[Sapeod]

Originally Posted by Ibracadabra

Clay isn't boring at all, tennis is all about variety, just so happens there are more slow courts than fast courts.

Clay is boring. After 2 tournaments, it's just tiresome and the season is so predictable it's sad.

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Clay is boring. After 2 tournaments, it's just tiresome and the season is so predictable it's sad.

Strictly your opinion. Hard court can be quite boring as well and it dominates the tour. Clay is at least something different, a surface where you can't just win by serving and ballbashing.

[Sapeod]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Strictly your opinion. Hard court can be quite boring as well and it dominates the tour. Clay is at least something different, a surface where you can't just win by serving and ballbashing.

Clay is where you wait for opponent's errors 90% of the time. Very thrilling

[Naudio Spanlatine]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Clay is where you wait for opponent's errors 90% of the time. Very thrilling

STFU with this , clay produces the best players, fed, nole, rafa, and even your BF murray loves this surface so you cant tell me that clay is BORING as you put it

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Clay is where you wait for opponent's errors 90% of the time. Very thrilling

Not in the case of Guga, JCF and Gaudio to name three RG champions. There was a lot of great point construction from those guys and also the likes of Mantilla, Corretja etc.

You should be thankful in a way the clay field is so shit now and lacks this type of player, as Murray wouldn't be seeing RG semi finals if there was.

[Orka_n]

Originally Posted by fast_clay

wow... so much fail...

Good summary of MTF right there, mate

[Filo V.]

I like it when it plays like an indoor hardcourt should.

[merryploughbhoy]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 and 'big servers' Rafter, Courier, Becker, Pioline all got to finals. Some baseline hitters actually did pretty well. Pete was just too good.

As for the public was getting bored, not this public here. Ivanisevic-Rafter is still the most loved final in a poll by the BBC and 2001 the favourite recent tournament.

As for that, take the last line out. It's all about athleticism and fitness now. Ball striking ability matters little. Look at the Nadal-Nalbandian match in the once fast US Open a couple months back- Nalby painted the corners over and over and over and over and yet the ball somehow was still coming back on a tournament that was once fast. That's how homogenization has destroyed the game.

Yes, but both Becker and Agassi were complete all round players, not just big serve like some... Clay does add a bit of spice to the year but I feel there are far too many clay tournaments and not enough grass, Clay does'nt reward the better TENNIS skilled player, more the cardio/strength brute.

[merryploughbhoy]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 and 'big servers' Rafter, Courier, Becker, Pioline all got to finals. Some baseline hitters actually did pretty well. Pete was just too good.

As for the public was getting bored, not this public here. Ivanisevic-Rafter is still the most loved final in a poll by the BBC and 2001 the favourite recent tournament.

As for that, take the last line out. It's all about athleticism and fitness now. Ball striking ability matters little. Look at the Nadal-Nalbandian match in the once fast US Open a couple months back- Nalby painted the corners over and over and over and over and yet the ball somehow was still coming back on a tournament that was once fast. That's how homogenization has destroyed the game.

Yes, but both Becker and Agassi were complete all round players, not just big serve like some... Clay does add a bit of spice to the year but I feel there are far too many clay tournaments and not enough grass, Clay does'nt reward the better TENNIS skilled player, more the cardio/strength brute. Players who rely on the clay season only are nothing but dirt rats

[merryploughbhoy]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Clay is boring. After 2 tournaments, it's just tiresome and the season is so predictable it's sad.

This is very true. One think please though my man... get rid of that stupid picture of Andy with that horid flag, the only reason he is holding it is because it's forced on him for the davis cup team GB thing etc, I don't think Murray is a pro union type of guy - he always flys our saltire on his wrists and the flag on his back, I'v heard that he is a SNP guy ALBA GO BRAGH !

[guyha4]

merryploughbhoy is right
The clay court season is a bit boring and I think it's too long peroid of the season
The indoor tennis can produce some good tennis (I prefer REGULAR hard courts)and it's not true that there're no rallies (if you can, watch matches now in stockholm of Nalby, Dimitrov and Tomic who are very offensive players and play indoors rallies till someone goes to the net)

[nole_no1]

Yes indoor tennis is great

[martinatreue]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 and 'big servers' Rafter, Courier, Becker, Pioline all got to finals. Some baseline hitters actually did pretty well. Pete was just too good.

As for the public was getting bored, not this public here. Ivanisevic-Rafter is still the most loved final in a poll by the BBC and 2001 the favourite recent tournament.

As for that, take the last line out. It's all about athleticism and fitness now. Ball striking ability matters little. Look at the Nadal-Nalbandian match in the once fast US Open a couple months back- Nalby painted the corners over and over and over and over and yet the ball somehow was still coming back on a tournament that was once fast. That's how homogenization has destroyed the game.

Excellent post!!! I could not agree more. Players should be rewarded for hitting a series of good shots and a good solid volley. Slowing it down even further just causes players to get passed or hit nearly impossible volleys and that only encourages boring baseline grinding rallies. I like some variety in the match and in the game of tennis. I don't want to see all serving or all first-strike tennis either though. It's all about having a variety of speeds and surfaces which allow for many types of player to succeed. Indoor tennis though is great because it removes concerns about sunburn, heat exhaustion, wind, rain, etc. This allows for more precision and more aggressive play. Also the atmosphere in an indoor arena can be fantastic! I think the players need to have a few months to play in the fall without having to deal with the heat and the unpredictable weather. Not liking indoor tennis just seems weird to me.

[mark73]

I won't enter this discussion because ive never come across such "great" minds. Minds that can't make the distinction between facts (a cow weighs more than a mouse) and matteres of taste (do you prefer mozart or beethoven?).

There is nothing to argue. NOTHING. All you can say is I like or I don't like indoor tennis and then give your PERSONAL reason for why you like it or why you don't.

[syc23]

Don't like watching it, but love playing indoors. Less natural elements disrupting your game especially serve.