[finishingmove]

Originally Posted by kafkavert

4, 5 hours matches are a tragedy! YOu can't bring Tennis to Network TV with 4, 5 hours of pushing!

Best out of 3 in Slams and use smaller / lighter balls

[Mr.Michael]

Originally Posted by Jverweij

I'm not saying the conditions were fast. But this match was mostly horrible due to both guys not having a dominant serve. This is nothing new for both Mischa and Klizan. The slower court just made this more clear. But it's not as if they slowed these courts down. Murray winning somewhere back to back usually means it's slow.

Seriously, there's not one clay court tournament which is slower than this one. Anyway I don't think that St. Petersburg will be in the ATP-calendar after next year. If they move the indoor tournaments to February.

[Jverweij]

Originally Posted by Mr.Michael

Seriously, there's not one clay court tournament which is slower than this one. Anyway I don't think that St. Petersburg will be in the ATP-calendar after next year. If they move the indoor tournaments to February.

totally agree with your last comment, but my reason for this is the nr. of fans coming to the tourney... it's pathetic. There's a guy from Russia in the semi's and the hall is not even half full...

[philosophicalarf]

Lots of comments from players on how slow it is - Zemlja said it was as slow as clay, for example.

Serve stats at St Pete's this year are the lowest of any hard court event in the last ten years, including outdoor hard - it's not even close too, way out of the normal ranges. Most clay events have higher serve stats.

It's at least as slow as the likes of Valencia I think, probably more so, but what's perhaps unique is a higher bounce on top of that.


Lots of complaints from the players about how irregular it is btw. Perhaps it was just a screwup and will be fixed next year.

[TennisMilan]

The courts definitely need to be sped up. I hope that one day we'll see Serve & Volley Tennis back at Wimbledon.

[Action Jackson]

Happy with the finalists in Metz and St.Petersburg but they are too slow for indoor events.

[rocketassist]

Ridiculous how slow indoor events are now.

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Ridiculous how slow indoor events are now.

Slowing is a good thing, people get to see rallies and more tennis, while players get to show off more skills instead of just serving. Everyone wins, except the serve bots. This is a positive. 90's tennis with Sampras against Ivanisievic on lightning fast indoor court was 2-3 shot rallies and shitload of tiebreaks. That wasn't real tennis.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Slowing is a good thing, people get to see rallies and more tennis, while players get to show off more skills instead of just serving. Everyone wins, except the serve bots. This is a positive. 90's tennis with Sampras against Ivanisievic on lightning fast indoor court was 2-3 shot rallies and shitload of tiebreaks. That wasn't real tennis.

On every surface?

Fuck no.

Have some diversity instead of every court being slower than ass.

[Action Jackson]

Doc you never watch tennis besides Nadal, so how would you know.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

On every surface?

Fuck no.

Have some diversity instead of every court being slower than ass.

This.

If the top players are so great and talented, they should be able to show it in every type of conditions. The real reason why courts won't be sped up any time soon is because, for marketing purposes, it is in the ATP's best interest to preserve the untouchable image of the 'Big 4' and not expose them as the one dimensional baseline grinders at least 2/3 of them are.

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

On every surface?

Fuck no.

Have some diversity instead of every court being slower than ass.

Some courts still allow for plenty of shot making and attacking. On indoor courts you still see offensive guys dominate because with elements like wind/humidity/sun taken out of the equation, the tennis becomes more predictable and guys who excel at hitting a flat ball have an advantage. But the modern surfaces no longer allow serve fests and 2-3 shot rallies, instead modern tennis requires a player to be a more complete player - serving your way to titles is no longer possible - in other words, even indoors you need to be strong off both wings, have good fitness, preferably have a good RoS, slice and be able to finish at the net.

Diversity? If it means guys like Isner not winning big titles, then it's something that can be sacrificed.

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Doc you never watch tennis besides Nadal, so how would you know.

Nice to see MTF have such a powerful magician as a moderator who is able to so easily scry into my tennis watching habits

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

This.

If the top players are so great and talented, they should be able to show it in every type of conditions. The real reason why courts won't be sped up any time soon is because, for marketing purposes, it is in the ATP's best interest to preserve the untouchable image of the 'Big 4' and not expose them as the one dimensional baseline grinders at least 2/3 of them are.

The variety of the surfaces and adapting was the best challenge in the sport, now it's only the movement. Watching Sampras trying to play on clay was funny, then the other clay guys trying to play on fast indoor surfaces. This is why Agassi's Career Slam is very impressive he did it when the surfaces weren't homogenised, Fed acknowledges this as well.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Some courts still allow for plenty of shot making and attacking. On indoor courts you still see offensive guys dominate because with elements like wind/humidity/sun taken out of the equation, the tennis becomes more predictable and guys who excel at hitting a flat ball have an advantage. But the modern surfaces no longer allow serve fests and 2-3 shot rallies, instead modern tennis requires a player to be a more complete player - serving your way to titles is no longer possible - in other words, even indoors you need to be strong off both wings, have good fitness, preferably have a good RoS, slice and be able to finish at the net.

Diversity? If it means guys like Isner not winning big titles, then it's something that can be sacrificed.

Indoor surfaces were fine about seven years or so ago and I didn't see any 'serve-bots' dominating.

Besides, Isner's style is unique and I like that. Shall we have 100 grinders in the top 100 who all play the same game? I'd rather see some different game styles. And Isner actually does better on higher bouncing courts cause he can actually has time to hit his forehand (on a low bouncing court he has to bend down and struggles off the ground cause of his lack of timing) and his early exits on first week Wimbledon grass testify to it. He can't handle quick, low bouncing surfaces and can't break serve.

Bercy 2010 was a nice throwback to indoor tennis when Llodra made the final with some classic serve and volley. I know you think it's prehistoric, but it was a nice change from what we usually get.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

The variety of the surfaces and adapting was the best challenge in the sport, now it's only the movement. Watching Sampras trying to play on clay was funny, then the other clay guys trying to play on fast indoor surfaces. This is why Agassi's Career Slam is very impressive he did it when the surfaces weren't homogenised, Fed acknowledges this as well.

I agree with this. Homogenization allows the ATP to promote tennis as a consistent narrative and hype this 'Big 4' to ridiculous extents.

The detrimental effects are far bigger though: we have one dimensional top players who throw tantrums as soon as the condtions change even a bit and talented players whose tennis style is not baseline grinding can never really fulfill their potential. The only 'advantage' is more money for the ATP and titles for those whose style suits the current conditions. All the rest are nefarious effects