[nobama]

Originally Posted by Looner

Stakhovsky is such a cow .

Attention whore really.

[Roy Emerson]

Expected.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Burrow

The start of wcr's post is nonsense. Bercy was far from target practise. Yes, Ivanisevic and Sampras both banged aces and had very short points, but that's more to do with their game style than anything else. For instance, Federer played one his most memorable earlier matches against Henman there in 2003, which was a wonderful match full of everything. There was nothing wrong with the surface. Just a biased fan.

Scoobs is right in the second post, however. Sickening.

I can take your point about Fedal killing off carpet Bercy (even though the tournament needed the change to see more of the top guys) but to say that Fed helped kill of carpet altogether is a bit unfair.

As for Nadal, he has on many ocassions been instrumental in making surfaces play into his hands. Or rather they'v known what he'd prefer, so often he hasn't even needed to helpfully indicate what suits him best as everybody knows it...

[alter ego]

President Federer to save tennis from ass slow courts.

[Looner]

Finally, this post shows that Paris was not the last carpet event.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=152

This post also makes a lot of sense.
http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=169

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Looner

I can take your point about Fedal killing off carpet Bercy (even though the tournament needed the change to see more of the top guys) but to say that Fed helped kill of carpet altogether is a bit unfair.

As for Nadal, he has on many ocassions been instrumental in making surfaces play into his hands. Or rather they'v known what he'd prefer, so often he hasn't even needed to helpfully indicate what suits him best as everybody knows it...

Well, that discussion is for the other thread we were talking in. But as I've already said, Bercy was the only carpet court left on tour. Now how doesn't helping kill off carpet at Bercy not equate to killing off carpet altogether?

For one, it would send a message throughout any tournament organisation that the world's biggest star does no like carpet and thus would have little enthusiasm playing on the surface and especially if it wasn't mandatory, so there goes one incentive to bring back carpet to the tour. And second of all, when carpet became extinct on tour, then why would anyone even think about bringing it back, considering the direction tennis is heading into?

I'm not saying it's Federer's fault that carpet is gone, but I am saying that in a few years time, it might look like Federer's influence could have been crucial. If Federer wanted carpet to stay and voiced his opinion on why it should stay and influenced others on voicing their opinions (there's plenty), then it might still be with us.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Looner

Finally, this post shows that Paris was not the last carpet event.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=152

This post also makes a lot of sense.
http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=169

How does that show anything?

Please tell me which other events where carpet after Moscow Paris 2006. I'm generally interested to know if there was one left. There might be one I'm missing out on.

Certainly there was none as big and as prestigious as Paris, which is really what carpet deserved.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Burrow

Well, that discussion is for the other thread we were talking in. But as I've already said, Bercy was the only carpet court left on tour. Now how doesn't helping kill of carpet at Bercy not equate to killing off carpet altogether?

For one, it would send a message throughout any tournament organisation that the world's biggest star does no like carpet and thus would have little enthusiasm playing on the surface and especially if it wasn't mandatory, so there goes one incentive to bring back carpet to the tour. And second of all, when carpet became extinct on tour, then why would anyone even think about bringing it back, considering the direction tennis is heading into?

I'm not saying it's Federer's fault that carpet is gone, but I am saying that in a few years time, it might look like Federer's influence could have been crucial. If Federer wanted carpet to stay and voiced his opinion on why it should stay and influenced others on voicing their opinions (there's plenty), then it might still be with us.

As I just said, if you read that thread (as I just did as I found it a nice flashback to MTF back in the days as well as tennis during the Fedal domination), you'd see that people were suggesting some tournaments were going to change after Bercy.

The reason it switched was to attract the top players and because Madrid had switched. They're not independent events. In order to make the transition easier, Paris switched. Sure, you can blame Federer (obviously he has his blame here) but he's stopped a ridiculous amount of controversial and rather stupid decisions over the years, so I guess he cannot always get it right.

Originally Posted by Burrow

How does that show anything?

Please tell me which other events where carpet after Moscow Paris 2006. I'm generally interested to know if there was one left. There might be one I'm missing out on.

Certainly there was none as big and as prestigious as Paris, which is really what carpet deserved.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=155

It was this post that I referenced. I am not sure if it's accurate but it seems I may have to go back and google some of this. I am not a blind Fed worshipper but I've heard this slayer of carpet too often to not check these claims.

EDIT: Just checked - Basel and Paris both switched to hard in 2007.

[Johnny Groove]

There are like 2-3 carpet events on the challenger tour, and surely a few on the futures tour as well.

Everything post USO ought to be carpet imo.

As for Don Fed Corleone as President of the council, never in doubt, this is a good thing. Hopefully he can tell the head ATP people to shove it when it comes to 2 year rankings and all other nonsense proposals.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Looner

As I just said, if you read that thread (as I just did as I found it a nice flashback to MTF back in the days as well as tennis during the Fedal domination), you'd see that people were suggesting some tournaments were going to change after Bercy.

The reason it switched was to attract the top players and because Madrid had switched. They're not independent events. In order to make the transition easier, Paris switched. Sure, you can blame Federer (obviously he has his blame here) but he's stopped a ridiculous amount of controversial and rather stupid decisions over the years, so I guess he cannot always get it right.



http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...&postcount=155

It was this post that I referenced. I am not sure if it's accurate but it seems I may have to go back and google some of this. I am not a blind Fed worshipper but I've heard this slayer of carpet too often to not check these claims.

I'm not reading through that thread, far too much tosh.

Tournaments were going to change in which direction? To carpet? I've never heard solid claims on this and it obviously didn't happen.

That is just a poor reason. To make the transition easier? Come on. You know as well as I do that there would hardly be some massive transition needed and it certainly wasn't one that could cause injury or so forth, so to there should be no complaints about making a small transition.

Yes, Federer is far to blame, I was just pointing out in that previous thread that he also backed the decision. I wasn't claiming any more.

[Looner]

On another topic, I thought the election took place before/after Wimbledon. I thought Fed had already been elected for his 3rd term. I guess I was wrong .

Originally Posted by Burrow

I'm not reading through that thread, far too much tosh.

Tournaments were going to change in which direction? To carpet? I've never heard solid claims on this and it obviously didn't happen.

That is just a poor reason. To make the transition easier? Come on. You know as well as I do that there would hardly be some massive transition needed and it certainly wasn't one that could cause injury or so forth, so to there should be no complaints about making a small transition.

Yes, Federer is far to blame, I was just pointing out in that previous thread that he also backed the decision. I wasn't claiming any more.

Nah, I see your points. The transition I was talking about is from Madrid and all other tournaments through to WTF (which was going to be played on hardcourts to level the playing field). So a carpet event just before the YEC was a bit odd and the tournament would find it hard to meet the targets of ATP 1000 tournaments that were set when the revamp of the ATP took place in 2009. I think that's the transition that was mentioned.

Federer did win Basel on carpet, so I think the reason for wanting change here was that the Bercy tournament would be an odd one out in the post-USO season. That's the only logic behind this incomprehensible plea I can see .

[Burrow]

And yes, Looner, Moscow also switched in 2007. I'm not sure which decision became public first, but either way it was no good for tennis. It was the final step in complete homogenisation before the Australian Open flogged Rebound Ace.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Burrow

And yes, Looner, Moscow also switched in 2007. I'm not sure which decision became public first, but either way it was no good for tennis. It was the final step in complete homogenisation before the Australian Open flogged Rebound Ace.

So the year in which carpet officially died was 2007. Nice to know but rather sad. I still remember Rebound Ace and every time I watch matches on that God-awful swamp the AO has right now.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Looner

On another topic, I thought the election took place before/after Wimbledon. I thought Fed had already been elected for his 3rd term. I guess I was wrong .



Nah, I see your points. The transition I was talking about is from Madrid and all other tournaments through to WTF (which was going to be played on hardcourts to level the playing field). So a carpet event just before the YEC was a bit odd and the tournament would find it hard to meet the targets of ATP 1000 tournaments that were set when the revamp of the ATP took place in 2009. I think that's the transition that was mentioned.

Federer did win Basel on carpet, so I think the reason for wanting change here was that the Bercy tournament would be an odd one out in the post-USO season. That's the only logic behind this incomprehensible plea I can see .

I guess it's just down to personal opinion. I don't think there was a massive difference between Shanghai and Bercy's carpet. Bercy didn't have the fastest carpet going and Shanghai was pretty quick. I don't think that Paris should be seen as a warm up tournament to the Masters Cup anyway, it was a prestigious tournament in its own right and in the words of Ljubicic "it's disrespectful towards Bercy"

I really don't know why he said the little he did but when you're as influencial as Federer, it has to be heard, when you're giving as much power to the players.

And yes, there's a lot of things wrong with the tour and getting rid of Rebound Ace was a silly idea considering the amount of incredible matches that were played there every year and not just because they were long slugfests with long rallies either.

[castle007]

Nobama, why was Federer walking like that? O.o