[reery]

They should use Babolat balls at all 4 slams.

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by Pirata.

Are you 12 years old or Federer fan or both?

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

Are you 12 years old or Federer fan or both?

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by August

The homogenization of surfaces undermines the purpose of different surfaces. The only reason to have grass courts at Wimby is traditions. Otherwise we could as well have clay courts there and the game wouldn't be any different. And having different kinds of balls to homogenize play is just as stupid. Come on, what's then the point in having different surfaces? Maybe the only ones who don't want more variety in surfaces are Nadtards and Noletards, and the ones running pro tennis business.

So this is all about loser Federer fans making stuff up ?
I guess the realization that his time at the top is over is hard to accept.
Once again I doubt you were protesting about "homogenization" whatever that is 5 years ago.

[Mr.Michael]

Delray and IW are using plexipave. Does anyone have a clue if Miami is once again using Laykold? It's not mentioned anywhere this year.

Were IW and Miami considered slow 10 years ago? Or 20 years ago? Or were they more or less the same with Cinci and Canada? I actually can't tell how fast the hard courts were during the 80's or 90's, the US Open for example? Does anyone know?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

It wasn't slow when Nole won those match points , poor Federer didn't even move

So we judge the speed of a surface, by how powerful a shot Djokovic can hit when match point down?

[August]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

So this is all about loser Federer fans making stuff up ?
I guess the realization that his time at the top is over is hard to accept.
Once again I doubt you were protesting about "homogenization" whatever that is 5 years ago.

For sure I was then hoping a GS for Fed. But, I don't think I was hoping it throgh surface homogenization. Homogenizatin undermines the purpose of not only different surfaces but also GS for the same reason. 5 majors is now almost worthier than 4 majors, even if the player in the latter case would achieve non-CY GS.

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by Singularity

So we judge the speed of a surface, by how powerful a shot Djokovic can hit when match point down?

Yeah pretty much since it's visual and simple and that's a much better teller than a bunch of bitter Federer fans looking for excuses after the fact.

[Shirogane]

Originally Posted by Mr.Michael

I actually can't tell how fast the hard courts were during the 80's or 90's, the US Open for example? Does anyone know?

Here is what Federer said, back in 2006:

"You don't have these American hardcourt tournaments which are just unplayable from the baseline, unreturnable," says No. 1 Roger Federer, the reigning U.S. Open champion who won his fourth consecutive Wimbledon crown July 9 against Rafael Nadal. "Everywhere you sort of get into the points. It's actually quite slow now."

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by August

For sure I was then hoping a GS for Fed. But, I don't think I was hoping it throgh surface homogenization. Homogenizatin undermines the purpose of not only different surfaces but also GS for the same reason. 5 majors is now almost worthier than 4 majors, even if the player in the latter case would achieve non-CY GS.

I have no idea what you just said but once again I don't think this was a problem for you 5 years ago. Your problem is only that there is a better player on the top of the game than whomever you support.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

Yeah pretty much since it's visual and simple and that's a much better teller than a bunch of bitter Federer fans looking for excuses after the fact.

Maybe you want to use all those amazing returns Djokovic hit at AO 11, as evidence of how fast it is then.

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by Shirogane

Here is what Federer said, back in 2006:

"You don't have these American hardcourt tournaments which are just unplayable from the baseline, unreturnable," says No. 1 Roger Federer, the reigning U.S. Open champion who won his fourth consecutive Wimbledon crown July 9 against Rafael Nadal. "Everywhere you sort of get into the points. It's actually quite slow now."

Well players are actually playing defense now at least the top guys are and there is no free wins and titles anymore. I think Fed said that after his many loses to Nadal .

[rob_z]

I agree with you. I have exactly the same feeling. In the 90's some courts were perhaps to fast. Now it looks like some courts (like the Australian Open) are a bit slow. In the Austrlian Open final 2012 it became difficult to hit winners.

[August]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

I have no idea what you just said but once again I don't think this was a problem for you 5 years ago. Your problem is only that there is a better player on the top of the game than whomever you support.

Well, I really started to follow tennis in mid-00s, so I probably didn't think about surface speeds that much 5 years ago. Yet, even still when Fed was winning Wimbledon titles, I remember players like Henman crying about slow grass. And I supported their views. For sure there are many Fedtards here hoping faster courts as well as Nadtards and Noletards not hoping that. But, for me it doesn't matter who wins, after all. What matters for me is the game being played.

And what I tried to say in my previous post was that winning all majors once isn't much more difficult, than winning a total of four majors, yet not achieving a GS. That's because of surface homogenization. As I've said before, GS was toghest to achieve in '90s. You had to master fast grass, slow clay, and two somewhat different hardcourts. Now you have to master relatively slow grass, two somewhat different slow hardcourts, and not-anymore-so-slow clay. It's easier as it used to be.

[Kip]

The Grass definitely needs to be sped back up to where it was.