[zcess81]

Of course Roger wants faster courts now. At this stage in his career that's the only way he'll win slams. I don't remember Roger having too many complaints with court speeds when he was winning 2-3 slams a year.

At the same time, faster courts would ensure that Rafa never gets close to his grand slam record.

[JurajCrane]

You may argue that he is saying it due to selfish reasons but it is also only thing that could save ATP Tour from this shit what we see now - and you can´t argue on that.

But he made a good point - we should have some very slow ones and some very fast ones. That is what I am missing right now and who cannot see this is just stupid.

[RagingLamb]

Thank you Roger. Hopefully the ATP will listen to you.

[End da Game]

Originally Posted by Ash86

Have to laugh at Roger fans presenting this as him caring for the game! He's benefited from the slower courts throughout his career - far easier for him to rack up all those Wimbledons and US Opens in an era which didn't favour big servers than in the 90s. It's only now that Djokovic, Murray etc. have a clear advantage over him on those courts and he's a step slower that he has spoken about this issue - he's been on tour 14+ years, is in his 30s - speaking about it isn't showing leadership, it's pure self interest.

Also, apart from minorities of vocal fans on messageboards the vast majority of the public don't seem to have an issue with the court speed. Tennis is far more popular now than in late 90s - the top stars get great coverage, top events sell out etc. I'd be happy to see more variety but the idea that all courts are the same is a nonsense anyway. If they were we'd see the likes of Almagro picking up 250 hardcourt/indoor titles rather than only winning on clay and vice versa for those with terrible clay records. If the hard courts are a little slower it's also true that the clay is a little faster.

So it's great for Federer to talk about the top guys being "protected" but it might have meant more if he'd wanted any change when it would have been adverse to him. No doubt Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will disagree and why wouldn't they - they'll all favour the type of court that helps them.

It is interesting

No doubt slower surfaces has helped him against a big server like roddick, but nadal started challenging him outside clay from 2006 onwards - right in the middle of his prime years

Say if federer lost 2 wimbledons and us opens to roddick/another big server, he would've also gained a similar number of slams from nadal from 2008 onwards. In fact, I think the slower surfaces have benefited nadal against him, more than it has for him against roddick. We've seen federer can play short point serve and volley very well in his performances against sampras in 2001, and then his wimbledon victory in 2003 (when S+V was still a big part of the game) in which he defeated roddick in straight sets at the semi-final.

His serve is probably better than roddick as seen in the 2009 wimbledon final, roddick served out of his skin but still got out-aced. So I have no doubt that he'll still flourish in very quick 90s conditions. Nadal on the other hand, I'm not sure about. His serve is still pretty shit considering he's won 11 grand slams with it, his volleying and general net game is even worse.

[Noserer]

Servebotrerer just trying to get a chance to win something in the future too, nothing surprising here. Pathetic and obvious.

[pepita1964]

He is right . No one eat the same food three times a day,seven days a week and 365 days an year.If you do that you will get sick after a while. If there is a variety more players would play different style so more joy for the players and fans.

[Roger the Dodger]

Originally Posted by Noserer

Servebotrerer just trying to get a chance to win something in the future too, nothing surprising here. Pathetic and obvious.

You still haven't said who you were in your past life.

As for Roger, well done. Still telling it like it is, after all these years!

[Just like heaven]

Originally Posted by Fedal_Fedal

Meanwhile, Rafa continues to sponsor with ill-advised "Poker Stars". I wish Roger could impart his wisdom to Rafa sometimes, but what can he do other than serve as an example. They seem like they are drifting apart in so many ways.

Another Fedal fan.

[Cavalcante]

I know that Grass was very much slowed down, but, in a certain way, the games became more entertaining. Maybe they should speed it up again, but not to what it was on 80s and 90s.

I think the point is mainly the HC events. They are all being slowed down, and they are surely the ones that causes the most injuries.

Leave Clay slow, make Grass a little faster, and speed up some HC tournaments. Also, bring Carpet back. WTF whould be played on them.

[caisenma]

yeah i'm fine with grass being where it is. maybe a wee bit faster, but nothing like it used to be.

clay should be slow. and the fast balls they used a couple of years were pointless. clay is meant to be slow full stop.

but the hardcourts should never, ever have become as homogenised as they are. us open was flat out brutal. i thought the asian swing courts were excellent, however. would be nice to see those speeds in the MS1000's.

[Lopez]

Originally Posted by Ash86

Have to laugh at Roger fans presenting this as him caring for the game! He's benefited from the slower courts throughout his career - far easier for him to rack up all those Wimbledons and US Opens in an era which didn't favour big servers than in the 90s. It's only now that Djokovic, Murray etc. have a clear advantage over him on those courts and he's a step slower that he has spoken about this issue - he's been on tour 14+ years, is in his 30s - speaking about it isn't showing leadership, it's pure self interest.

Also, apart from minorities of vocal fans on messageboards the vast majority of the public don't seem to have an issue with the court speed. Tennis is far more popular now than in late 90s - the top stars get great coverage, top events sell out etc. I'd be happy to see more variety but the idea that all courts are the same is a nonsense anyway. If they were we'd see the likes of Almagro picking up 250 hardcourt/indoor titles rather than only winning on clay and vice versa for those with terrible clay records. If the hard courts are a little slower it's also true that the clay is a little faster.

So it's great for Federer to talk about the top guys being "protected" but it might have meant more if he'd wanted any change when it would have been adverse to him. No doubt Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will disagree and why wouldn't they - they'll all favour the type of court that helps them.

Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, who is one of the best servers of all time. Not to mention how he manhandled Roddick and other big hitters in his prime. Now when he's older he can overpowered more easily since he doesn't move as well. It's also easier for the bigger players to get to his shots since the courts are slower. He didn't have problems with big hitters when he was racking up his titles.

And it's not like he was prompted to this response: he was asked about it and he gave his opinion. It's not a spontaneous outburst.

On popularity, tennis was hugely popular in the 80s, guess why? It's the players and their charisma and rivalries that create interest, not style of play. The nineties didn't have as big stars, especially the late 90s. Sampras could've been one but he tired to stay out of the spotlight. Agassi was very inconsistent.

What I like about Federer is that he always does things that are good for tennis, not just things that are good for him. Some might actually be good for him but that's not in the back of his mind, at least that's how it seems for me.

[swordsman]

Totally support Roger on his argument of bringing more variety of speeds to the courts. Not everything has to be fast, but they should definitely speed up a few tournaments. I watched the 2012 UO final on Youtube the other day, and I was just bored as hell. At some points it just felt like a forehand to forehand practice session, with neither Djokovic or Murray wanting to go for the point. Can't understand commentators calling a 30-shot rally amazing, simply because it lasted so long.

[Knotty Fort]

The tennis calender should be split up like this:

First week of Jan to Miami: Slow to medium paced hardcourts. Players are fitter and fresher at the start of the year, better able to grind. Reward the athletic and fit players.

Clay court season till French Open: VERY slow clay courts. Reward the grinders, defenders, and court craft players.

Grass season till Wimbledon: Ultra quick grass courts. Reward the servers, first strike tennis players.

Summer hard court season till US open: Fast hard courts. Reward the all court players, the players who have a balance between aggressive tennis and denfense.

Fall season (indoor/hardcourt): Should be on faster surfaces, players are tired, and the grass season is so short that this season should augment the part of the year that rewards the big servers/big power players.

If you can dominate an entire year like that, then you are truly a complete tennis player.

[End da Game]

Originally Posted by Lopez

Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, who is one of the best servers of all time. Not to mention how he manhandled Roddick and other big hitters in his prime. Now when he's older he can overpowered more easily since he doesn't move as well. It's also easier for the bigger players to get to his shots since the courts are slower. He didn't have problems with big hitters when he was racking up his titles.

And it's not like he was prompted to this response: he was asked about it and he gave his opinion. It's not a spontaneous outburst.

On popularity, tennis was hugely popular in the 80s, guess why? It's the players and their charisma and rivalries that create interest, not style of play. The nineties didn't have as big stars, especially the late 90s. Sampras could've been one but he tired to stay out of the spotlight. Agassi was very inconsistent.

What I like about Federer is that he always does things that are good for tennis, not just things that are good for him. Some might actually be good for him but that's not in the back of his mind, at least that's how it seems for me.

yeah I can't remember where I read it, but here in the UK, the wimbledon final between borg and mcenroe from the early 80s is still the most watched tennis match in our history, I don't even think federer-murray this year matched that despite there being the 1st brit in 80 odd years featuring in a wimbledon final

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by swordsman

Totally support Roger on his argument of bringing more variety of speeds to the courts. Not everything has to be fast, but they should definitely speed up a few tournaments. I watched the 2012 UO final on Youtube the other day, and I was just bored as hell. At some points it just felt like a forehand to forehand practice session, with neither Djokovic or Murray wanting to go for the point. Can't understand commentators calling a 30-shot rally amazing, simply because it lasted so long.

+10000000