[cveks]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Yeah can't take anything from Troll seriously. No idea why people even respond to his insane drivel.

Problem is that you dont have arguments. Thats why you insult and call someone who you cant beat with facts - troll.

Keep up thats so funny.

[cveks]

Originally Posted by green25814

Its more that most of the people commentating only watched Wimbledon/Us Open, where 'servebots' definitely did dominate.

I prefer this kind of tennis more than tennis from 90s .

Its much better .

You can just hate me because of that. We dont want watch serve/swing matches . They are boring.

[piksi]

Another good example why slower courts are good. Preventing brainless ball bashers like Berdych going all the way is so worth it

[cveks]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Speeding up courts should never happen - going back to mug era of the 90s of serve bots dominance = no thx.

exactly . Tennis which we watch in last 5 years is never been better and more entertaining.

Most of tennis matches of 80s and 90s are so boring compared with matches in last 5 years.

We now have much more exchanges and that is what makes today tennis so popular.

[Halba]

apart from a 2nd set lapse, djokovic was great today. 47 winners, from all over the court, only 25 errors in 4 sets, thats fantastic. his serve also solid at 67% with 10 aces, excellent stats.

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by cveks

I prefer this kind of tennis more than tennis from 90s .

Its much better .

You can just hate me because of that. We dont want watch serve/swing matches . They are boring.

If the faster courts were as fast as they were supposed to be then everybody would get what they want at different tournaments. Variety is the spice of life.

Originally Posted by piksi

Another good example why slower courts are good. Preventing brainless ball bashers like Berdych going all the way is so worth it

Slow courts let players in poor form mug their way to finals by going ultra-defensive.

[NameNumber]

I don't understand why people immediately scream "NINETIES SERVE FEST" every time court speed is brought up. The Australian Open is too slow, this should be apparent to anybody. When you're jerking a guy out at short angles left and right and they still have time to make clean strikes on a hard court, there's an issue. There was nothing wrong with Rebound Ace which was a mid-pace court with a high bounce. The Australian Open champions of the nineties were mostly baseliners.

The court speed issue isn't limited to just making the hard courts faster, though. It's variety in general. Right now they're assigning fast balls to slow courts and slow balls to fast courts. This is all wrong. It's the reason you see ridiculous stuff like more aggressive play at Roland Garros than the AO. They need a regulation ball type for everything.

I don't see how having SOME courts be really fast would have a negative effect on the game anyway. Back in 1992 before they slowed down Wimbledon at all, it was Andre that beat Goran in the final. And quality return of serve is more of a common skill today than it was in the nineties, not to mention the new strings that make it easier to control all that pace.

Just want to inject some variety into the tour. Hard courts as slow as this Plexicushion crap are disrespectful to the players anyway. It has to be torture having to grind that hard on hard court. Needs to stop.

[dazed1]

Originally Posted by piksi

Preventing attacking players to win all the way is so worth it

Fixed.

[Trollicki]

I agree that more varied courts would make this sport more enjoyable for us spectators and less damaging for the athletes themselves. Thing is, as has been pointed out in this thread, the general audience seems to like this turn towards slower courts and more physical tennis. The general audience is what brings the ATP their money and therefore they will always listen to what it has to say. How do you change the perception of the casual fan and show them that an all around reduction in court speeds is a bad thing? How do you lobby as a special interest group (face it, that is exactly what we are) with the ATP? What could make the ATP listen to this line of reasoning? I do not know, yet if somebody manages to answer these questions, we might get closer to actually solving the issue at hand here.

[Gustavo Kuerten]

Originally Posted by Trollicki

I agree that more varied courts would make this sport more enjoyable for us spectators and less damaging for the athletes themselves. Thing is, as has been pointed out in this thread, the general audience seems to like this turn towards slower courts and more physical tennis. The general audience is what brings the ATP their money and therefore they will always listen to what it has to say. How do you change the perception of the casual fan and show them that an all around reduction in court speeds is a bad thing? How do you lobby as a special interest group (face it, that is exactly what we are) with the ATP? What could make the ATP listen to this line of reasoning? I do not know, yet if somebody manages to answer these questions, we might get closer to actually solving the issue at hand here.

Good post

[JarkaFish]

Originally Posted by Trollicki

I agree that more varied courts would make this sport more enjoyable for us spectators and less damaging for the athletes themselves. Thing is, as has been pointed out in this thread, the general audience seems to like this turn towards slower courts and more physical tennis. The general audience is what brings the ATP their money and therefore they will always listen to what it has to say. How do you change the perception of the casual fan and show them that an all around reduction in court speeds is a bad thing? How do you lobby as a special interest group (face it, that is exactly what we are) with the ATP? What could make the ATP listen to this line of reasoning? I do not know, yet if somebody manages to answer these questions, we might get closer to actually solving the issue at hand here.

Where's the proof that the audience likes slower courts? Because they gasp when their's some sort of 30-shot rally or whatever? You realize their were plenty of long physical rallies on Rebound Ace and even DecoTurf where audiences had orgasms as well, right. Jesus christ.

[Gustavo Kuerten]

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Where's the proof that the audience likes slower courts? Because they gasp when their's some sort of 30-shot rally or whatever? You realize their were plenty of long physical rallies on Rebound Ace and even DecoTurf where audiences had orgasms as well, right. Jesus christ.

Why would the ATP implement slower courts if the audience wants faster courts?

[JarkaFish]

Originally Posted by Gustavo Kuerten

Why would the ATP implement slower courts if the audience wants faster courts?

Corporations do misinformed things all the time, I'm not saying the audience is dying for faster courts, but rather they really don't know what they want. If the AO courts were changed back to Rebound Ace tomorrow the casual audience would never know the difference and enjoy the tennis all the same.

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Where's the proof that the audience likes slower courts? Because they gasp when their's some sort of 30-shot rally or whatever? You realize their were plenty of long physical rallies on Rebound Ace and even DecoTurf where audiences had orgasms as well, right. Jesus christ.

Why are you spelling there wrong? Aren't you American?

Anyway, you're right. The audience likes long spectacular rallies. But, they also like it even more if the rally is long on high-speed courts, because the defense on those courts is close to impossible, yet the players are still able to get the ball. The slower the court is, the higher chance that long unspectacular rallies with nothing special exist.

[Trollicki]

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Where's the proof that the audience likes slower courts? Because they gasp when their's some sort of 30-shot rally or whatever? You realize their were plenty of long physical rallies on Rebound Ace and even DecoTurf where audiences had orgasms as well, right. Jesus christ.

Yes. The fact that people were talking in superlatives about last year's final here. The fact they did the same thing two days ago after the Djokovic-Wawrinka match. The fact that they pay to see matches. The fact that there seems to be an increasing focus on the physical aspects of tennis. Etc.