Should ALL Grand Slams have retractable roofs over Centre Courts? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should ALL Grand Slams have retractable roofs over Centre Courts?

Jimnik
05-31-2006, 02:45 PM
It doesn't seem to make any sense that the only slam which has a roof is the Australian Open, where it never rains. The only delays they get in Melbourne are due to overwhelming heat.

In fairness to Roland Garros, it rarely rains in Paris but there still seem to be more delays than in Australia. Wimbledon is due to launch a new roof on Centre Court in 2007 (off course in England that usually means around 2010). The US Open doesn't have any plans, do they?

Why is it that small tournaments like Halle and Tokyo can afford this luxury while the much richer Grand Slams can't? Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows are the biggest money making tennis tournaments in the world and the US are always so concerned about their TV schedules.

SaFed2005
05-31-2006, 02:48 PM
This question is a no-brainer. I don't even have to think to say yes.

its.like.that
05-31-2006, 02:49 PM
The Casablanca Tennis Club is currently raising funds for a roof as well, this is a good idea.

:yeah:

Action Jackson
05-31-2006, 02:51 PM
They are going to have a roof in Dubai.

LoveFifteen
05-31-2006, 02:52 PM
I think roofs would be an excellent idea. Tradionalists will argue against them, but there's no reason not to install them. Tennis needs to modernize. Rain delays are just another reason many people can't be bothered to become tennis fans. The Wimbledon final is the highlight of the year, and sometimes it has to be put on hold for hours. That's ridiculous.

bad gambler
05-31-2006, 02:52 PM
Rooves :rocker2:

Kristen
05-31-2006, 02:54 PM
It comes in handy in Melbourne, giving us a bit of refuge from the extreme heat.

Not that the fans take advantage of this...even when Jarkko IS playing :tape:

Action Jackson
05-31-2006, 02:56 PM
The Wimbledon final is the highlight of the year.

Speak for yourself with that comment. Oh and it only rains at Wimbledon.

Not every fan or player in the world thinks that this is the highlight of the tennis year, then again I am not surprised you'd say this.

FSRteam
05-31-2006, 02:58 PM
I don't agree with you guys!

Indoors conditions are totally different to outdoors!

IMO it can be an advantage to some players. Remeber the safin-hrbaty match at the AO. I don't think marat would've beaten hrbaty so badly in outdoors conditions!

LoveFifteen
05-31-2006, 02:58 PM
The roof at the Australian Open allowed for the classic 2001 QF match between Hingis and Serena. The storm outside just added to the drama of that unbelieveable match. :hearts:

Also, it's spelled "roofs". :)

P.S. I'm looking forward to the first person who says "It's called the Open because it's supposed to be an outdoor court." :haha:

Turkeyballs Paco
05-31-2006, 02:59 PM
what are "rooves"? :devil:

LoveFifteen
05-31-2006, 03:05 PM
Speak for yourself with that comment. Oh and it only rains at Wimbledon.

Not every fan or player in the world thinks that this is the highlight of the tennis year, then again I am not surprised you'd say this.

Don't be such a fucking pretentious asshole. The Wimbledon final is not the highlight of my year ... I'm saying it's the final of the Championships. It's the highlight of the tennis year in terms of the media and non-tennis fans. It's the final of what is recognized by most as the world's most prestegious tournament.

chewy
05-31-2006, 03:11 PM
always good to have options, so yeah having roofs will be good idea i think.

Action Jackson
05-31-2006, 03:11 PM
Don't be such a fucking pretentious asshole. The Wimbledon final is not the highlight of my year ... I'm saying it's the final of the Championships. It's the highlight of the tennis year in terms of the media and non-tennis fans. It's the final of what is recognized by most as the world's most prestegious tournament.

You come out and say Wimbledon is the highlight of the year? The Wimbledon final is the highlight of the year is your exact comment.

Stop trying to suggest something that is a subjective view as fact. To people in Latin America, Spain and other parts of the world consider Roland Garros more important and don't give a crap about Wimbledon and this goes vice versa.

If you got your head out of your arse once in a while, then you would realise there is more to the tennis world than the English speaking media. It's an international fan base and not a monolingual one.

LoveFifteen
05-31-2006, 03:29 PM
God, you are such a douche bag. I lived in South America, and I know that clay court tennis is more popular there. I don't need a lecture from some bitter old loser.

Wimbledon is not the highlight of my year; however, it is the Championships ... Roland Garros is not.

Scotso
05-31-2006, 05:18 PM
No, but they should all have lights.

stebs
05-31-2006, 05:34 PM
You come out and say Wimbledon is the highlight of the year? The Wimbledon final is the highlight of the year is your exact comment.

Stop trying to suggest something that is a subjective view as fact. To people in Latin America, Spain and other parts of the world consider Roland Garros more important and don't give a crap about Wimbledon and this goes vice versa.

If you got your head out of your arse once in a while, then you would realise there is more to the tennis world than the English speaking media. It's an international fan base and not a monolingual one.

Much as it pains me to have to agree with someone who appears to be rude, ignorant and disrespectful I have to disagree with you here. In the tennis world the Wimbledon final is the biggest match of the year. Certainly there are some who disagree, myself for one. Despite this, it's just the way it is. Wimbledon is easily the most world renowned slam and in accordance with that it's final is far more widely known about and viewed.

True though it is that South America is a positively huge place with many people a very large percentage of whom would consider the clay season far more interesting and important than Wimbeldon if you take the world as a whole then Wimbeldon final = biggest match of the year.

Uriel
05-31-2006, 05:39 PM
i am against a roof in Wimbledon ... rain is a crucial part of that tournament :) it adds to the "flavour"

Chocobo
05-31-2006, 07:15 PM
You come out and say Wimbledon is the highlight of the year? The Wimbledon final is the highlight of the year is your exact comment.

Stop trying to suggest something that is a subjective view as fact. To people in Latin America, Spain and other parts of the world consider Roland Garros more important and don't give a crap about Wimbledon and this goes vice versa.

If you got your head out of your arse once in a while, then you would realise there is more to the tennis world than the English speaking media. It's an international fan base and not a monolingual one.

:worship:

Roland-Garros is broadcasted in 195 countries, 180 of them live, which isn't Wimbledon's case.

About the topic of the roof, I think it's a serious plan of RG organisers...but it's not for tomorrow...Even in Wimbledon it will not be before 2009

DrJules
05-31-2006, 08:26 PM
You come out and say Wimbledon is the highlight of the year? The Wimbledon final is the highlight of the year is your exact comment.

Stop trying to suggest something that is a subjective view as fact. To people in Latin America, Spain and other parts of the world consider Roland Garros more important and don't give a crap about Wimbledon and this goes vice versa.

If you got your head out of your arse once in a while, then you would realise there is more to the tennis world than the English speaking media. It's an international fan base and not a monolingual one.

Agree with that highlighted part, but a sizeable proportion of the non-English speaking world consider Wimbledon the premier event possibly more than consider the French Open the premier event. It would be interesting to know on a country by country basis which is considered the bigger event.

DrJules
05-31-2006, 08:30 PM
Yes.
It ensures that the Australian Open is always able to televise tennis.

Angle Queen
05-31-2006, 08:40 PM
No, but they should all have lights.Ditto.

Jairus
05-31-2006, 09:35 PM
If you are going to have a roof, it has to be fixed. No sense in having it sometimes open and sometimes closed...it will add too much randomness to the game. I mean, indoor vs. outdoor makes a big difference right?

Scotso
05-31-2006, 09:37 PM
If you are going to have a roof, it has to be fixed. No sense in having it sometimes open and sometimes closed...it will add too much randomness to the game. I mean, indoor vs. outdoor makes a big difference right?

Right, and grass is already so fast... indoor grass would be the most boring thing ever.

DrJules
05-31-2006, 10:01 PM
Right, and grass is already so fast... indoor grass would be the most boring thing ever.

Wimbledon fast :scratch:

That was about 10 years ago. Plays much slower now.

robinhood
05-31-2006, 10:10 PM
No, but they should all have lights.

Ditto.

Is "rooves" a Brit version??

LoveFifteen
06-01-2006, 01:27 AM
Is "rooves" a Brit version??

No. It's acceptable to pronounce it "roofs" or "rooves" in speech, but it's spelled roofs.

BlackSilver
06-01-2006, 02:01 AM
Much as it pains me to have to agree with someone who appears to be rude, ignorant and disrespectful I have to disagree with you here. In the tennis world the Wimbledon final is the biggest match of the year. Certainly there are some who disagree, myself for one. Despite this, it's just the way it is. Wimbledon is easily the most world renowned slam and in accordance with that it's final is far more widely known about and viewed.

True though it is that South America is a positively huge place with many people a very large percentage of whom would consider the clay season far more interesting and important than Wimbeldon if you take the world as a whole then Wimbeldon final = biggest match of the year.


This comes from someone that believed that there were more tennis fans around the world than people living in South America.......
......
......
......

Prove that it's bigger, or at least aim to several evidences indicating this. Prove that it's MUCH bigger.




About the roof, sure it would be cool to have a retractable roof, very practical, but the problem probably is the cost of doing it in stadiums that weren't projected with this in mind. The resources for doing it maybe be astronomic in big ones like the pc's court

El Legenda
06-01-2006, 02:03 AM
yeah lets do roofs on all GS, keep the roof on the whole time , so Ljubicic can win every Grand Slam

BlackSilver
06-01-2006, 02:17 AM
yeah lets do roofs on all GS, keep the roof on the whole time , so Ljubicic can win every Grand Slam



Ahahahaha, good one

fenomeno2111
06-01-2006, 03:37 AM
We've been having Grand Slams for years without a roof so I don't see a big deal with this... If it rains it rains, no need to change what is good already, Wimbledon and bad weather go side by side, I don't think this is a must.

Action Jackson
06-01-2006, 09:40 AM
God, you are such a douche bag. I lived in South America, and I know that clay court tennis is more popular there. I don't need a lecture from some bitter old loser.

Wimbledon is not the highlight of my year; however, it is the Championships ... Roland Garros is not.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Ferrero Forever
06-01-2006, 10:20 AM
I think it's a good idea. I like them here at the Australian open, and I think they should be installed at the other 3 grand slams.

Peta Pan
06-01-2006, 11:05 AM
Well our retractable roof on RLA and Vodafone Arenas are wonderful considering the heat we are put through in Summer. Also, there is no chance of them being taken away so I don't see the point in choice 1 in the poll ;)

Those two venues are actually used for many other things other than tennis - concerts, basketball, gymnastics etc. Therefore the roofs are extremely necessary.

At least we haven't had to finish a tournament final a day late ala Wimbledon 2001. I think it is a good option for Wimbledon for that reason.

Primal
06-01-2006, 02:02 PM
They are going to have a roof in Dubai.

Oh, are they? Actually I was enjoying that delays. Sometimes it's too much, but it makes the whole thing less predictable. :)

Jimnik
06-01-2006, 04:03 PM
Also, it's spelled "roofs". :)

P.S. I'm looking forward to the first person who says "It's called the Open because it's supposed to be an outdoor court." :haha:
But a Roovey sounds more Groovey. ;)
Rooves :rocker2:
:haha:

But I edited the title so as not to confuse anyone. :)

Jimnik
06-01-2006, 04:15 PM
Right, and grass is already so fast... indoor grass would be the most boring thing ever.
Well it's a matter of opinion if you think that: faster surface = boring tennis. Some would disagree.

Halle isn't too fast or too boring when the roof is closed. Federer v Safin last year was quite exciting.

Jimnik
06-01-2006, 04:18 PM
yeah lets do roofs on all GS, keep the roof on the whole time , so Ljubicic can win every Grand Slam
Hmm.. a roof didn't seem to help him much against Acasuso in Hamburg.

DrJules
06-01-2006, 04:18 PM
Well it's a matter of opinion if you think that: faster surface = boring tennis. Some would disagree.

Halle isn't too fast or too boring when the roof is closed. Federer v Safin last year was quite exciting.

Why do people think grass at Wimbledon is fast.

chewy
06-01-2006, 04:25 PM
i am against a roof in Wimbledon ... rain is a crucial part of that tournament :) it adds to the "flavour"
actually comes to think of it...yeah i think the other 3 slams shld have roofs but wimbledon + rain does seems to accompany each other. just doesnt look right with a roof over the grass courts...but then again rain delay can be extremely annoying!

Jimnik
06-01-2006, 04:26 PM
We've been having Grand Slams for years without a roof so I don't see a big deal with this... If it rains it rains, no need to change what is good already, Wimbledon and bad weather go side by side, I don't think this is a must.
Grand Slams have always been good but it's never stopped them from changing. One of the best qualities of the Slams is their ability to change with the times. Three of the four slams use to be played on grass. Would that be acceptable nowadays? In 10, 20 or even 50 years time, will it be acceptable for tennis to be interrupted by rain all the time?

Jimnik
06-01-2006, 04:30 PM
Well our retractable roof on RLA and Vodafone Arenas are wonderful considering the heat we are put through in Summer. Also, there is no chance of them being taken away so I don't see the point in choice 1 in the poll ;)

Those two venues are actually used for many other things other than tennis - concerts, basketball, gymnastics etc. Therefore the roofs are extremely necessary.

At least we haven't had to finish a tournament final a day late ala Wimbledon 2001. I think it is a good option for Wimbledon for that reason.
The point of choice 1 is to decide whether Roland Garros and Flushing Meadows should have roofs. The AO and Wimbledon are being ignored because they already have (or will have) roofs installed.

Jimnik
06-01-2006, 04:32 PM
actually comes to think of it...yeah i think the other 3 slams shld have roofs but wimbledon + rain does seems to accompany each other. just doesnt look right with a roof over the grass courts...but then again rain delay can be extremely annoying!
Bear in mind, the roofs would only be over Centre and possibly Court One. For traditionalists, who want to see rain delays, there will still be delays on all the outside courts.

Jimnik
06-26-2006, 06:26 PM
Do people here still think it's fashionable to have rain delays? :rain:

Jimnik
05-26-2007, 09:54 PM
Considering this is the weather forecast for the next week:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/tenday/FRXX0076?from=search_10day

Without a roof, how much tennis are we going to see next week?

Action Jackson
05-26-2007, 09:56 PM
No.

Chris Seahorse
05-27-2007, 08:31 AM
Bear in mind, the roofs would only be over Centre and possibly Court One. For traditionalists, who want to see rain delays, there will still be delays on all the outside courts.

That is such a relief. :tape:
:lol:

Stensland
05-27-2007, 08:48 AM
Considering this is the weather forecast for the next week:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/tenday/FRXX0076?from=search_10day

Without a roof, how much tennis are we going to see next week?

thank god it's a clay tournament coming up and not grass or harcourt. clay's way better with bad conditions because you can still play when it drizzles. yesterday in düsseldorf the players probably wouldn't have played at all if it was a grass court because it was wet all the time, sometimes a little drizzle and all that. but they only stopped when it began really pouring. so i guess roland garros is the slam that least needs a roof.

baghdatis
05-27-2007, 08:52 AM
It is a good idea to have them but there is no way on every single court

and also it is good for the AO because one day it reaches 40 degrees celcius and the other day it is raining.

abhinav_shaan
05-27-2007, 10:18 AM
Much as it pains me to have to agree with someone who appears to be rude, ignorant and disrespectful I have to disagree with you here. In the tennis world the Wimbledon final is the biggest match of the year. Certainly there are some who disagree, myself for one. Despite this, it's just the way it is. Wimbledon is easily the most world renowned slam and in accordance with that it's final is far more widely known about and viewed.


Well right now, RG final is the biggest match of the yr considering Fed hasnt won it yet
:devil:

Bremen
05-27-2007, 11:26 AM
First day of competition and already a rain delay, before any match is complete...so yeah, I voted for a roof, or roofs.

And by the way Wimbledon is still the most important slam, regardless of the fact all are equal in points.

Mateya
05-27-2007, 12:09 PM
YES


Why? Look at RG today :mad: :mad:

Mateya
05-27-2007, 12:10 PM
And by the way Wimbledon is still the most important slam, regardless of the fact all are equal in points.

:retard: :confused:

ezekiel
05-27-2007, 12:11 PM
damn right , maybe move it to hamburg as they have a roof , It's unforgiveable to have no play at all

doublebackhand
05-27-2007, 01:49 PM
Yes!

~EMiLiTA~
05-27-2007, 01:53 PM
yes please, this is ridiculous...just as well they've got this extra day

anon57
05-27-2007, 01:55 PM
On days like this, it does seem like the major tournaments should have at least one or two courts were play can be continued when it rains

BlackSilver
05-27-2007, 01:57 PM
No for Christ's sake

t0x
05-27-2007, 02:00 PM
Well today has seriously sucked ass...

Of course, a roof would be nice, but money could be an issue.

BlackSilver
05-27-2007, 02:02 PM
And by the way Wimbledon is still the most important slam, regardless of the fact all are equal in points.

Prove

*bunny*
05-27-2007, 02:25 PM
There was a plan to build a stadium with a retractable roof at RG, I wonder if it's still alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/3781357.stm

But I have more complaints against USO than RG. I know it will take time and money to build a roof over such a gigantic stadium like Arthur Ashe Stadium, but before that, get frigging court covers at least!!! :mad: That will substantially reduce the time to dry and prepare the courts after a rain delay.

Crocodile
05-27-2007, 03:35 PM
This roof stadium would arlready be in construction if we hadn't miss the 2012 Olympic games ;)

Billabong
05-27-2007, 03:49 PM
I think all grand slams should have a retractable roof except the US Open, as I really don't see HOW they would build one over Arthur Ashe:lol: Even though it would be useful, as there is usually A LOT of rain in NYC during the US Open...

tufani
05-27-2007, 04:16 PM
The roof is needed! They may build something like in Hamburg...

ilostmymarbles
05-27-2007, 06:31 PM
:worship:

Roland-Garros is broadcasted in 195 countries, 180 of them live, which isn't Wimbledon's case.



I'm sorry i don't believe this for a second, for one thing there are only about 200 generally recognised 'countries' in the world. If you include dependant territories that only take you up to 250ish. The UN only recognises 192 of these as 'countries'. So your basically saying that Roland Garros is availible in practically every single 'country' in the world? highly unlikely. For one thing not every counrty in the world has television
econdly wheres your proof?
Thirdly, how do you know that Wimbledon doesnt have the same coverage? On thier website they claim to have the most coverage and nowhere on the rg website can i find the same, which it htat were true, surely they would boast about.

You want to put out such incredible statements like that our going to have to back it up.

*Viva Chile*
05-27-2007, 07:31 PM
Anyone can imagine HOW you could make a roof on Philippe Chatrier stadium considering his architectonic design?? It's too wide.

FedFan_2007
05-27-2007, 07:50 PM
For me, the highlight is the US Open final! I love it When Federer spanks an American in the final!!! I think Roger will always win every US Open...

maqk
05-27-2007, 08:11 PM
Yes why not,

why let rain destroy the match???

uglyamerican
05-27-2007, 11:10 PM
Roofs don't really solve scheduling problems early in the tournament. The only reason to have a roof would be for the fans. If there are only 4 men's matches per day, chances are I would only watch one or none of these matches.

uglyamerican
05-27-2007, 11:13 PM
At least we haven't had to finish a tournament final a day late ala Wimbledon 2001. I think it is a good option for Wimbledon for that reason.

The delay helped make it the most entertaining match I've ever seen.

Bilbo
05-27-2007, 11:21 PM
It's definately needed on all 4 Grand Slams to secure TV coverage every day. I mean it's a big sport event and people pay for it. It's funny to hear how fast they can build a roof for the Olympic Games which lasted only for 4 weeks but they can't build one for a couple of decades of Grand Slam tennis.

shotgun
05-27-2007, 11:26 PM
Yes, not only because of the rain, but it would also partially make up for not having a Slam played indoors.

Richard_from_Cal
05-27-2007, 11:27 PM
I voted...and I don't really want to compel anybody to put a roof on.--

That said, I went to the Tropicana Dome, (as I think it was then called--) in Saint Pete, to watch Andy Agassi, and the U.S. team, play Davis Cup. Glad they had a roof, but...I imagine it must be a substantial investment.

That's one of the imponderables of an outdoor sport. Will I get rained on? Sunburnt?? Should I recommend a scarf, for sweetie?...do I wanna put the top up, on the convertible, or take the sedan?

In the case of New York, I hear enough about the cost of snacks...I don't wanna hear about the additional cost added on to admittance. (Granted, the annoyance of overflight noise might be something to consider, but I've played on some pretty grody courts, with nasty lighting systems, and imagine that Flushing Meadow must be a far cry from whatever I've had to put up with.)

Bilbo
05-27-2007, 11:27 PM
it doesn't make the sport more popular if non tennis fans switch to a sport channel where tennis is sheduled but there's none.

vincayou
05-27-2007, 11:35 PM
It wouldn't change much this week. A roof is useful the second week, but with so many matchs to complete in the first week, if it rains the whole week, we would still be playing the 2nd round next sunday with a court and a roof.

Bilbo
05-27-2007, 11:40 PM
It wouldn't change much this week. A roof is useful the second week, but with so many matchs to complete in the first week, if it rains the whole week, we would still be playing the 2nd round next sunday with a court and a roof.

you forgot about the money. tv and tickets cost money. no money no tournament.

ezekiel
05-28-2007, 12:11 AM
Anyone can imagine HOW you could make a roof on Philippe Chatrier stadium considering his architectonic design?? It's too wide.

actually it would be better and cheaper on a smaller stadium

16681
05-28-2007, 05:40 AM
The roof at the Australian Open allowed for the classic 2001 QF match between Hingis and Serena. The storm outside just added to the drama of that unbelieveable match. :hearts:

Also, it's spelled "roofs". :)

P.S. I'm looking forward to the first person who says "It's called the Open because it's supposed to be an outdoor court." :haha:
:lol: :rolls: I vote for roofs (however you want to spell it). Those rain delays just totally mess up a Tournament schedule and I'm sure they must upset the Fans.

W!MBLEDON
05-28-2007, 05:59 AM
Yes; all Grand Slams should have retractable roofs. Nobody likes a rain delay. :shrug:

leng jai
05-28-2007, 09:36 AM
More like all bloody Centre Courts should have cup holders.

Bobby
05-28-2007, 09:52 AM
Right now I would say yes, there should be roofs. Rain delays are not that fun. But, it could be very difficult to build a roof at the main courts at Roland Garros. At least, it would be very expensive. The stadium is very different from Melbourne Park for example.

Boris Franz Ecker
05-28-2007, 12:04 PM
Wimbledon....

Not every fan or player in the world thinks that this is the highlight of the tennis year,

Which players? Coria? Vicente? Hernandez? Muster? Bruguera? Catalina Castano? Fabiola Zuluaga?

-

To the original question:

Yes. A roof is needed.

Strangely the Wimbledon main courts already have a roof. But only for the spectators. Who wants to sit there under the roof when no tennis is shown? A stupid idea.
But a real roof is under construction.
Other tournaments need one too.

gusman890
05-28-2007, 12:05 PM
If wimbledon agrees to build one..

then rest should get off their ass and do the same.

BlackSilver
05-28-2007, 09:55 PM
Which players? Coria? Vicente? Hernandez? Muster? Bruguera? Catalina Castano? Fabiola Zuluaga?


Something between the majority of players to close of 100% of players coming from South America, Italy, Spain, France.
You know, almost no one.

rofe
05-28-2007, 10:55 PM
The courts should at least have lights for night play. Adding lights should be a fraction of the cost of adding a roof.

delsa
05-28-2007, 11:25 PM
The new 16,000-seater stadium, expected to cost 112m euros (£73m), has had two sites earmarked in the nearby Bois de Boulogne.

Wasn't this also a problem? Because of some ecologists opposing it?

+alonso
05-29-2007, 12:51 AM
I don't know How different would be an indoors Chatrier from an outdoors... but If it is different, roof could be used as advantage to a player, so No roof.
I remember once in Düsseldorf, CRO CHI was suposed to play outdoors as all the ties but it was played indoors 'cause of rain and it was a disadvantage for Chile.

calvinhobbes
05-29-2007, 02:31 AM
yeah lets do roofs on all GS, keep the roof on the whole time , so Ljubicic can win every Grand Slam

Yeah, because he hasn't a roof of his own . . . .:haha: :haha:

Bazooka
05-29-2007, 09:31 AM
Roofs on 2 courts should be mandatory for GS events, and 1 court in MS event with any chance of serious rain. We're in XXI century, there's no reason to have all the tennis world waiting for a little cloud to go away.

orangestu
05-29-2007, 09:59 AM
Well, while I'm pleased to be an aussie when it comes to this topic - what - 20 years of a retractable roof at the AO.... there's something kinda special about a big open stadium that the potentially-closeable ones don't have.

That said, I agree with the fact that at least 1 coverable stadium at a GS should be a definite...

NyGeL
05-29-2007, 05:13 PM
I guess the AO roof is more specific for other events such as swimming or concerts, but also for heat.

At the USOpen is unecessary and clay must be played outdoor. I think Wimbledon needs to be indoor.

Jimnik
05-27-2010, 12:43 PM
Roland Garros is getting one, right?

andy neyer
05-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Where's the 'no' option?

Action Jackson
05-27-2010, 12:53 PM
The first one.

andy neyer
05-27-2010, 12:57 PM
The first one says that "all of them should".

I don't think thar roofs should be necessary. Tennis (especially on clay) is "ideally" an outdoors sport for me... I don't think it is necessary that RG gets a roof in PC, for example. Tennis has been played for decades there and we've had great tennis without a roof.

iriraz
05-27-2010, 01:03 PM
Having a roof on center court would favour only the top seeds and lots of matches would be postponed anyways.
The more important issue is having lights at every court so they can play during the late hours if they have to.Something like yesterday with Monfils should have never been an issue if they had lights on.
Every Masters Event can be played during the night why not the French Open?

Action Jackson
05-27-2010, 01:07 PM
The first one says that "all of them should".

I don't think thar roofs should be necessary. Tennis (especially on clay) is "ideally" an outdoors sport for me... I don't think it is necessary that RG gets a roof in PC, for example. Tennis has been played for decades there and we've had great tennis without a roof.

No, it says none of them should.

federernadalfan
05-27-2010, 01:11 PM
all grand slams should have lights for night matches and roofs on the two main courts
even some masters series like madrid has them...
us open has lights but no plans for roof
australian open has lights and roofs on the two main courts
roland garros will build a roof on centre court by 2013-2014
wimbledon has a roof on centre court

@Sweet Cleopatra
05-27-2010, 01:14 PM
It only solves the problem in the center court, other matches will be delayed.

andy neyer
05-27-2010, 01:17 PM
No, it says none of them should.

Well, I dunno where I really stand on this. I feel that tennis should be played ideally outdoors but I wouldn't have a problem with roofs in places in which it rains a lot (maybe in London and also because the grass turns to shit) but not if it's not very very necessary (like Melbourne). I'd prefer if RG doesn't get a roof. I think playing indoors clay court tennis kind of sucks.

Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the subject, tbh.

FormerRafaFan
05-27-2010, 01:22 PM
I feel that tennis should be played ideally outdoors but I wouldn't have a problem with roofs in places in which it rains a lot (maybe in London and also because the grass turns to shit) but not if it's not very very necessary (like Melbourne).

AO has a roof mainly because of the heat, it doesn't exactly rain much, but it does get to 40+ degrees in summer time, so they really do need that roof.

Aaric
05-27-2010, 02:10 PM
Yes, this is 21st century. And LIGHTS at the french open please

gulzhan
05-27-2010, 02:39 PM
The first one says that "all of them should".

I don't think thar roofs should be necessary. Tennis (especially on clay) is "ideally" an outdoors sport for me... I don't think it is necessary that RG gets a roof in PC, for example. Tennis has been played for decades there and we've had great tennis without a roof.

You think delaying matches is a better option? What if it rains non-stop for a week?

It only solves the problem in the center court, other matches will be delayed.

Do as they do it at kids tournaments-- play indoor with light match after match, the whole night :tape: Seriously, in ITF juniors they switch to the indoor courts when the weather is bad and play matches like at 2 am or 4 am. Girls go first of course ;)

Johnny Groove
05-27-2010, 02:53 PM
Lights at RG at least.

Erica86
05-27-2010, 04:36 PM
The clay slam should be played in Madrid. Facilities are far better than in Paris, and many top clay players would not be booed by the French crowd who cannot stomach their neighbour country tennis players winning most of the times.

Jimnik
05-27-2010, 04:37 PM
I disagree with lights. RG is a day session event.

The European slams should remain unique in this regard.

Arkulari
05-27-2010, 04:38 PM
Wimbledon got lights and a roof for the Centre Court, why shouldn't RG do the same?

I don't say they can schedule night matches but they can totally play under rain or if the match gets too long for playing with natural light :shrug:

Jimnik
05-27-2010, 04:44 PM
Wimbledon got lights and a roof for the Centre Court, why shouldn't RG do the same?

I don't say they can schedule night matches but they can totally play under rain or if the match gets too long for playing with natural light :shrug:
I know and I disagreed with that too. But all the other Wimbledon courts don't have lights so it hasn't really changed in this regard.

I understand what you're saying with getting matches finished but personally I would rather a match get completed the next day in sun light than under artificial conditions.

Ariel
05-27-2010, 07:34 PM
Playing under the lights has all but ruined the US Open for the true fans who attend during the day because they are denied marquee matches unless they pay for night sessions. And yes, I agree about the artificial conditions - some players don't do well under lights and indoors. However from a practical point of view, the sport cannot be held hostage to the weather especially in the majors where the backlog of matches can be horrendous. Australia has the retractable, Wimbledon now has it, it is time for the FO and the USO to follow suit. FO is no more or less traditional than Wimbledon and in the case of the US Open, it's time to jettison some of the greed and take some of their soaring profits and apply it to the betterment of the sport.

Jimnik
09-14-2010, 01:06 AM
$100million

If anyone in tennis can find it, the USTA can.

Jimnik
09-06-2011, 10:53 PM
Now it's $200million.

Must be inflation. :shrug:

r2473
09-06-2011, 11:01 PM
Outdoor tennis should be a thing of the past. I say all events should be played in a climate controlled environment with all the elements conrolled.

In addition, stadiums should be built so everyone gets a front row seat.

Further, TV coverage should extend to full coverage on all courts at all times for all events.

Of course hawkeye should be on every court.

This should not just be true for ATP tour events, but for challengers and futures as well.

However, WTA should be forced to play in the rain until they start playing an equal number of sets as the men.

jackjill888
09-07-2011, 12:13 AM
why not take an easy route ??? and swap ao and uso in tennis calender ao in sep and uso in jan ....

SetSampras
09-07-2011, 12:17 AM
Every damn one. Why should Group A benefit with 2-3 days off ( a VACATION) while Group B have to play every single from the 4th round to the finals if they make it just because we are too cheap for retractable roofs despite overpricing every damn thing at the event? . Complete horseshit.


It makes you want to boycott Tennis in general sometimes. You get in the later round of the tournaments, a day or two off can make ALL the difference in the world.

Topspindoctor
09-07-2011, 06:05 AM
Every slam should have a roof over their center court. Yanks and Frenchies should stop being so cheap and make excuses already.

tripwires
09-07-2011, 07:33 AM
why not take an easy route ??? and swap ao and uso in tennis calender ao in sep and uso in jan ....

It's probably still too cold to play tennis outdoors in Australia in September.

I'd rather watch tennis under natural conditions, but having a roof and getting matches done is better than delaying matches due to rain.