Whose opinion should matter the most in deciding the surface characteristics? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Whose opinion should matter the most in deciding the surface characteristics?

Knotty Fort
05-12-2012, 10:55 AM
Fire away!

Players: They actually play and know how the surface prepares them for the grandslams.

Corporate sponsors: The people whose moolah makes tennis possible.

Spectators/tv: We make the corporate sponsors actually want to invest.

ATP: Supposedly has all perspectives to make the most informed decision.

Roamed
05-12-2012, 11:08 AM
It should be the players, but by that I mean the surfaces should be varied enough to suit everyone.

Timariot
05-12-2012, 11:21 AM
Mine.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 11:27 AM
Does it matter really? The business people are happy all the same people making the finals of the big events, surface homogenisation makes it easier, making it easy to market even though the game has changed and not always for the better.

They don't give a crap about the fans, it's all about the cash.

Topspindoctor
05-12-2012, 11:30 AM
The GOAT of a particular era

So Nadal should decide the surfaces right now :cool:

finishingmove
05-12-2012, 11:33 AM
Should be around 4 : 1, players : sponsors votes.

If the fans want to influence things they can play Sims.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 11:36 AM
Players are the ones who make the money and who the people want to see, not the sponsors.

paseo
05-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Fans.

TigerTim
05-12-2012, 12:26 PM
I should

Chase Visa
05-12-2012, 12:58 PM
Players and fans.

Kworb
05-12-2012, 01:25 PM
Spectators and sponsors. The ones who finance the whole circus.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 02:15 PM
All of the players- then we'd get diversity again.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:43 PM
Truth to be told surfaces have always changed, I was almost going to say tradition should decide but then 3 out of 4 slams used to be played on grass, Usopen on green dirt and so on. I just wish there will always be one very fast big tournament and one very slow, master series fullfill this with Monte Carlo and Miami beeing very slow while Paris and Cincinatti are very fast. Slams dont really live up to this, RG should have larger balls and Wimbledon needs to be faster.

However what is more annoying than surfaces beeing what they are is all the whinning from alot of people about surfaces, trying to diminish any accomplishment by players they dont like using the excuse of surfaces beeing different than it used to be.

Looner
05-12-2012, 02:59 PM
Truth to be told surfaces have always changed, I was almost going to say tradition should decide but then 3 out of 4 slams used to be played on grass, Usopen on green dirt and so on. I just wish there will always be one very fast big tournament and one very slow, master series fullfill this with Monte Carlo and Miami beeing very slow while Paris and Cincinatti are very fast. Slams dont really live up to this, RG should have larger balls and Wimbledon needs to be faster.

However what is more annoying than surfaces beeing what they are is all the whinning from alot of people about surfaces, trying to diminish any accomplishment by players they dont like using the excuse of surfaces beeing different than it used to be.

:spit::spit::spit::spit:

Clownish statement. But then again this comes from the same poster who said RN from 2010 would defeat Sampras at the USO in the 90s.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 04:48 PM
Truth to be told surfaces have always changed, I was almost going to say tradition should decide but then 3 out of 4 slams used to be played on grass, Usopen on green dirt and so on. I just wish there will always be one very fast big tournament and one very slow, master series fullfill this with Monte Carlo and Miami beeing very slow while Paris and Cincinatti are very fast. Slams dont really live up to this, RG should have larger balls and Wimbledon needs to be faster.

However what is more annoying than surfaces beeing what they are is all the whinning from alot of people about surfaces, trying to diminish any accomplishment by players they dont like using the excuse of surfaces beeing different than it used to be.

I think back to 2003 and I think surfaces were fine as they were then. Fixing something that isn't broken has spoiled the game.

Say Hey Kid
05-12-2012, 05:28 PM
Players first and foremost, but the ATP should also have a voice.

Pirata.
05-12-2012, 06:00 PM
:spit::spit::spit::spit:

Clownish statement. But then again this comes from the same poster who said RN from 2010 would defeat Sampras at the USO in the 90s.

Think he means Bercy which is usually pretty fast.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 06:13 PM
Think he means Bercy which is usually pretty fast.

Usually is but was slowed down to fuck last year.

BroTree123
05-12-2012, 06:18 PM
The GOAT of a particular era

So Nadal should decide the surfaces right now :cool:

Such an unexpected response from you :devil:

Looner
05-12-2012, 06:32 PM
Think he means Bercy which is usually pretty fast.

Which is why I said it's outrageously stupid. Paris has always slow except for 2010. Only someone who's started watching from 2011 can say Paris has always been fast. It's been a stupidly slow indoor court since its existence.

jenkins.ray11
06-28-2012, 09:29 AM
This is a great question! I think it would be a really cool idea to have all of the participating players pick the tennis surfaces (http://www.plexipave.com/tennis/plexipave.html) for each individual tournament! That way, no one can moan or argue about the courts after their match!

born_on_clay
06-28-2012, 11:16 AM
players followed by ATP

Slasher1985
06-28-2012, 11:20 AM
Commitment players along with ATP should make the decisions. Let's say they form a "council" and they vote for or against a specific surface. ATP supervises this process and casts a vote as well.

Let's say players: 75%, ATP: 25%.

ATP's vote should also take into account spectator thoughts (the most accurate), sponsor thoughts, money revenues, costs, etc.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-28-2012, 11:35 AM
fans should decide!!!!!


who pays the bills?

thanks. bye

Burrow
06-28-2012, 12:14 PM
Which is why I said it's outrageously stupid. Paris has always slow except for 2010. Only someone who's started watching from 2011 can say Paris has always been fast. It's been a stupidly slow indoor court since its existence.

Paris was faster before the hardcourt change which took place in 2007 and it was faster than 2010.