What's so good about super-fast courts? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What's so good about super-fast courts?

Everko
11-16-2009, 09:24 PM
It seems liek every wants the courts to be sped up. Why is that good? So only serve mugs can win more? So we can see matches where every other point is a ace or serve-winner?

I don't see the good in it. I don't want to watch punchball.

Certinfy
11-16-2009, 09:26 PM
I don't want really fast courts, but some of the courts at the moment are really slow and i think they need to be made at a suitable speed, which is not too fast nor too slow.

Orka_n
11-16-2009, 09:26 PM
Isn't it because slow surfaces makes things easier for pushers? Personally I just feel there's something wrong with a slow hard court. Only slow surface should be clay.

n8
11-16-2009, 09:30 PM
I think there should be VARIETY. There should be slow courts, medium paced ones, and fast ones. Part of what makes tennis so interesting is the difference surfaces and seeing the different rallies and different players excel on each surface.

TheBoiledEgg
11-16-2009, 09:31 PM
these days
grass is slow
90% of hard courts are slow
all indoor courts are slow
clay is slow

what else.............

MalwareDie
11-16-2009, 09:31 PM
So we don't have to watch all these mugs push like on these slow surfaces.

Sophocles
11-16-2009, 09:35 PM
I think there should be VARIETY. There should be slow courts, medium paced ones, and fast ones. Part of what makes tennis so interesting is the difference surfaces and seeing the different rallies and different players excel on each surface.

Exactly.

Filo V.
11-16-2009, 09:39 PM
I personally like all surfaces for what they bring and the differences in them. However, I think most people, myself included, want to see a few more faster surfaces, and obviously carpet courts need to come back. I like clay court tennis for it's rallies, but it would also be nice to have more courts reward aggressive play, and reward players who go for their shots. And grass, they need to change the surface back to at least close to the speed it was. Grass was about short aggressive points and dominating serves and effective slices and low bounces, now guys can just rally rally rally, it isn't what Wimbledon is about, and that gets as boring as watching an Ivo vs. Roddick match, and Wimbledon its uniqueness as a result. A combo of the two styles is what is needed.

Burrow
11-16-2009, 09:40 PM
I think there should be VARIETY. There should be slow courts, medium paced ones, and fast ones. Part of what makes tennis so interesting is the difference surfaces and seeing the different rallies and different players excel on each surface.

yea

TheBoiledEgg
11-16-2009, 09:54 PM
the 1994 ATP World Tour Finals is just the best example that anyone can find, so funny its beyond words seeing Berasategui trying to play on a really fast court:haha:

the idea of slow court mugs been made to look like clowns is really appealing

just like seeing all those CCC getting their asses kicked week-in week out is also alot of fun.

Everko
11-16-2009, 09:56 PM
the 1994 ATP World Tour Finals is just the best example that anyone can find, so funny its beyond words seeing Berasategui trying to play on a really fast court:haha:

the idea of slow court mugs been made to look like clowns is really appealing

just like seeing all those CCC getting their asses kicked week-in week out is also alot of fun.

or Sampras getting his ass kicked on clay, because he was used to the fast

Acer
11-16-2009, 10:01 PM
What's so good about super-fast courts?

Nadal can't win on them

Macbrother
11-16-2009, 10:02 PM
I think there should be VARIETY. There should be slow courts, medium paced ones, and fast ones. Part of what makes tennis so interesting is the difference surfaces and seeing the different rallies and different players excel on each surface.

+3. unfortunately some of the players and powers that be want every single court on the planet to be medium-slow.

Topspin Forehand
11-16-2009, 10:03 PM
I agree with this thread. I find fast courts very boring. The points get ended so quickly with no rhythm to the match. Topspin is not as effective and less strategy.

maratsmaiden
11-16-2009, 10:37 PM
I think there should be VARIETY. There should be slow courts, medium paced ones, and fast ones. Part of what makes tennis so interesting is the difference surfaces and seeing the different rallies and different players excel on each surface.

+4 or 5 or whatever number I am :wavey:

rocketassist
11-16-2009, 10:46 PM
Fast courts (indoor/grass)- big serve, forehand, volleys
Medium courts (hard)- both attacking players and also defensive/counterpuncher baseline grinders
Slow clay- favours grinding topspin baseliners and clever, intelligent rallying

That's how it used to be. Now it's all the same. That's why I don't give Nadal's fast court pedigree or Faker's 4 grand slam semis as much respect as others, because they're all the exact fucking same nearly apart from the odd exception (Del Potro on grass Roddick on clay)

For example clay- Murray is average on clay but he pissed his way into the business end of the big tournaments including Roland Garros (well quarter finalist isn't bad) when a guy like him should be making third round at best with his current clay game, because he was coming up against hardcourters and ballbashers (Cilic)

fast_clay
11-16-2009, 11:10 PM
yes the variety of player being allowed inside the top 50 is an issue... in the top 50 there should be room for claycourters who are sh!te on fast and exclusively attacking players who are at sea on clay... that's kinda how i see it... or... well used to... it is not only entertaining in the big matches, but also as one poster has already stated, its fun to watch lower ranked players being forced to adapt...

the variety of court surface is the main factor behind the variety of players... i feel too much was done on the part of attracting the claycourters to wimbledon etc etc, at the time when the speed of the balls used was also being addressed and that should one change alone should have been allowed to run by itself for a while... cos really, if a fast court tournament wasn't important enough, then, no dramas, just stay at home...

when there is less than 5 mins of actual time in-play inside a two and a half hour match between courier and zoeke at wimbledon (93 i think), yeah for sure, something needed to be done to address an imbalance... though, now, i think the game has swung too far the other way and now you have a much more generic brand of player inside the top 50...

Byrd
11-16-2009, 11:41 PM
Because Roland Garros is faster than grass & alot of hard court nowadays, absolute joke.

DarkMarc
11-17-2009, 01:48 AM
i absolutely agree with the author. whats the deal about everybody asking for a fast court? so that every match in the later stages of the tournament involves either karlovic or isner or guccione, who cant play tennis at all, but have a serve?
:cuckoo:

freeandlonely
11-17-2009, 02:16 AM
i absolutely agree with the author. whats the deal about everybody asking for a fast court? so that every match in the later stages of the tournament involves either karlovic or isner or guccione, who cant play tennis at all, but have a serve?
:cuckoo:


You think so? If there were more fast courts, Karlovic or Isner or Guccione will go deep on a regular basis?

At least Paris and Wimby must be faster, what IH/Grass should be.

DarkMarc
11-17-2009, 02:31 AM
You think so? If there were more fast courts, Karlovic or Isner or Guccione will go deep on a regular basis?

At least Paris and Wimby must be faster, what IH/Grass should be.

well im not so sure about guccione:-) but why not? u think its a coincedence that they go that far at the only fast tournaments? of course this maaaay be a bit exaggerated, but probably all those karlovics and querreys would be well in the top 20, and they just dont deserve...

by the way, im not a fan of these pusher either, but i would definetely prefer simon - murray then karlovic - isner

kengyin
11-17-2009, 02:49 AM
more fast courts are better, so that federer can win more

Action Jackson
11-17-2009, 03:01 AM
Because it requires a different skills and different challenges, these guys are professionals, and there should be the challenge for the guys to develop and improve skills on surfaces that are more challenging, as for each individual these are different.

The Srich if he played on clay now would win matches, he on clay is as funny as guys like Horna on grass.

Everko, go the horse.

Filo V.
11-17-2009, 03:01 AM
well im not so sure about guccione:-) but why not? u think its a coincedence that they go that far at the only fast tournaments? of course this maaaay be a bit exaggerated, but probably all those karlovics and querreys would be well in the top 20, and they just dont deserve...

by the way, im not a fan of these pusher either, but i would definetely prefer simon - murray then karlovic - isner

Karlovic has some decent results on clay, and also got to the QF at Wimbledon, which is not really a super fast surface anymore. Querrey is not an all serve player, so using him as a analogy doesn't work.

Now Isner, that is something that can be agreed on, but his results have more to do with America and the American hard courts and energy and comfort he has on them than surface speed. If you are a good player, you are going to win matches, the surface speed will affect you, but the elite players can and do get over it. They may not dominate but they wont lose 1st round every time either. If someone has a ranking in the top 20, it is because they earned it, so it isn't fair to say they don't deserve it simply because you don't like their game. If they win and it works for them, that is what truly matters. So I guess what I am saying is, treating Karlovic or Isner like they are crap players really isn't justified by anything but personal preferences.

djb84xi
11-17-2009, 06:21 AM
I don't like the idea of every court being super quick. I do think all the hard courts should be medium fast, to at least be fair to other players who prefer playing on a court that's a little slower. I prefer watching a baseline slugfest, gonzo vs. tsonga type match, not a Karlovic/Isner kinda match.

The courts are definitely not fair to all the players.

Sophocles
11-17-2009, 10:46 AM
i absolutely agree with the author. whats the deal about everybody asking for a fast court? so that every match in the later stages of the tournament involves either karlovic or isner or guccione, who cant play tennis at all, but have a serve?
:cuckoo:

If there were more fast courts, it would be in the interests of players with far more talent than the guys you mention to develop more of an all-court game. And it would be good to see them do this. That's all. It's about balance. There were too many serve-fests in the 90s. Now there is too much baseline grinding.

madmax
11-17-2009, 12:51 PM
it's true that today's grinding game is beceoming like a script for all young and upcoming players...I bet there are plenty of people who don't exactly enjoy endless pushing festivals and want to watch some aggressive attacking tennis, including myself. However current surfaces don't really reward this type of tennis, and that's a sad thing. I enjoyed 90's tennis much more than today's boring grindfests - why is it so hard to bring back that kind of game back?:unsure:

Everko
11-17-2009, 01:57 PM
Everko, go the horse.

Excuse me?

latso
11-17-2009, 02:09 PM
Karlovic made his previous record of aces on clay and lost.
It's not about the aces.

For me it is about the volleys.

I want to see a few guys volleying more as it is a part of tennis slowly dying. They all use volleys to only finish off an easy point following a baseline almost-winner.

No Edberg nowadays and this is 99% because of the slow courts everywhere.

Ivanisevic was producing more aces than even Karlovic. Was that a minus for the sport? Goran was an exceptional player imho.

When totally counterpunching mugs like Muzza start entering the top 5, there surely is a problem.

Radek won't be here forever and in 5 years we will read about volleying in the histry books :mad:

SerenaFederer
11-17-2009, 02:23 PM
because watching clay court tennis on EVERY surface sucks??

acionescu
11-17-2009, 02:49 PM
The fact that Rafito gets his ass kicked so often on it, MTF dream :inlove:

DarkMarc
11-17-2009, 04:18 PM
Karlovic has some decent results on clay, and also got to the QF at Wimbledon, which is not really a super fast surface anymore. Querrey is not an all serve player, so using him as a analogy doesn't work.

Now Isner, that is something that can be agreed on, but his results have more to do with America and the American hard courts and energy and comfort he has on them than surface speed. If you are a good player, you are going to win matches, the surface speed will affect you, but the elite players can and do get over it. They may not dominate but they wont lose 1st round every time either. If someone has a ranking in the top 20, it is because they earned it, so it isn't fair to say they don't deserve it simply because you don't like their game. If they win and it works for them, that is what truly matters. So I guess what I am saying is, treating Karlovic or Isner like they are crap players really isn't justified by anything but personal preferences.

well, all i was trying to say is that i hope we dont have these matches where we have actual play time of 5 minutes in a 2 h 30 match, and that nearly every point is a service winner or ace. im fine with players who like to shorten the point by quickly advancing to the net, but i really couldnt watch any karlovic match in wimbledon longer than 10 minutes. and obviously wimbledon is not that slow, when guys like him go to the quarters (although it might not be as fast as in the 90s or so)...

karlovics "good" results on clay came against mug players or "challenger" tournaments at houston. and querrey is more or less only serve too imho.

of course thats a preference thing, but i think when surfaces are fast, there will be a huge attention on the serve and there would be very few actual rallys (also rally in which players have the chance to approach to the net)...

Sophocles
11-17-2009, 04:28 PM
For me it is about the volleys.

I want to see a few guys volleying more as it is a part of tennis slowly dying. They all use volleys to only finish off an easy point following a baseline almost-winner.

No Edberg nowadays and this is 99% because of the slow courts everywhere.

Radek won't be here forever and in 5 years we will read about volleying in the histry books :mad:

Absolutely, this is the point. It would be good to see more net-play as there's just too little of it now.

manadrainer
11-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Hi,
how was Wimbledon's grass faster in the past? How can you make it slower and why? Also which other courts where faster and now have slowed down?
I'm asking because I don't know.
Thank in advance!

SerenaFederer
11-17-2009, 05:21 PM
type of grass they use makes it slower...carpet was fast but it's gone completely now...for HC i think the more gritty they make the surface (with sand i believe, but subject to correction) the slower the court plays...US Open now has the quickest court I believe

fast_clay
11-17-2009, 06:35 PM
i was at both us open and rotterdam i think rotterdam seems the quickest tournament surface of the year... tsonga was unlucky not to get past nadal there...

another point... if players were forced to play quicker, shorter points at a percentage of tournaments during the year, would the end of year burn out rate be less...? when sampras and becker went head to head over 5 sets in '96 at the end of year final, could they bring this 'top 25 match of all time' form while competing largely from the back of the court during the year...? in '09, how could tsonga play so many matches, tournaments endure the travel that goes with that in his first genuine injury free year on the main tour without employing the proactive, point ending game that he does...? i dont think its rocket science, but, it has robbed the fans of 5 set finals in majors outside slams in any case...

why won't fast courts come back...? well, its kinda the chicken and the egg right now... tournament directors largely roll out a court surface whereby the top players are going to sell tickets on friday, saturday and sunday... fast courts will not come back until some super attacking athlete wins a couple of slams and appeals to the general populations that host the tournaments... fast courts will return only when that player/s arrive... not before... and so, a genuine attacking player is going to have to be pretty much super human to bust through this year long festival of slow hard courts that we have now...

a hypothetical: if federer had the type of competition to be forced to play serve and volley more often (re: 2001 vs Sampras) then it could have been different... but, no one played the style that took the net away from federer so he was never forced to take the net back in turn... perhaps the tournaments surfaces laid could have been quite different with a more attacking tour... just a thought i guess...

but, what we know for sure is that, he had the ability to play any style at a very high level yet merely needed to sit back and pot shot from any angle vs tour grinders with his ridiculous forehand.... so no real need to lay a fast court to keep federer in a tournament till sunday...

so, why lay a fast surface...? why not lay a slower one and have both fed and rafa in a final on sunday... money talks... too easy...

brent-o
11-17-2009, 06:52 PM
Fast courts (indoor/grass)- big serve, forehand, volleys
Medium courts (hard)- both attacking players and also defensive/counterpuncher baseline grinders
Slow clay- favours grinding topspin baseliners and clever, intelligent rallying

That's how it used to be. Now it's all the same. That's why I don't give Nadal's fast court pedigree or Faker's 4 grand slam semis as much respect as others, because they're all the exact fucking same nearly apart from the odd exception (Del Potro on grass Roddick on clay)

For example clay- Murray is average on clay but he pissed his way into the business end of the big tournaments including Roland Garros (well quarter finalist isn't bad) when a guy like him should be making third round at best with his current clay game, because he was coming up against hardcourters and ballbashers (Cilic)

But the courts may be similar in speed, but they can play very differently (clay=high kicking balls, grass=skidding balls, odd bounces). Speed isn't the only factor. And if Djokovic's accomplishment is so unimpressive, why doesn't everyone succeed on all surfaces? There's a reason the semis-at-all-four-slams club is still fairly exclusive.

brent-o
11-17-2009, 06:53 PM
Basically, a good rule of thumb to follow regarding people's complaints about slow courts: There's far more complaining when Nadal's winning on them.

fast_clay
11-17-2009, 07:24 PM
But the courts may be similar in speed, but they can play very differently (clay=high kicking balls, grass=skidding balls, odd bounces). Speed isn't the only factor. And if Djokovic's accomplishment is so unimpressive, why doesn't everyone succeed on all surfaces? There's a reason the semis-at-all-four-slams club is still fairly exclusive.

that's true enough... grass is still grass and favours a big game that is adept at winning points in 1, 2 and 3 shot combinations... clay still requires the 'slide-in' technique that european and south american players grow up developing pretty much automatically... there are points of difference that will never change thankfully...

but, as hard court takes up a fair amount of the year now, and where carpet has disappeared, the pace argument is gonna be the most obvious target of anyone missing genuine attacking tennis...

anyways, if i was a tournament director i'd lay a slow medium hardcourt if it mean the people paying for tickets had a good chance of seeing nadal on sunday... that is a no-brainer...

oranges
11-17-2009, 07:28 PM
Basically, a good rule of thumb to follow regarding people's complaints about slow courts: There's far more complaining when Nadal's winning on them.

:rolleyes: Yes, it's all about one or two guys, whoever they are. As for you post above, which at least pretends to be more than rambling, haven't you noticed that changed as well. Heavy topspin is no use on grass now in your view, slice is as effective as it used to be? The difference in how good players are on a particular surface have over time come down more to how good can they move on it than how much their game suits it.

Ilovetheblues_86
11-17-2009, 07:34 PM
Rotterdam is a good tournament and is fast, simple as that. Lets look for winners there:
2008 S|D Michael Llodra
2007 S|D Mikhail Youzhny
2006 S|D Radek Stepanek
2005 S|D Roger Federer
2004 S|D Lleyton Hewitt
2003 S|D Max Mirnyi
2002 S|D Nicolas Escude
2001 S|D Nicolas Escude
2000 S|D Cedric Pioline
1999 S|D Yevgeny Kafelnikov

Players with game suited to fast couts which are rare those days.

interruptus25
11-17-2009, 07:37 PM
i just donīt get that nobody realizes the true reason, why courts are so slow today...itīs because of todayīs rackets. They are much more advanced today than during the 80s and 90s. If they would have played on the same quick carpet, grass surfaces than a decade or more ago, the result would have been, that we would have seen matches with an enormous amount of aces or winning services everywhere (and Karlovic being a multiple grand slam winner). I think tennis would have lost its interest. Slowing the surfaces has been a right decision, in order to maintain tennis still attractive for fans.

Ilovetheblues_86
11-17-2009, 07:43 PM
I stopped when said that Karlovic would eb a multiple grand slam champion.

And if tennis needs to change to keep atractive to fans then I prefer it to lose the 90% of fans who think that slowing courts is good cause its not.
I hope tennis become an obscure sport again, please GOD.

oranges
11-17-2009, 07:56 PM
Ah, we haven't heard the Karlovic the slam winner stick in quite a while.

The changes have been so good for the sport, a few more ideas how to dumb it down and I just might stop following it.

interruptus25
11-17-2009, 08:00 PM
i mean a player type like karlovic, if comparisons can be made with him

TheBoiledEgg
11-17-2009, 08:04 PM
i mean a player type like karlovic, if comparisons can be made with him

you think players who served alot of aces and cant do anything else is new ?
those types of players only ever win the odd MM event.

plus if more players played attacking, those only-big serving mugs would be completly outclassed by net skills of their opponents like it used to be.

eg. McEnroe, Edberg, Rafter

Ilovetheblues_86
11-17-2009, 08:09 PM
No good server without voleys couldnt win a GS in hard surfaces so your point is null.
They transformed the sport into top spin sport., Even the videogames now are not called "Super Tennis" anymore but "Top Spin".
You canīt win a match today without putting some spin into the ball and this shouldnt be the rule at least for some events in fast paced courts.

interruptus25
11-17-2009, 08:12 PM
Karlovic isnīt actually a bad volley player, seriously.

Ichiban1920
11-17-2009, 08:21 PM
Only a Nadull fanboy would be against fast courts. It's obvious that Nadull and other moonballers/pushers of his pathetic ilk have no chance on them...fortunately for them 90 percent of the courts nowadays are pathetic slow, moonballing friendly courts.

Mohammad
11-17-2009, 08:24 PM
Nothing just some basketball players and probably NBA pros take over ATP tourneys, and every game takes just some seconds and we can see 1000 aces in each match and ... just this, it does not matter. no?

madmax
11-17-2009, 08:25 PM
Karlovic isnīt actually a bad volley player, seriously.

ditto:rolleyes:The hate for poor fella on these boards is really staggering - a guy has monster serve and moderate volleying skills, he's no way a bust at the net. His Wimby QF was not a fluke also, he has the game to go deep in that particular slam on a skidding surface, which benefits net players...his game is not BORING by any means, pushers and grinders are the ones who are boring:sad:

rhinooooo
11-17-2009, 08:26 PM
As someone pointed out here, the emphasis today is upon athleticism and superior movement. These slower courts do not reward more aggressive players. It is easier to play a defensive game in this age. No surprise that Federer is more defensive now, and his movement/defense has always been underrated. Rafa speaks for himself. Murray and Djokovic can retrieve all day long, have excellent movement/flexibility.

I also think that this lack of reward for attacking players manifests itself into creating a bridge between some of the mentally stronger and weaker players. Sure, guys like Melzer/Mathieu/and some of the other headcase aggressive ones will likely always be chokers, and the grit/determination/focus of guys like Djokovic/Muzza/Rafa are excellent qualities.

But, it is alot easier nowadays to keep running down balls, and winning somewhat undeserved points. That creates an incredible mental boost for defensive players, and deflates attacking players massively. I really think that is an issue.

Henry Chinaski
11-17-2009, 08:37 PM
good post

latso
11-17-2009, 08:51 PM
I agree with Interuptus that the racquets evolving has somehow created this subcontious slowing of the courts down.
But this is a wrong action imo as this way, with the footballs getting more advanced, the shoes, etc. - they should make the football gate smaller, the pitch longer, etc.
Or with the new swimsuits, they should do what? make them swim into yogurt?

With the accessories evolving, the humans evolve too and that's why the very bases of the sports shouldn't change.
One day they will shorten the bloody courts so the muggier players could reach more balls and we watch endless rallies :rolleyes:

I believe that the main reason for the courts slowing down is Roger Federer. If u think about it, that's exactly when this trend started, right after he became invincible.

A total dominator is bad for the sport, for the audience, etc.
People got bored with Roger winning almost everything all the time and only Roland Garros became an exciting tournament, coz he was about to get his ass kick out for once during a whole year of televised tennis matches (coz if u miss him tanking a couple of others, like the mega shock against Canas or smth like that, you can see him losing only in the RG final).

The same way as F1 became as boring as u can get with Schumacher winning everything, same was with tennis.

The solution was this and it gave the wanted effect.
Now it's not Roger...miles....Rafa....light years...the others.

I don't know if it is right or wrong (because bigger audience-->more advertisers-->more money-->more kids playing, etc.) but i don't like it.

Maybe it's good for the weekend players who like Rafa's animal power or Murray's uuuhh...well, the Brits..:rolleyes: and watch tennis on tv or even go there to watch live, but for me it's a terrible commercial twisting of the sport and i don't like that

HKz
11-17-2009, 09:20 PM
Nadal can't win on them

This.

Waits for rafawon09usopen (or now rafawonCYGS) to bring up evidence :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

siloe26
11-18-2009, 10:55 AM
So we don't have to watch all these mugs push like on these slow surfaces.

Better watch 50 aces in a match. That's what I call tennis. :rolleyes:

siloe26
11-18-2009, 11:02 AM
Fast courts (indoor/grass)- big serve, forehand, volleys
Medium courts (hard)- both attacking players and also defensive/counterpuncher baseline grinders
Slow clay- favours grinding topspin baseliners and clever, intelligent rallying

That's how it used to be. Now it's all the same. That's why I don't give Nadal's fast court pedigree or Faker's 4 grand slam semis as much respect as others, because they're all the exact fucking same nearly apart from the odd exception (Del Potro on grass Roddick on clay)

For example clay- Murray is average on clay but he pissed his way into the business end of the big tournaments including Roland Garros (well quarter finalist isn't bad) when a guy like him should be making third round at best with his current clay game, because he was coming up against hardcourters and ballbashers (Cilic)

The problem in my opinion is that everything is played on hard court. I'm a clay tennis lover, so obviously, I don't like fast surfaces, but what I appreciate is some variety. Nothing is more beautiful than watching every player with his own style. I don't say that today's players's styles are not recognizable, but almost all the top players are at their best on HC. Not difficult to understand why: the other ones are killed by the increasing number of tournaments played on that surface. It's unfair. The ATP slowly killed grass players and is now killing clay court players.

siloe26
11-18-2009, 11:15 AM
I agree with Interuptus that the racquets evolving has somehow created this subcontious slowing of the courts down.
But this is a wrong action imo as this way, with the footballs getting more advanced, the shoes, etc. - they should make the football gate smaller, the pitch longer, etc.
Or with the new swimsuits, they should do what? make them swim into yogurt?

With the accessories evolving, the humans evolve too and that's why the very bases of the sports shouldn't change.
One day they will shorten the bloody courts so the muggier players could reach more balls and we watch endless rallies :rolleyes:

I believe that the main reason for the courts slowing down is Roger Federer. If u think about it, that's exactly when this trend started, right after he became invincible.

A total dominator is bad for the sport, for the audience, etc.
People got bored with Roger winning almost everything all the time and only Roland Garros became an exciting tournament, coz he was about to get his ass kick out for once during a whole year of televised tennis matches (coz if u miss him tanking a couple of others, like the mega shock against Canas or smth like that, you can see him losing only in the RG final).

The same way as F1 became as boring as u can get with Schumacher winning everything, same was with tennis.

The solution was this and it gave the wanted effect.
Now it's not Roger...miles....Rafa....light years...the others.

I don't know if it is right or wrong (because bigger audience-->more advertisers-->more money-->more kids playing, etc.) but i don't like it.

Maybe it's good for the weekend players who like Rafa's animal power or Murray's uuuhh...well, the Brits..:rolleyes: and watch tennis on tv or even go there to watch live, but for me it's a terrible commercial twisting of the sport and i don't like that

If you know tennis so well, you should know that it's completely wrong. They wanted to slow down the courts much before Federer arrived. Wimbledon was horrified by a Sampras-Ivanisevic final. Of course, I didn't watch, I can't watch that kind of match, but I can easily imagine.:rolleyes: If that's your conception of tennis, fine. We are all entitled to like the tennis we like. But for me, it doesn't work, I've never liked that and I will never like. I like watching some great attacking tennis (Edberg's or Mc Enroe's volleys for example. Federer still has that). But on the fast surfaces, it goes with all those big serves, and I'm sorry but I watch tennis, I wanna see great points, well constructed or greatly defended. I don't watch tennis to see 2 aces, one winning serve and a very big first serve that his author only has to follow with an incredibly easy ball to attack in one game. And slow surfaces or not, you still see a Karlovic do well on the tour (he was even able to enter the top 15 once) with absolutely nothing but a big serve. If you want to see that kind of players form the big majority of the top 10, very fast surfaces is a great idea.

siloe26
11-18-2009, 12:30 PM
If there were more fast courts, it would be in the interests of players with far more talent than the guys you mention to develop more of an all-court game. And it would be good to see them do this. That's all. It's about balance. There were too many serve-fests in the 90s. Now there is too much baseline grinding.

The courts can be faster, it doesn't mean that you will have more volleyers. Ballbashers(Eurk!) will dominate. Before, when you had many volleyers, many players didn't have a good passing shot or only with their forehand. They used to hit very flat strokes and one-handed backhands and many had had problems to cover their backhand. Today, all the players have good passing shots on both wings. And since the servers were better and better, the returners followed the same path. Awful for a serve and volley player. If his serve is not lethal, he gets killed.

siloe26
11-18-2009, 12:48 PM
Only a Nadull fanboy would be against fast courts. It's obvious that Nadull and other moonballers/pushers of his pathetic ilk have no chance on them...fortunately for them 90 percent of the courts nowadays are pathetic slow, moonballing friendly courts.

I'm going to try to remember you the old good times, when players like Nadal had no chance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk
It's on clay, of course. But do you know that Wilander actually won 7GS? All on clay? Certainly not: he won the AO on grass (slow grass) and on HC. He also won the USO on fast hard courts. Wilander actually liked the slow grass on the AO a lot. His big performance is the USO.
His opponent, Vilas, won the FO once, but also the USO on clay (Ouch!) and the AO twice... on grass.
Now, tell me that a player like Nadal wouldn't love that kind of situation. Wimbledon would have been very difficult for him (impossible? Maybe... or maybe not. Remember Borg?)
Now, add that Nadal is forced to play all year on HC because he can't escape the calendar and that when the clay season arrives, he plays almost every day since he tries to play 4 clay tournaments before RG (and that's all for the season), you have a player whose body is destroyed by playing on HC most of the year because his game is not suited to them and a player who finishes the clay season .... on his knees.
Definitely, Nadal is unlucky to play these days. The old good days would have been much better for him.

fast_clay
11-18-2009, 02:22 PM
Definitely, Nadal is unlucky to play these days. The old good days would have been much better for him.

shorter points... natural surfaces... you are spot on....!!

TennisLurker
11-18-2009, 02:39 PM
The good old days were not bad at all for baseliners, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Vilas were constant top 5 players and baseliners, McEnroe was the odd one in the top 5.

Michael Chang would have been more successful in the wood racket age. Imagine how hard it would have been to hit a winner against him with wood racket speed?


Serve and volley died because most serve volleyers became big servers, and if you have a big serve, and your rival manages to make a good return, volleying that will be very extremely difficult.

It is better to stay in the baseline, so that if the serve was not an ace or service winner, at least you will be able to play a rally. It is the natural progression.

latso
11-18-2009, 03:46 PM
If you know tennis so well, you should know that it's completely wrong. They wanted to slow down the courts much before Federer arrived. Wimbledon was horrified by a Sampras-Ivanisevic final. Of course, I didn't watch, I can't watch that kind of match, but I can easily imagine.:rolleyes: If that's your conception of tennis, fine. We are all entitled to like the tennis we like. But for me, it doesn't work, I've never liked that and I will never like. I like watching some great attacking tennis (Edberg's or Mc Enroe's volleys for example. Federer still has that). But on the fast surfaces, it goes with all those big serves, and I'm sorry but I watch tennis, I wanna see great points, well constructed or greatly defended. I don't watch tennis to see 2 aces, one winning serve and a very big first serve that his author only has to follow with an incredibly easy ball to attack in one game. And slow surfaces or not, you still see a Karlovic do well on the tour (he was even able to enter the top 15 once) with absolutely nothing but a big serve. If you want to see that kind of players form the big majority of the top 10, very fast surfaces is a great idea.
Let's ban grass then. The ball bounces so low...

Federer's at least first 3 tittles there were on still fast grass and it was slowing down gradually. I don't think it has started from the Sampras-Ivanisevic era.

But as u say - some like it one way, others another way. So why change it in a way that only one side would like it?

If you're not that young, you should have fell for tennis when there were fast courts and slow courts. Now the kids can only watch slow courts.

I don't say it's good or bad but it's a commercial decision and usually commercial decisions are bad for the traditions, spectacle, etc.

imo

latso
11-18-2009, 03:48 PM
The good old days were not bad at all for baseliners, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Vilas were constant top 5 players and baseliners, McEnroe was the odd one in the top 5.

Michael Chang would have been more successful in the wood racket age. Imagine how hard it would have been to hit a winner against him with wood racket speed?


Serve and volley died because most serve volleyers became big servers, and if you have a big serve, and your rival manages to make a good return, volleying that will be very extremely difficult.

It is better to stay in the baseline, so that if the serve was not an ace or service winner, at least you will be able to play a rally. It is the natural progression.
It makes sense indeed.

But was the speed that much lower when Sampras and Edberg, and Becker were playing?

I mean, they were smashing 220kph serves already and they were volleying much, much more than the guys nowadays.

Burrow
11-18-2009, 04:30 PM
Let's ban grass then. The ball bounces so low...

Federer's at least first 3 tittles there were on still fast grass and it was slowing down gradually. I don't think it has started from the Sampras-Ivanisevic era.

But as u say - some like it one way, others another way. So why change it in a way that only one side would like it?

If you're not that young, you should have fell for tennis when there were fast courts and slow courts. Now the kids can only watch slow courts.

I don't say it's good or bad but it's a commercial decision and usually commercial decisions are bad for the traditions, spectacle, etc.

imo

no shit

and the grass was slowing down before 03

Burrow
11-18-2009, 04:32 PM
This.

Waits for rafawon09usopen (or now rafawonCYGS) to bring up evidence :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

old joke

you keep bringing it up, you've done it 150 times :zzz:

latso
11-19-2009, 06:27 AM
no shit

and the grass was slowing down before 03
so it's probably been supersonic in the 90s then :rolleyes:

for me the obvious slow down, which really affected the game happened in 2004-2005

KolyaLegend
11-19-2009, 09:15 AM
Let's ban grass then. The ball bounces so low...

Federer's at least first 3 tittles there were on still fast grass and it was slowing down gradually. I don't think it has started from the Sampras-Ivanisevic era.



Nope, they slowed grass after 2001. Just look at the finalists in 2001 and then in 2002.

Everko
11-19-2009, 02:00 PM
Nope, they slowed grass after 2001. Just look at the finalists in 2001 and then in 2002.

Ridiculous asumption







**__________**
PSbwBWaJkJs&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh+div-HM

TheBoiledEgg
11-19-2009, 02:16 PM
It makes sense indeed.

But was the speed that much lower when Sampras and Edberg, and Becker were playing?

I mean, they were smashing 220kph serves already and they were volleying much, much more than the guys nowadays.


LOL@Edberg hitting 220kph serve
180 would probably be his tops, he was more about placement with his kick serve.

latso
11-19-2009, 03:14 PM
LOL@Edberg hitting 220kph serve
180 would probably be his tops, he was more about placement with his kick serve.

:rolleyes:

ok, then what about Sampras and Becker

or u just had to write smth?

bjurra
11-20-2009, 11:50 AM
So we don't have to watch all these mugs push like on these slow surfaces.

Go to Newport, that tournament is an orgy of fast court mugs, you will like it.

n8
11-20-2009, 12:03 PM
Nope, they slowed grass after 2001. Just look at the finalists in 2001 and then in 2002.

Quoted directly from official Wimbledon site (http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/infosheets/grasscourts_general.html):
# The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game,
# Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.

Despite the expert research, it did affect the speed of the court. 2001 still had fast courts due to the unusual amount of rain during the fortnight (even for Wimbledon). No surprise that Wimby 2002 had more early round upsets than any other Grand Slam in recent memory (Agassi, Sampras, Federer and Roddick, among others, all lost early).