal has changed string recently; he was playing with an older string before. I’ve been using his string, and you can swing out more on the ball and it stays in.
Advancements in string technology have allowed for a more level playing field.

Q: How would you rate the current pace of today’s court surfaces? Do you think they are playing slower, faster, or medium pace? How do you think different or unified surfaces benefit the status of men’s tennis?
A: The biggest change is for the better. In the 1980s the courts were much faster with faster balls. They’ve slowed down the courts a lot, and the balls as well.
The clay used to be heavy with slower balls. They defiantly made the courts more agreeable for all the players. The indoor surfaces are not as lighting fast, which has allowed for a more even playing field.
Overall they’ve done a great job with the surfaces. The clay is faster, the grass is slower, and the indoor surfaces are more even. Tennis is much better for it.
Source: http://tennisconnected.com/home/2010/04/08/exclusive-qa-with-brad-gilbert/

Topspin Forehand
06-29-2010, 08:21 PM
What a whiner this Fed is. The only thing slowing down is Federer.

Matt01
06-29-2010, 08:42 PM
mono.


:spit:

r2473
06-29-2010, 08:53 PM
I guess he wouldn't win Australian Open 2010, if it was like US Open speed.

Ya, Fed is shit at the US Open :rolleyes:

Topspin Forehand
06-29-2010, 09:07 PM
Ya, Fed is shit at the US Open :rolleyes:
Del Po

ShotmaKer
06-29-2010, 09:50 PM
What a whiner this Fed is. The only thing slowing down is Federer.

hi there Winny the whiner.

Sophocles
06-29-2010, 09:54 PM
I'd like to attract attention to answers of Brad Gilbert:
Q: Comparing the game with 10 years ago, what would you say is the biggest technical change you have seen players make?
A: The strings have changed the most. The strings give the players more pop. Players used to change to wide body frames, or longer rackets, but the strings have definitely made the biggest difference. As well, players are much bigger these days—you can’t coach height, and the players are getting more athletic.
There hasn’t been anything revolutionary from a technical standpoint, from backswings to forehands.
Nadal has changed string recently; he was playing with an older string before. I’ve been using his string, and you can swing out more on the ball and it stays in.
Advancements in string technology have allowed for a more level playing field.

Q: How would you rate the current pace of today’s court surfaces? Do you think they are playing slower, faster, or medium pace? How do you think different or unified surfaces benefit the status of men’s tennis?
A: The biggest change is for the better. In the 1980s the courts were much faster with faster balls. They’ve slowed down the courts a lot, and the balls as well.
The clay used to be heavy with slower balls. They defiantly made the courts more agreeable for all the players. The indoor surfaces are not as lighting fast, which has allowed for a more even playing field.
Overall they’ve done a great job with the surfaces. The clay is faster, the grass is slower, and the indoor surfaces are more even. Tennis is much better for it.
Source: http://tennisconnected.com/home/2010/04/08/exclusive-qa-with-brad-gilbert/

Gilbert is an unbelievably moronic cnt. Duh yeah that's great all the courts are the same. You couldn't make it up. Scum like him have ruined the game.

Topspin Forehand
06-30-2010, 12:21 AM
hi there Winny the whiner.
lol Nice comeback.

abraxas21
06-30-2010, 01:31 AM
Interstingly enough, Federer's words have reached the ATP frontpage along with other interesting comments from other ppl.


Read here:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2010/06/Wimbledon/Wimbledon-Diary-Day-Nine.aspx

abraxas21
06-26-2011, 03:57 AM
watching wimby this year again, it's truly frustrating to see how serve and volley is pretty much dead now.

i was never a fan of that style but now that im older i can see how variety is important in tennis and what these idiot organizers have done is just counter-productive to the overall beauty of the game.

SheepleBuster
06-26-2011, 04:49 AM
At the end of the day, Roger and Rafa will be millionaires and many of us won't be. Stop bitching about slow courts and leave it to rich boys.

tektonac
06-26-2011, 05:04 AM
swiss miss on a complaining spree yet again :o

Clay Death
06-26-2011, 05:47 AM
explain that to muller who had 37 aces agains haas.

or f lopz who blew roddick off the court with his serve.

grass is still grass.

nobody ever takes the players into account. these are far better athletes today than at any time in the past.

has anybody ever moved like nole and murray before? and how about fed and the clay warrior? they are not too shabby either with their movement.

and what about the speed of the game? they dont just hit the ball anymore. they attack it and often launch themselves into the ball.

even the women are blasting 90+ mph drives into the corners.

translation: amazing movement, technology, and the better (bigger and stronger) athletes are making the game faster than at any time in the past.


so stop crying about the slower courts. the faster game more than overcompensates for it.


**pay attention to what CD #2 (commander data) is saying.

tests
06-26-2011, 06:10 AM
At the end of the day, Roger and Rafa will be millionaires and many of us won't be. Stop bitching about slow courts and leave it to rich boys.

100s of millions i should add

Pirata.
06-26-2011, 06:13 AM
swiss miss on a complaining spree yet again :o

This article is from a year ago :scratch:

tests
06-26-2011, 06:14 AM
obviously grass is still grass (albeit slower). If it was clay like some here are stating... federer would never have beaten nadal in a final (or taken him to 5 sets in 2008)

Clay Death
06-26-2011, 06:30 AM
that is the bottom line. grass is still grass and the bounce is also still low.

people refuse to take into account the true nature of the modern warfare. it simply must be waged from the backcourt and that tends to wear out the grass to some extent.

it doesnt wear out the service box but it does wear out the basline area so it actually aids the movement. and that invariably means better rallies.

Raferminator
06-26-2011, 08:23 AM
Awwwww.... Poor little Muger! :sad:

Yea, and I bet your dog ate your Master game plan to beat Rafa and Nole too, huh Muger? Is that the pathetic state you have now descended into you filthy, whining little putz!? While Rafa and Nole go into Sparta with a battle plan to win, you come into battle with a bunch of lame excuses. You don't go into a battle in Sparta whining about your shoes being too tight or the fact the jungle gives you the creeps and you fight better in flat fields. You do that in Sparta and you aren't coming back, Muger!

This is just Muger Frauderer's way to make up an excuse before his inevitable public humiliation. Anal Seepage: That's what I think of when some punk like Muger starts running his shiht dripping lips.

What more does Rafa have to do to show this fool that Rafa is the best player in the game? Maybe a Golden Slam will help but I doubt it as this loser is just idiotic at best and doesn't seem to have a clue what's really going on in the sport. Rafa IS the defending Champion and it has nothing to do with the courts or balls they are playing with. He is the Champion come rain or shine, and he isn't asking fate to give him the things he needs to win. Frauderer is going into battle with a list of excuses for why he won't come through. Rafa and Nole are going in to win the title and that is the final word. And that trumps any and all mack mack that is coming out of the side of this punk's neck. :mad:

Start da Game
06-26-2011, 08:45 AM
he must be mad switzerland didnt qualify in the football and spain did so he had to make an indirect attack on nadal.
when he is frustrated he makes comments like this to undermine rafa's achievements.

federer has been the biggest beneficiary of the courts slowing down.

this.......sadly too many people are not that educated about the sport to recognize that truth.......

Start da Game
06-26-2011, 08:50 AM
that is the bottom line. grass is still grass and the bounce is also still low.

people refuse to take into account the true nature of the modern warfare. it simply must be waged from the backcourt and that tends to wear out the grass to some extent.

it doesnt wear out the service box but it does wear out the basline area so it actually aids the movement. and that invariably means better rallies.

so true......just look at the thunderous serves and dying slices in the ongoing wimbledon......the slams are all played on fast surfaces these days unlike the 90s where we had two slams on slow surfaces.......

like nadal said baseline tennis and longer rallies are making it look slow compared to the 90s but not that the courts are slow......he also said that wimbledon now is playing exactly how it did when he first played.......

tests
06-26-2011, 10:59 AM
Awwwww.... Poor little Muger! :sad:

Yea, and I bet your dog ate your Master game plan to beat Rafa and Nole too, huh Muger? Is that the pathetic state you have now descended into you filthy, whining little putz!? While Rafa and Nole go into Sparta with a battle plan to win, you come into battle with a bunch of lame excuses. You don't go into a battle in Sparta whining about your shoes being too tight or the fact the jungle gives you the creeps and you fight better in flat fields. You do that in Sparta and you aren't coming back, Muger!

This is just Muger Frauderer's way to make up an excuse before his inevitable public humiliation. Anal Seepage: That's what I think of when some punk like Muger starts running his shiht dripping lips.

What more does Rafa have to do to show this fool that Rafa is the best player in the game? Maybe a Golden Slam will help but I doubt it as this loser is just idiotic at best and doesn't seem to have a clue what's really going on in the sport. Rafa IS the defending Champion and it has nothing to do with the courts or balls they are playing with. He is the Champion come rain or shine, and he isn't asking fate to give him the things he needs to win. Frauderer is going into battle with a list of excuses for why he won't come through. Rafa and Nole are going in to win the title and that is the final word. And that trumps any and all mack mack that is coming out of the side of this punk's neck. :mad:


LMAO. What is your problem buddy? What makes you so certain that this was a hidden diss towards nadal from federer? I highly fucking doubt that. And besides... its not like fed has never beaten nadal on grass.

Mungo
06-26-2011, 11:18 AM
everything! they have slowed down the clay too? rogerito should STFU

helvet empire
06-26-2011, 11:28 AM
everything! they have slowed down the clay too? rogerito should STFU

one slam unchanged against 2 slams slowed down. Yes he has the right to complain. And since he owns 5 titles on the fastest surface and was beat only by a couple of points margin (USO 2009 and 2010), I find that laughable that people say the slowing down helped him to win slams.

barbadosan
06-26-2011, 11:44 AM
LMAO at the 2011 responses to something Fed said a year ago, and LMAO even more that blind Fed haters, to borrow from the current parlance, should be seen to have a more valid opinion on the matter than a guy who just happens to have won 6 titles on grass, and more than 5 titles indoors- and has played the major grass tournament for 12 years. But hey, that's not worth anything when compared to the opinions of people who've never even played a qualifying round at the same tournaments.

Knotty Fort
06-26-2011, 11:50 AM
Honestly speaking, there is a lot of subjecivity on a topic when this is actually an issue that can be quantified objectively. Just lauch a ball at a defined speed on each of the surfaces year by year, and measure how fast the ball is bouncing off the court. If we want, we can also examine the spin response of the ball on the surface as well.

But of course, tennis seems to be physics adverse that way. We somehow think our eyes are the best judge on these things.

Kiedis
06-26-2011, 12:11 PM
The swiss weeper did not say at what time exactly they have slowed donw the courts. Many people say in 2001. Well, he wins his first slam two years after, in the whole 'slow era'... before that he had been unable to win anything. Give they thanks and stop making excuses, crybaby.

barbadosan
06-26-2011, 12:16 PM
The swiss weeper did not say at what time exactly they have slowed donw the courts. Many people say in 2001. Well, he wins his first slam two years after, in the whole 'slow era'... before that he had been unable to win anything. Give they thanks and stop making excuses, crybaby.

Heh, you might try getting your hands on a certain Wimby vid from 2001, Sampras v Federer. But I guess somehow you'll make a case that 2001 court was as slow as 2011.

Dougie
06-26-2011, 12:29 PM
The swiss weeper did not say at what time exactly they have slowed donw the courts. Many people say in 2001. Well, he wins his first slam two years after, in the whole 'slow era'... before that he had been unable to win anything. Give they thanks and stop making excuses, crybaby.

You do realise he was only 19 by Wimbledon 2001? How many slams should he have won by then? Besides, he won his first Wimbledon by playing s&v-tennis, I don´t really understand the argument that Federer is the one who has benefitted from the slower courts, he is practically the only one of the current top ten who would be able to play s&v, if the conditions would be such that it would be possible to succeed that way.

Kiedis
06-26-2011, 12:55 PM
You do realise he was only 19 by Wimbledon 2001? How many slams should he have won by then?

Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Wilamder, Becker, Chang or Edberg had already won one at that age. The best result of the alleged GOAT was QF in 2001. He had to wait for the big guns withdrew to poke his ugly mug.

barbadosan
06-26-2011, 01:07 PM
Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Wilamder, Becker, Chang or Edberg had already won one at that age. The best result of the alleged GOAT was QF in 2001. He had to wait for the big guns withdrew to poke his ugly mug.

oh yeh.. I'm sure Fed would have preferred to be like Chang than himself... in fact he'd rather have been any of them than having won 16 GS. What was he thinking! :eek:

Kiedis
06-26-2011, 01:15 PM
oh yeh.. I'm sure Fed would have preferred to be like Chang than himself... in fact he'd rather have been any of them than having won 16 GS. What was he thinking! :eek:

Do you understand some of what I wrote? Or perhaps is this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

DDrago2
06-26-2011, 01:17 PM
Different spin. You can never hit two exactly the same serves in your life even being the same speed. The other variables are practically infinite. It doesn't prove anything.

Except the courts were quicker back then and Nadal could only dream of being a Wimbledon champion had the conditions stayed the same.

Somebody just wanted Rolland Garros on Wimbledon.

DDrago2
06-26-2011, 01:23 PM
all these technology and court speed talk will become hardly talked about in the future as technology improves further and court speeds will never speed up because the fast courts are the receipe for boring tennis and low ratings.
tennis is more about entertainment than it was in past decades, sport in general is about entertainment, to have entertainment, u gotta have longer rallies, servefests are boring which will turn people off.

im sure wimbledon organsisers researched this well before slowing down their courts.
its all about making money and high tv ratings and brining new fans to the sport.
nadal and federer has brought alot of new fans into the sport, nadal probably more since he plays a different brand of tennis to anything we have seen previously whereas federer is very conventional in his style of play.
i reckon alot of chicks have been brought into following tennis because of nadal, mostly due to his physique and glutes.:lol:

obviously the old school tennis fans will be pissed off due to all these changes, but thats the way things work, nothing stays the same.
that is why nadal is so unpopular among tennis purists, he is not ur conventional text book style player.
he has got his own style and is very successful doing it.

what a load of rubbish. What is 'unconventional' about heavy topspin forehand and conventional two hadnded backhand? Federer from the other side had his mystique, which had a lot to do with the way he reads the game like no one has ever before. And sheer variety of what Fed does on court is more original then anything Raffa can come up with (his stalking between the serves included).

The only thingg you might have guessed right is the female sympathy part.

DDrago2
06-26-2011, 01:25 PM
why the heck there is even a thread about this.
Fed is saying what everyone already knows for years now.:rolleyes:

From 2008 onwards expecially. NO one said a thing when it happened, that's the sad part.

philosophicalarf
06-26-2011, 01:38 PM
Honestly speaking, there is a lot of subjecivity on a topic when this is actually an issue that can be quantified objectively. Just lauch a ball at a defined speed on each of the surfaces year by year, and measure how fast the ball is bouncing off the court. If we want, we can also examine the spin response of the ball on the surface as well.


They do exactly that for all the hard surfaces. It's part of the certification process. For grass and clay there's not much point, since those are more about weather (on the day as well as the weeks before).


They don't do it for the balls though, which are just as important. They have to make size/weight/etc requirements, but those arne't published and there are other factors in ball pace anyway.

jrm
06-27-2011, 12:02 AM
How can you slow down the grass?

rofe
06-27-2011, 12:29 AM
Grass speed was changed when they introduced a more hardy grass in 2001 but surface bounce was changed recently (maybe sometime in 2008, I can't be bothered to look it up). This is what is a travesty because after that, the famous unpredictable bounce was no longer there and biting slices were also a thing of the past.

With the change in bounce, Wimbly grass has a truer bounce, takes topspin a lot better and slices don't skid.

Clay Death
06-27-2011, 12:55 AM
gotta love the federereeeeeesian missionaries.

they weep no matter what. first they weep that the courts are too fast and then they weep some more if the court speed seems slow.

what was their excuse at RG? it played like fast hard courts this year. and they introduced lighter balls on top of that.

fed has no less than 6 wimby titles on these so called slow courts.


grass is more than fast enough.

abraxas21
06-27-2011, 02:06 AM
gotta love the federereeeeeesian missionaries.

they weep no matter what. first they weep that the courts are too fast and then they weep some more if the court speed seems slow.

what was their excuse at RG? it played like fast hard courts this year. and they introduced lighter balls on top of that.

fed has no less than 6 wimby titles on these so called slow courts.


grass is more than fast enough.

it's not about federer. hell, it's not even about nadal. it's simply about the game being severely restricted and harmed in terms of its variety.

i obviously prefer federer to nadal but i'd prefer a lot more if grass played like grass and clay like clay.

paseo
06-27-2011, 03:08 AM
1-uBYbcINJQ

Maybe because the players nowadays are more athletic and faster that it made the game looked slower? cause I don't see it that much faster in this vid. But whatever, Fed will still win Wimbledon!

Knotty Fort
06-27-2011, 03:52 AM
Well, my personal opinion of how fast we perceive the game is the time it takes for player A to strike the ball to the time player B makes the next strike on the ball (hopefully this is not too contentious for most people). The main factors I would consider in quantifying the speed of the game are:

1) Surface response to a FLAT ball
2) Surface response to a SPINNING ball
3) How hard the players hit
4) How much spin the players impart
5) Average distance the players are behind the baseline

1) is probably the response that most GS committees use as proof that the surface has not really changed over the years. I won't doubt the validity of their tests, but let's move on to the next point.

2) is the key. What I mean by the response of the spinning ball is i) how much "bite" the surface has on the ball, which affects mainly the height of the bounce ii) how much of the spin is retained after the ball hits the ground. For me, i) is probably the key that makes grass such a unique surface, and ultimately how it translates to how the game is played. Matches of the past on grass courts generally had lower bounces, which forces a player to stand closer to the baseline as this discourages bigger swings, and the game is generally played faster. I'm not saying that the new grass used has a higher bounce than the old courts given a certain RPM on the ball, but I definitely wonder if they have ever quantified this.

3) is probably a factor that favors the game being faster today. I'm quite sure most people agree players can hit harder with today's technology.

4) is another key, and strongly related to 2). The racquet technology today can impart a ridiculous amount of spin. Even though the spin response of the surface may be the same, but because of the players' ability to impart more spin today, the balls generally bounce higher and players can afford to play more behind the baseline. Personally, I think this is the key to why grass courts seem slower today.

5) can be a dependent factor on 2) and 4), but can also be the general mentality of players' today as well. Players are more athletic today (sort of), and are more willing to run and defend. There aren't a lot of players who are technically as sound in taking the ball early which allows them to stand closer to the baseline, and this may also contribute to the decrease in the speed of the game.

Personally, I think 4) is the dominant factor, though 2) may have something to do with it as well. I'm not so much concerned about the speed of the surface, but rather the height of bounce of the surface. I seem to notice that the grass is being trimmed shorter and shorter with each passing year, which encourages a higher bounce. I'll rather they use a lusher surface so that we get back the low bounce which I think is key to the characteristics of grass court tennis.

Benny_Maths
06-27-2011, 05:26 AM
Correlation does not imply causation. Just because Nadal won the US Open, it doesn't mean that the current surface's characteristics 'benefit' him. Likewise, just because Federer has won Wimbledon 6 times on 'slow grass' it doesn't necessarily mean that the surface brings out the best in him. All you can conclude is he was better than the rest of the field in the years that he won it.;)