[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

This thread should just be called "The Nostalgia Thread."

Speeding up ALL the courts does nothing to help the homogenization of the courts. Clay should either stay at their current speed or slow down a bit. Grass should speed up drastically. There is obviously some more leeway with the hard courts (but people will complain regardless of what they do). Maybe the AO should be a bit faster, but I don't really mind it.

Actually it's pretty clear in this thread speeding of the courts is referring to outdoor and indoor hardcourts and the grass, not the clay.

[Gabe32]

I agree some of the hardcourts should be sped up.

But if you're simply looking for serve and volleying to come back, I think that is long gone. Even if the fast grass courts are restored, I don't see it being as used 1/2 as much as it was in decades past. Racquet technology alone makes it tough. The passing shots of players like Rafa, Nole and Murray are simply devastating.

[Houstonko]

Back then s&v definitely was waiting to be countered with better returns regardless of surface. This tactic has too many weaknesses. Its improved method is one punch tennis today which only works on fast surface.

[Hensafmurrafter]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

I agree some of the hardcourts should be sped up.

But if you're simply looking for serve and volleying to come back, I think that is long gone. Even if the fast grass courts are restored, I don't see it being as used 1/2 as much as it was in decades past. Racquet technology alone makes it tough. The passing shots of players like Rafa, Nole and Murray are simply devastating.

Half as much as decades past would still be more than twice as much as we see today. That's a start.

[Alex999]

don't know. OK, let's speed up courts and then what. you'll still see top guys winning everything. I really think it doesn't realy matter that much although I do understand where some of you guys are coming from. I, personally don't want to ever see S@W stuff at W. points that last a few seconds. so boring. I guess we all different.

so, hypothetically if they speed up the courts, who would really benefit?

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Alex999

don't know. OK, let's speed up courts and then what. you'll still see top guys winning everything. I really think it doesn't realy matter that much although I do understand where some of you guys are coming from. I, personally don't want to ever see S@W stuff at W. points that last a few seconds. so boring. I guess we all different.

so, hypothetically if they speed up the courts, who would really benefit?

Nadal and Djokovic certainly wouldn't be winning Wimbledon anymore, certainly not playing each other in the final!

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Alex999

don't know. OK, let's speed up courts and then what. you'll still see top guys winning everything. I really think it doesn't realy matter that much although I do understand where some of you guys are coming from. I, personally don't want to ever see S@W stuff at W. points that last a few seconds. so boring. I guess we all different.

so, hypothetically if they speed up the courts, who would really benefit?

Please are you trying to be funny.

[Gabe32]

I am not disagreeing, but what kind of players do you guys want to see winning grass/fast hard court tournaments?

I personally like all-courters. The 7 hour baseline matches are obviously an extreme, but in general I find modern tennis very enjoyable.

[Gabe32]

Also, isn't there kind of a disparity in our favorite players and this whole "speed up the court" movement?

MTF's favorite players:

1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Nadal
4 Del Potro
5 Nalbandian
6 Gasquet
7 Söderling
8 Murray, A.
9 Roddick
10 Davydenko

Who here would benefit from sped up hard and grass courts? The only clear answer in my opinion is Roddick. Maybe Delpo?

Nadal would obviously suffer, as would Murray. I can't see Gasquet or Nalbandian benefiting.

Granted, it isn't a contradiction in being a Nadal/Murray fan and wanting the courts sped up. You would just have to accept that they wouldn't be as successful.

[Alex999]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Please are you trying to be funny.

no AJ, I wish. as I said, sure speed up the courts, fine with me. I still think that top guys would manage to win big tournaments. sorry, I might be not as smart as you are .

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

I am disagreeing, but what kind of players do you guys want to see winning grass/fast hard court tournaments?

I personally like all-courters. The 7 hour baseline matches are obviously an extreme, but in general I find modern tennis very enjoyable.

Roger Federer about himself and Nadal
"Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself".

There should be greater diversity between the surfaces which besides the specific movement is lacking. Yes, there was surface diversity and a mix of playing styles, unlike now it's the same stuff on all surfaces.

Serve fests weren't everywhere on fast surfaces and it wasn't just boring on moonballing on clay. What all court tennis.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Alex999

no AJ, I wish. as I said, sure speed up the courts, fine with me. I still think that top guys would manage to win big tournaments. sorry, I might be not as smart as you are .

Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't be continually making Wimbledon finals on slick, low bouncing grass.

It's a moot point and any tangible benefits wouldn't be seen until3-5 years down the track.

[Gabe32]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Roger Federer about himself and Nadal
"Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself".

Serve fests weren't everywhere on fast surfaces and it wasn't just boring on moonballing on clay. What all court tennis.

I absolutely agree with that quote. Nadal won the US Open in 2010. That would have been absurd in any other generation.

I am legitimately asking, who in your [everybody's] opinion would be winning Wimbledon if it were in conditions similar to that of, say, 2000? And the Australian Open too.

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of talent, it is hard imagining any surface being so different where one of them doesn't dominate. Murray obviously becomes even less of a factor. Soderling too I think. Maybe JMD?

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

I absolutely agree with that quote. Nadal won the US Open in 2010. That would have been absurd in any other generation.

I am legitimately asking, who in your [everybody's] opinion would be winning Wimbledon if it were in conditions similar to that of, say, 2000? And the Australian Open too.

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of talent, it is hard imagining any surface being so different where one of them doesn't dominate.

Basically what Federer said, is what many long term fans have said.

It's not really a legit question when the guys playing now wouldn't be playing their current style back then. Nadal is still going to be the best on clay. Federer did play Sampras under the old grass. It's their respective weaker surfaces where it's more interesting.

[Alex999]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't be continually making Wimbledon finals on slick, low bouncing grass.

It's a moot point and any tangible benefits wouldn't be seen until3-5 years down the track.

Nadal probably wouldn't but I think Novak can play on ANY surface just fine, especially on HC. I'm not sure if he would win W again, but who knows?