[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by howyesno

you know caesar, that's very original post, I've never heard that argument before.

or maybe, just maybe, someone clever figured out that it's going to get ridiculous with 140+ mph serves on courts as fast as they were before? maybe? do you really miss watching someone practicing serves for few hours?

You seem to think that 'speed up the courts' means 'make everything as fast as Wimby grass in the early 90s'. There wasn't anything wrong with the speed of hardcourts during the early 00s, the AO and USO weren't serve fests back then.

Or here's a novel idea - speed up the courts substantially, but also take away the second serve. Why do players need it anyway? It was invented way back when the game was first designed, because you had uneven flannel balls and rickety old wooden racquets, and serving was so unpredictable that you often needed two goes to get it in. Nowadays it's totally unnecessary, the first serve is just a chance at a free point.

[Fujee]

Originally Posted by nazzac

The way i see it...

Ao & USO should be Medium paced courts. Don't particularly favour any style. If possible, you could have one thats medium fast, and one that is medium slow

Wimbledon should be fast, which favours offensive tennis

RG should be Slow, which favours defensive tennis

USO should be fast, like it was. AO: Slow/Medium Hard Court med/high bounce, FO: Slow Clay high bounce, W: Fast Grass low bounce, USO: Fast Hardcourt natural bounce

[Fishnet]

I don't get it. This has been happening since the early 2000s. Many have complained, since then, that this artificial change would kill tennis' variety.

And people are complaining right now? Now it's all over - they've changed the game, with a very clear defensive bias.

Unfortunately, the slowing of the courts and "fitness" have transformed tennis into endurance cycling with a racket.

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

You seem to think that 'speed up the courts' means 'make everything as fast as Wimby grass in the early 90s'. There wasn't anything wrong with the speed of hardcourts during the early 00s, the AO and USO weren't serve fests back then.

Or here's a novel idea - speed up the courts substantially, but also take away the second serve. Why do players need it anyway? It was invented way back when the game was first designed, because you had uneven flannel balls and rickety old wooden racquets, and serving was so unpredictable that you often needed two goes to get it in. Nowadays it's totally unnecessary, the first serve is just a chance at a free point.

This must be one of the worst ideas I've ever read.

[howyesno]

joined in jan 2013? fishnet, I wouldn't be so quick to judge if I were you, this site has much more potential in that area. you are in for big surprise

[rinnegan]

All these threads from scared Fedtards. I can't keep up.

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

This must be one of the worst ideas I've ever read.

Not really. It would change the game substantially, but it would mean less servebots, and you could speed up the courts and still have plenty of rallies AND the opportunity for aggressive play.

I mean, think about it. The serve was never supposed to be a way to regularly get free points. It's supposed to be the way to start the point. In every other 'net' sport (badminton, volleyball, table tennis) you only get one serve. Tennis you get two because back in the old days, it was so hard to get a serve in that a lot of the time you missed your first try.

Nowadays with the changed equipment people could easily get their first serve if they had to, so the original reason for 2 serves has disappeared.

I'm not saying it's something I'm in favour of. Just that it's food for thought.

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Not really. It would change the game substantially, but it would mean less servebots, and you could speed up the courts and still have a decent number of rallies.

I mean, the serve was never supposed to be a way to regularly get free points. It's supposed to be the way to start the point. In every other 'net' sport (badminton, volleyball, table tennis) you only get one serve. Tennis you get two because back in the old days, it was so hard to get a serve in that a lot of the time you missed your first try.

Nowadays people could easily get their first serve if they had to, so the original reason for 2 serves has disappeared.

I'm not saying it's something I'm in favour of. Just that it's food for thought.

I assume you've never played tennis.

Serving well is just a developed talent as any other shot and aspect of the game. You speak as if it were something "cheap". It's probably the hardest shot to master in this sport and whoever manages to have a level of execution as good as players like Raonic in the present and Sampras in the past have must have a chance to use it to win points.

Taking away the second serve would turn the ATP into the WTA, that is: crap.

[rocketassist]

There was nothing wrong with the surfaces in 2002-03. So why continue to slow them?

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by howyesno

joined in jan 2013? fishnet, I wouldn't be so quick to judge if I were you, this site has much more potential in that area. you are in for big surprise

Don't scare me, my friend.

[SilverSlam]

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Novak gets through another match not on shotmaking or technical ability but grinding out his opponent a way only possible on ultra slow courts.

Disgusting stuff, Stanislas should've won today but the courts and umpiring is rigged to prevent clowns like Djokovic from ever losing a match before SF.

You troll on MTF too

Originally Posted by star

You are American, right?

On TF he's croatian I'm pretty sure

[choppaa]

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Novak gets through another match not on shotmaking or technical ability but grinding out his opponent a way only possible on ultra slow courts.

Disgusting stuff, Stanislas should've won today but the courts and umpiring is rigged to prevent clowns like Djokovic from ever losing a match before SF.

No, Novak should've won way earlier, he gave Stan many easy misses on Stan's serve. Many second serve returns he dumped at the net, played too aggressive when he didn't need to, too passive when he had to. That point in tie-break, 6-5 on Stan's serve, he had him so wide on the right side only to bash the ball 5 meters long when he had open court. Stan played great but a Novak wasn't very good. That's why Stan was so close.

Btw Federer said it's playing a tiny bit faster this year and I believe him, he is always very vocal about court speed.

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

I assume you've never played tennis.

Serving well is just a developed talent as any other shot and aspect of the game. You speak as if it were something "cheap". It's probably the hardest shot to master in this sport and whoever manages to have a level of execution as good as players like Raonic in the present and Sampras in the past have must have a chance to use it to win points.

Taking away the second serve would turn the ATP into the WTA, that is: crap.

I play a lot of tennis, and I am primarily a S&V player with a big serve.

I am just saying that I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to get rid of the second serve and eliminate all the servebots. Speed up the courts and single serves would still be a lot more effective than their current second serves. You would get a lot less aces / unreturnables but then it's more enjoyable to watch people win points with their ground games.

Yes, it would change the game substantially. But that is not necessarily always a bad thing.

Saying it would turn the ATP into the WTA is just silly talk. Do you really think that big servers is the only reason men's tennis is better than women's?

[Kooyong]

I don't think the court was that slow when Stan lead 61 52

I'm not sure how they can speed the court up, maybe change the balls.

[Kooyong]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

There was nothing wrong with the surfaces in 2002-03. So why continue to slow them?

I might be mistaken but I recall the courts were slowed down to help Hewitt.