PDA

View Full Version : Is the grass season too short?


superstition
06-08-2008, 09:07 PM
Is the grass season too short? I say it is. The US Open and the Australian Open used to be played on grass. So many more tournaments used to be on grass. Players had longer careers and fewer injuries. Having more grass tournaments could bring greater variety back to the game. No one specializes in grass court play anymore because of the shrinkage. The argument that grass is hard/expensive to maintain forgets that most tournaments used to be on grass, so it's not like it's too difficult for pro tennis to be played on grass. The argument that players will need to train on grass as rec/college/juniors to be successful isn't accurate. The Williams sisters and countless others have won slams on grass despite growing up playing on hard courts. The argument that players don't like playing on grass isn't accurate. Most pros like playing on grass, although clay specialists tend to prefer clay. The real issue with hard courts is the damage to the body, particularly for WTA players.

Clay is harder to master than grass for a hard court player. There should be more clay tournaments in the USA, and I don't see why more universities with big tennis programs don't have some clay courts.

I've opened this as a poll.

BeHappy
06-08-2008, 09:10 PM
I actually think it's too long, waaaaaaaaaay to long.It's ridiculous!

superstition
06-08-2008, 09:11 PM
That's not what people were saying here (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=202307) and in other topics which is why I created this poll.

obnoxious2
06-08-2008, 09:46 PM
Grass season is the least tenuous on the body yet it's the shortest season. It's only like one month. 2 weeks for 2 separate warmups and 2 weeks of Wimbledon.

superstition
06-08-2008, 09:48 PM
Grass season is the least tenuous on the body yet it's the shortest season. It's only like one month. 2 weeks for 2 separate warmups and 2 weeks of Wimbledon.
It's the shortest season now, but it used to be the longest. I agree that it's silly since it's the best for the body.

Fee
06-08-2008, 09:49 PM
That's far too much math for me to do at this point of the day. Yes, the grass season is too short.

gj011
06-08-2008, 09:50 PM
The answer is obvious. 30-30-30-10, but that will never happen, unfortunately.
Grass season will stay short for following two reasons mainly:

1. RG and Wimbledon are too close and neither is willing to move.

2. Not enough grass courts and venues.

superstition
06-08-2008, 09:53 PM
The answer is obvious. 30-30-30-10, but that will never happen, unfortunately.
Most tournaments used to be on grass.
Grass season will stay short for following two reasons mainly:

1. RG and Wimbledon are too close and neither is willing to move.
Why is this a problem? The grass season used to be the longest. Were Wimbledon and RG played at different times in the past?
2. Not enough grass courts and venues.
This makes no sense since there were lots of grass court tournaments in the past. There's nothing stopping tournaments from going back to grass other than greed or climate. I agree that tournaments in dry places like Arizona shouldn't go grass, but other places have the right climate.

Voltron
06-08-2008, 10:04 PM
Personally, I'd love a long grass season, as well as more grass courts for junior tournaments. I'd also love to see more clay for juniors. (but not for pros)

Hot Sauce
06-08-2008, 10:26 PM
Yeah, it's definitely too short. I'd go with 30-30-30-10. Why is it that the grass season used to be much longer, but now it's the shortest?

lovecr717
06-09-2008, 12:58 AM
30 grass 15 clay 40 hard 15 carpet

cueboyzn
06-09-2008, 01:08 AM
There should be at least one Masters Series Event on Grass. To have 3 Masters events on Clay, 4 on Hard courts and 2 on Carpet and not even one on Grass is a joke.

You have 3 Masters events as preparation for the French. But not even one masters event on grass as preparation for Wimbledon, which is supposed to be the most important/prestigious Grand Slam.

JamaicanYoute
06-09-2008, 07:03 AM
Way too short. It's really ridiculous. As someone pointed out, they don't even have a Masters played on grass. That's just plain bad. Especially since so much used to be played on grass.

And while we're on grass - these guys need to get back to the faster grass. Just like we have the 'clay court specialist', the 'grass court specialist' has gone extinct. I think for the most part Wimbledon is considered the largest/most prestigious tournament, so its only right to have a longer warm up to it.

leonidas1982
06-09-2008, 07:12 AM
Most tournaments used to be on grass.

Why is this a problem? The grass season used to be the longest. Were Wimbledon and RG played at different times in the past?

This makes no sense since there were lots of grass court tournaments in the past. There's nothing stopping tournaments from going back to grass other than greed or climate. I agree that tournaments in dry places like Arizona shouldn't go grass, but other places have the right climate.

There are plenty of venues in England (Manchester, Kent, Liverpool, and up north), Denmark, and the Netherlands.

cknobman
06-09-2008, 07:23 AM
30,30,30,10

Give all major surfaces even playing time while still alotting time for carpet.

leonidas1982
06-09-2008, 07:30 AM
30,30,30,10

Give all major surfaces even playing time while still alotting time for carpet.

Also, the slams should emulate the US Open with its US Open series build-up.

Mansewerz
06-09-2008, 09:01 AM
It's not even a season. It needs to be longer.

Rabbit
06-09-2008, 09:06 AM
The grass court season should be extended. It should start after Roland Garos and go through the US Open. There used to be plenty of venues in the northeastern United States for grass and could be once again.

The hardcourt season should really be between the Australian, yes I am not for the Aussie being on hardcourts, and the start of the claycourt season. This would encompass the Indian Wells and Miami events and that should pretty much be it except for the smaller venues and exhibitions.

And I 100% agree with other posters that there should be a minimum of 1 Masters Series event on grass with the schedule as is. If they lengthen the grass court season, there should be more.

Any mandatory event on the ATP/WTA schedules should be played on a natural surface IMO.

Vision84
06-09-2008, 09:18 AM
It should be 35% grass, 35% hard, 20% clay, 10% carpet

93sq.
06-09-2008, 09:24 AM
Wait a minute...a Grass season!?
Is there a grass season!?
Is Wimbledon a grass tournament!?

Vision84
06-09-2008, 09:32 AM
Is Wimbledon a grass tournament!?
Hardly. To slow for grass and allows clay courters to be dominant to easily.

Andres
06-09-2008, 09:35 AM
There should be at least one Masters Series Event on Grass. To have 3 Masters events on Clay, 4 on Hard courts and 2 on Carpet and not even one on Grass is a joke.

You have 3 Masters events as preparation for the French. But not even one masters event on grass as preparation for Wimbledon, which is supposed to be the most important/prestigious Grand Slam.
There are no MS on carpet anymore. Paris and Madrid are using indoor hardcourts for the past 2 years. MS Paris used to be my favourite MS shield with its ultra-fast carpet. Even Lyon's carpet has been slowed down :(

Andres
06-09-2008, 09:36 AM
30% grass, 30% clay, 25% hard, and 15% carpet

CAAARPEEEET CAAARPEEEET CARPEEEEET

Klatu Verata Necktie
06-09-2008, 09:43 AM
The biggest obstacle I can see in instituting a longer grass court season is in the lack of grass court clubs for players to train on. Someone mentioned that there are grass court venues in several countries, but those are simply not enough to provide proper training for the players who will participate in the grass court season.

I live in Miami, which is a virtual tennis Meca. We have loads of clay and hard courts to choose from, but if we want to play on grass courts, we have to reserve one of the 2 courts in the entire city! Grass courts are no longer as prevalent as they used to be, which explains the decrease in grass court tournaments.

Benhur
06-09-2008, 09:45 AM
Yes, it is much too short, and so is the clay season.

The third option (30, 30, 30 and 10) seems the most reasonable to give an accurate assessment of player's all-court ability.

Distribution of master's series events should also follow the same proportions.

Of course, that would be in a utopic world. In the real one, the current trend of hard court increasing predominance will probably continue.

flyer
06-09-2008, 09:57 AM
its a debatable subject, logically the fairest thing would be something along the lines of 30/30/30/10, but thats is unrealistic in actuality, also i think one of the things that makes wimbledon special is the fact that it is one grass and thats just about the only time be get to see grass tennis, when you think of lawn tennis you think of wimbledon, it does not need any masters series build ups or anything like that....i think extending the grass season would change wimledon in a way...

CyBorg
06-09-2008, 10:02 AM
I'm fine with the summer grass court season being the way it is. The more you think about it the less you know, really. It's very hard to institute a summer MS on grass.

Instead I'd like to see Australia go to grass again. Along with that we'd have grass events in New Zealand and South Africa. That would be a treat.

Rabbit
06-09-2008, 10:05 AM
The biggest obstacle I can see in instituting a longer grass court season is in the lack of grass court clubs for players to train on. Someone mentioned that there are grass court venues in several countries, but those are simply not enough to provide proper training for the players who will participate in the grass court season.

I live in Miami, which is a virtual tennis Meca. We have loads of clay and hard courts to choose from, but if we want to play on grass courts, we have to reserve one of the 2 courts in the entire city! Grass courts are no longer as prevalent as they used to be, which explains the decrease in grass court tournaments.

Well, I really think it's a chicken/egg discussion. There are probably fewer HarTru venues around the country since 1978 when the US Open changed its surface choice. Prior to that, there was an entire US clay season.

Ever since the late 70's, tournaments leading up to the Grand Slams have tailored their surfaces to give the players practice on the Grand Slam surface. If one of the Grand Slams changes their surface, like the US Open from clay to grass, these tourneys change their surfaces to suit. Should, not likely, but should the USTA opt for grass once again, I can assure you that you will see a resurgence in grass court facilities to match.

So, the real reason for the decline in grass courts is the change in the Grand Slam venue.

leonidas1982
06-09-2008, 10:14 AM
The biggest obstacle I can see in instituting a longer grass court season is in the lack of grass court clubs for players to train on. Someone mentioned that there are grass court venues in several countries, but those are simply not enough to provide proper training for the players who will participate in the grass court season.

I live in Miami, which is a virtual tennis Meca. We have loads of clay and hard courts to choose from, but if we want to play on grass courts, we have to reserve one of the 2 courts in the entire city! Grass courts are no longer as prevalent as they used to be, which explains the decrease in grass court tournaments.

Or it could be that the reduction in Grass tournaments has led to a decrease in grass courts at clubs. But as you said, you live in Miami, I don't expect the city to have much grass courts. There are other clubs in the US with grass courts, Northeast, Northwest, Georgia, and the *******. Plenty of places to train. How do the players train for the clay season, they travel to the continent (Spain, Monaco, Portugal, etc).

Besides, let us not confuse the ATP circuit with the challengers and lower tours; they have a more grass tournaments.

textbook strokes
06-09-2008, 10:26 AM
I am compelled to say... that tennis on grass is really boring for a big portion of tennis' fans population.
Too many unforced errors and short points... . I know many posters will attack me after saying this. No matter, it should be said.

leonidas1982
06-09-2008, 10:29 AM
What is a big portion? Do you have numbers, facts? Or do you feel compelled to present your preference as fact?

superstition
06-09-2008, 10:31 AM
I am compelled to say... that tennis on grass is really boring for a big portion of tennis' fans population.
Too many unforced errors and short points... . I know many posters will attack me after saying this. No matter, it should be said.
Which is why grass events like Wimbledon were packed. I've heard this same theory about wood racquets and yet tennis was more popular when it was played with wood and there were many more grass tournaments - more popular than it is now.
30/30/30/10 but thats is unrealistic in actuality
It's not unrealistic at all.

textbook strokes
06-09-2008, 10:35 AM
Which is why grass events like Wimbledon were packed. I've heard this same theory about wood racquets and yet tennis was more popular when it was played with wood and there were many more grass tournaments - more popular than it is now.

It's not unrealistic at all.

Yeah, wood and grass... omg!.

It just not going to happen.

dgrave2
06-09-2008, 11:21 AM
There are 4 different court types... 4 slams.. I think there should be a slam for each surface.. and I've never understood why there are back to back slams.. 4 slams.. 12 months.. put a slam once every 3 months. Sorry I'm a pattern type of person haha.

leonidas1982
06-09-2008, 11:25 AM
http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6611306

William Lawrence
06-09-2008, 01:55 PM
The answer is obvious. 30-30-30-10, but that will never happen, unfortunately.
Grass season will stay short for following two reasons mainly:

1. RG and Wimbledon are too close and neither is willing to move.

2. Not enough grass courts and venues.

Most tournaments used to be on grass.

Why is this a problem? The grass season used to be the longest. Were Wimbledon and RG played at different times in the past?

Yeah, gj011 is right about the French and Wimbledon both refusing to move part.

The reasons given, and I may be wrong on this, but as I understand it, the FFT don't want to move Roland Garros up a week because of weather concerns. Meaning, that during the first week of the French (if it were moved up), during that time of year (middle of May instead of the end of May), the weather is too unpredictable. And often times it may be a bit too cold.

Their argument makes total sense to me. Because given the weather here on the East Coast in the U.S., you never know what it's going to be like the week before Memorial Day. You can get some nice weather, or you may still need your winter coat. After Memorial Day though it's a lot more predictable.

Wimbledon's argument is a little more shaky though, if you ask me. From what I understand, The All England Club and the LTA also don't want to move because of weather concerns. Their concern though it that it may be too hot if Wimbledon finished up in the second week of July instead of the first.

That's kind of like, "Yeah, whatever..." to me.

I think the real reason is, is that they're Wimbledon, and they're not moving "The Championships" for anyone or anything.

Of course, with Wimbledon being my second favorite tournament after the U.S. Open, all I can say to their reasoning is... it works for me. (I fully agree that if anybody should move, it should be the French.)

As for the fact that the grass court season used to be the longest:

Well, remember, what is now the hardcourt season that leads up to the U.S. Open (at Flushing Meadows), that once upon a time was part of the grass court season leading up to the U.S. Open (at Forest Hills).

One solution to solving the lack of a grass court season problem though, is to somehow convince Australia to switch back to grass.

And I say Australia instead of the U.S. because tennis is more popular in Australia than in the U.S., and I think the Australians would be more open to doing something like that. Of course I could be wrong about this.

The short-term risk (short-term as in a maybe one generation of players; 10-15 years) of Australia moving back to grass is that, the players who don't like to play on grass (and only play Wimbledon because it's Wimbledon) may not be so eager to make the trip all the way down to Oz just to lose early.

For subsequent generations of players this probably wouldn't be as big of an issue. But in the short-term they could take a hit.

Q&M son
06-09-2008, 02:44 PM
Tooo short for me....

superstition
06-09-2008, 06:22 PM
Yeah, wood and grass... omg!. It just not going to happen.
OMG! Wood isn't what I was referring to and that's obvious from the post.

mnguyen8
06-09-2008, 07:00 PM
Lengthen the grass season and shorten the clay season....please!

superstition
06-09-2008, 07:03 PM
We should keep in mind that clay is very popular in countries where tennis has a strong following. So, it's not a good idea to give clay short shrift. Really, we need to have more clay in the USA. Our players shouldn't be like fish out of water on it. Clay, although not as easy on the body as grass, is still easier on the body than concrete, too.

Mansewerz
06-09-2008, 07:06 PM
Lengthen the grass season and shorten the clay season....please!

Nah, get rid of some hard court tournies. We have a lot of HC tournies and some changes would be nice.

pow
06-09-2008, 07:09 PM
30-30-30-10

Grass is too short, it's entertaining, I'm surprised not many venues use it.
Lazy?

tlm
06-09-2008, 07:11 PM
Grass court tennis is a bore, nothing but a serving contest. It is long enough now, dont extend it.

matchmaker
06-09-2008, 07:14 PM
Yes it is too short it should be at least about 6 to 8 weeks

Tempest344
06-09-2008, 08:23 PM
I would cut down the hard court tournaments...they are a major reason for knee injuries...very unforgiving

and yes the grass season is too short

Lendl and Federer Fan
06-09-2008, 08:34 PM
There should be 2 AMS played on grass every year.

Vision84
06-09-2008, 08:41 PM
its a debatable subject, logically the fairest thing would be something along the lines of 30/30/30/10, but thats is unrealistic in actuality, also i think one of the things that makes wimbledon special is the fact that it is one grass and thats just about the only time be get to see grass tennis, when you think of lawn tennis you think of wimbledon, it does not need any masters series build ups or anything like that....i think extending the grass season would change wimledon in a way...

I see your point but that means it is rare to see grass court specialists these days. Wimbledon is not that different from other surfaces now that it has turned into a baseline bashing fest. It makes it less enjoyable to watch and not really Wimbledon anymore.

Murray_Maniac
06-09-2008, 08:42 PM
There should be 2 AMS played on grass every year.

Yea, the grass season is too short. I think that they should cut the canada masters and Paris. Theres already a big tournament in Paris! The canada masters seems like the least important hardcourt masters series. Im soo mad that they'll probably cut Hamburg. I like it better than Monte carlo and Rome. Its similar to hardcourt but its still clay. Plus that roof is cool.

The balls in your court.
06-09-2008, 08:44 PM
Grass is an antiquated surface that only one country plays on .

Wimbledon should only be played with wooden racquest and looked at as a cute nostalgic surface that brigs us back to the roots of tennis. It has no place in todays tennis world.

flyer
06-09-2008, 09:16 PM
I see your point but that means it is rare to see grass court specialists these days. Wimbledon is not that different from other surfaces now that it has turned into a baseline bashing fest. It makes it less enjoyable to watch and not really Wimbledon anymore.

i see your point, however, im a nadal fan, so im ok with the slow lawn for a few more years, but i agree it does change it

superstition
06-09-2008, 09:25 PM
Grass is an antiquated surface that only one country plays on .

Wimbledon should only be played with wooden racquest and looked at as a cute nostalgic surface that brigs us back to the roots of tennis. It has no place in todays tennis world.
Your comment neglects the fact that the human body is even more "antiquated" than grass court tennis. It hasn't evolved into a cyborg like the Terminator. Hard synthetics simply are hard on the human body. When we start having metal and graphite bodies, then you might be right. Until then, grass remains the surface that's the most compatible with the human body.

Markus Kaila
06-10-2008, 03:35 AM
and I quote myself, too: "It seems that we have same opinions, because I believe that it would be a real blessing for pro tennis if it could entirely get rid of all artificial surface materials. Two grand slams on red clay, two on grass; back to the roots of tennis!"

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=37

North
06-10-2008, 10:34 AM
30 grass, 30 hard, 30 carpet, 10 clay

danb
06-10-2008, 11:05 AM
Grass season is the least tenuous on the body yet it's the shortest season. It's only like one month. 2 weeks for 2 separate warmups and 2 weeks of Wimbledon.

Correct - clay and grass should be longer then the hard court. Clay is fine (is long enough I think) but the hard court season is way too long. I think there is a business reason - hard courts are cheaper to build and maintain.

danb
06-10-2008, 11:06 AM
and I quote myself, too: "It seems that we have same opinions, because I believe that it would be a real blessing for pro tennis if it could entirely get rid of all artificial surface materials. Two grand slams on red clay, two on grass; back to the roots of tennis!"

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=37

Hmmm - not a bad ideea. hard courts are BAD for the body.

sureshs
06-10-2008, 11:06 AM
I don't think there is even a grass court "season." And the one big tournament in it is so close after the FO it is not fair.

beedlejuice22
06-10-2008, 11:08 AM
They should put RG earlier in the season when there is a big chunk of no slams. Then get rid of some of the australian tournaments to have the red clay season. We have way too many hardcourt tournaments and not enough variety. After RG they shouldhave more grass tournaments.

miniRafa386
06-10-2008, 11:11 AM
they should get rid of stuttgart and the tournaments within 2 weeks after wimbly, move wimbledon to those two weeks, have a masters grass tourny and a warm up or so, and call it a day.

Markus Kaila
06-10-2008, 11:18 AM
Correct - clay and grass should be longer then the hard court. Clay is fine (is long enough I think) but the hard court season is way too long. I think there is a business reason - hard courts are cheaper to build and maintain.

Money can't be any problem. Look at this:

http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/en/media/rankings/Current_Prize.pdf

Even #50 (S Darcis) has earned over 300 000 US dollars in 5 months by playing tennis. OK. It is only 200 000 €!

PS.My suggestion:40% grass, 50% clay, 0% hard, and 10% carpet

dh003i
06-10-2008, 11:22 AM
I like 30% : 30% : 30% : 10% grass : clay : hard : carpet...or even 35% : 35% : 20% : 10%, or maybe even 40% : 40% : 15% : 5%.

Eviscerator
06-10-2008, 11:24 AM
We want more grass.
Please make it happen by next season.

Thanks in advance for your efforts.

leonidas1982
06-10-2008, 11:26 AM
Sounds logical, what I would suggest. However, the onus is on Wimbledon to move. They refuse to. I'm all for tradition in sports, but at times one must make adjustments. If Roland Garros were to be moved up, the weather will not be pleasant.

superstition
06-10-2008, 04:49 PM
Perhaps there could be some overlap, like having more grass tournaments concurrently with hard court tournaments and hard court tournaments concurrently with clay tournaments?

superstition
06-10-2008, 10:01 PM
It looks like the second option should have been 40% grass, 40% clay, 12% hard, and 8% carpet.

MTXR
06-10-2008, 10:28 PM
Is there only 2 grass tournaments before wimby?

It seems like its only artois and halle...

If so, thats way short...less clay and a few more grass should be a good even season.

superman1
06-10-2008, 10:47 PM
Grass is incredibly fun to watch. Tennis ratings are in the dumps and it wouldn't hurt them to extend the grass season to get a few more viewers. Only tennis fans can stand to watch claycourt tennis on TV. Most people complain that they can't even see the ball and change the channel.

The indoor season is fine but they should speed those courts up. We need fast courts SOMEWHERE.

What they should do is go 30/30/30/10, and separate the grass season into different components. Some fast grass, some slow grass.

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 06:00 AM
Grass is an antiquated surface that only one country plays on .

Wimbledon should only be played with wooden racquets and looked at as a cute nostalgic surface that brigs us back to the roots of tennis. It has no place in todays tennis world.

I also want to add that the men should also wear long white pants and long white sleeve shirts. The women of course should wear dresses down to their ankles.

...wait a minute!!! federer already wears his cutesy little wimby outfit to every match!

superstition
06-11-2008, 10:55 AM
I also want to add that the men should also wear long white pants and long white sleeve shirts. The women of course should wear dresses down to their ankles.
Ignoring rebuttals posted in response to flawed arguments is even older.

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 11:17 AM
oops..................

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 11:29 AM
Is the grass season too short? I say it is. .

Transaltion: "I am a fed fan and I am really upset that fed keeps getting his butt kicked on clay"

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 11:38 AM
30-30-30-10 sounds just right for me. Unfortunately, it's not close to that formula right now. :(

edmondsm
06-11-2008, 11:44 AM
It'll never happen. Tournament directors and the ATP will always be looking out for their respective bottom lines. This is why the grass season has been all but eliminated and the clay season is getting squeezed. These surfaces are much more expensive to maintain then hardcourts and therefore will never return to there former prominence. The more viable solution would be to have tournaments on some sort of artificial grass like field-turf. Does anyone know if it has been tried before?

Blade0324
06-11-2008, 12:05 PM
Boo to grass. Just because other tournaments have been played on grass in the past does not mean that they should be now. The surfaces that are played on now is a good representation of where tennis has evolved to at present. I know superstition would love to see it go away from poly strings and the racquets of today but the fact is the game is better the way it is for the masses or else it would not be where it is today. This arguement is like saying Nascar is too fast and there are too many crashes. We should go back to racing charriots on dirt tracks. Whatever

iPlayer
06-11-2008, 12:14 PM
Stop complaining about the lack of S&V and get on with your life.

superstition
06-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Three stupid personal attack posts in such a short span. Joy. Grass isn't just about serve and volley, and recycling the "evolution" argument won't make it any better. The human body hasn't evolved into a cyborg yet. So, grass is still easier on the body than concrete.
Transaltion: "I am a fed fan and I am really upset that fed keeps getting his butt kicked on clay"
Quit trolling. I voted for the first choice which would make the clay season about the same length as the grass season. My reasons have little, if anything, to do with Federer. I'm happy to see Nadal playing well and was disappointed that he "lost" to Ferrero because of the horrible state of his feet. Give up and move on.

martin8768
06-11-2008, 01:08 PM
their should be noooo carpet lol 33 33 33

iPlayer
06-11-2008, 01:25 PM
If you're going to shoot down everyone who says anything against grass then why not just give 1 poll option. Then everyone has to agree with how right you are!

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 02:08 PM
Quit trolling.

Have you ever heard of Mcarthyism?

It happened during the 1950's. Anyone you was suspected of being a communist was persecuted and a witch hunt ensued wherein the accused life was completely ruined. Anyone who the government perceived as a threat was labeled as a "communist" and persecuted as such.

During the Salem witch hunts anyone who was considered a threat was burned at the stake.

The same gose on here at TW. Any perceived threat to Federer automatically qualifies one as a troll and subjects one to a witchunt just like in the Salem witchunts or during Mcarthy communist trials.

The truth is that grass is only played on by one country , It is an antiquated and outdated surface that represents a minority of tennis as it exists in the world today.

adlis
06-11-2008, 02:15 PM
this is what the tour would look like with more grass...
http://i14.tinypic.com/4kmixpg.jpg

superstition
06-12-2008, 10:29 AM
If you're going to shoot down everyone who says anything against grass then why not just give 1 poll option. Then everyone has to agree with how right you are!
There's a big difference between personally attacking someone and debating the number of grass tournaments. And, poor reasoning is poor reasoning. The "evolution" argument is meritless because it's based on the faulty idea that the human body has evolved to a point where hard synthetics aren't harmful and grass is no longer an advantage for safety.

superstition
06-12-2008, 10:29 AM
this is what the tour would look like with more grass..
Are you referring to an advantage for tall players? Santoro won a grass event last year.

Djokovicfan4life
06-12-2008, 10:32 AM
Are you referring to an advantage for tall players? Santoro won a grass event last year.

Well yeah, but Santoro is Santoro. :)

superstition
06-12-2008, 10:33 AM
Well yeah, but Santoro is Santoro. :)
Agassi won Wimbledon, too.

Blade0324
06-12-2008, 12:44 PM
No one has ever said that the hardcourts are not harder on the body than grass. Here is an arguement for you, Who Cares? What difference does it make what is easier or harder on the body. As numerous others have said hardcourts produce better tennis for todays game. The arguement that Grass is antequated is not merritless it is the truth. You have every right to have your opinion on grass vs. hardcourts etc. but so do others. You just are not willing to see anyone elses point of view if they disagree with yours.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 12:45 PM
More grass would be fine as long as it isn't the same crap AELTC uses.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 12:50 PM
Your comment neglects the fact that the human body is even more "antiquated" than grass court tennis. It hasn't evolved into a cyborg like the Terminator. Hard synthetics simply are hard on the human body. When we start having metal and graphite bodies, then you might be right. Until then, grass remains the surface that's the most compatible with the human body.


Limestone is naturally made, should we be playing on that too?

McNasty911
06-12-2008, 12:52 PM
Hard should be the most played cause its not as fast as grass not as slow as clay, kind of a neutral. Clay and grass should be the same. And no one really cares about carpet. So like like 40 hard 30 clay 30 grass.

superstition
06-12-2008, 12:53 PM
Here is an arguement for you, Who Cares? What difference does it make what is easier or harder on the body.
And easy position to take when it's not your body that you depend on for your livelihood. And, it's better for the sport to have players who can have long careers and not have to pull out of events or play poorly.
As numerous others have said
Numerous people said the Earth is flat once.
hardcourts produce better tennis
That is a very subjective opinion, and one that is outweighed in my view by the damage done to the body which produces, ultimately, less quality tennis. Shortened careers and hampered play due to unnecessary injuries is not a recipe for success.
for todays game.
I'm not talking about today's game. This post is about the future.
The arguement that Grass is antequated is not merritless it is the truth.
Just like the notion that the human body has evolved from organic to synthetic and therefore is right at home on concrete?
You have every right to have your opinion on grass vs. hardcourts etc. but so do others. You just are not willing to see anyone elses point of view if they disagree with yours.
Opinions are never equal. Opinions are estimations of truth and truth is singular. If someone's opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese that opinion is less valid than another's opinion that it is made of rock. Evidence is what counts.

superstition
06-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Hard should be the most played cause its not as fast as grass not as slow as clay, kind of a neutral. Clay and grass should be the same.
Hard courts are not neutral on the body and therefore the career and the quality of play. If you're not playing the quality of play certainly isn't high! If spectators can't see their favorites players due to early retirement, pull-outs, and injuries, then the quality of tennis offered by concrete is far from neutral.

Hard courts definitely offer advantages to certain types of play, too. They generally do not favor serve and volley because of the regularity of bounces and typically high bounces. Plus, net play can be particularly hard on the joints. Jumping and lunging to hit volleys on concrete is a recipe for bad knees and ankles.

No surface is neutral which is why balance is important. Hard courts favor players who hit flat (faster courts) or topspin (slower, higher bouncing courts) and serve aces. They do not favor slice strokes like grass, or net play.
And no one really cares about carpet. So like like 40 hard 30 clay 30 grass.
I would expect McEnroe, for instance, cares about carpet since he holds the record for consecutive wins on that surface. Some people clearly do care about carpet. The question is, rather, "how many carpet tournaments should there be?"

superstition
06-12-2008, 01:01 PM
Limestone is naturally made, should we be playing on that too?
A more useful question is "Is grass softer than concrete?" Your limestone is a straw man.

dh003i
06-12-2008, 04:06 PM
I agree with the points that HC is harder onthe body. But I don't want less diversity of surfaces. It is interesting that there are different surfaces. I think the HC seasons should be shortened, but still split in two different chunks. I would say 35% grass, 35% clay, 20% HC, 5% carpet, 5% wood.

zagor
06-12-2008, 04:11 PM
I agree with the points that HC is harder onthe body. But I don't want less diversity of surfaces. It is interesting that there are different surfaces. I think the HC seasons should be shortened, but still split in two different chunks. I would say 35% grass, 35% clay, 20% HC, 5% carpet, 5% wood.

HC is harder on body true but hardcourt specialists tend to have far,far longer careers then claycourt specialists simply because rallies are MUCH longer on clay and a shot that is normally a winner on HC will be very reachable on clay,also you earn more free points with your serve on HC.

pabletion
06-12-2008, 04:14 PM
I love to watch grass court tennis, its different and it looks so great. Even though I've never played on grass, and have no grass courts nearby, for me the grass court season is very short, and having a Master Series on grass to me, is a great idea, but I understand it would be hard to fi in the ATP Schedule. Shouldnt the US grass tournament (newport is it? hall of fame?) be before Wimbledon? that would bring bigger players...

dh003i
06-12-2008, 06:05 PM
HC is harder on body true but hardcourt specialists tend to have far,far longer careers then claycourt specialists simply because rallies are MUCH longer on clay and a shot that is normally a winner on HC will be very reachable on clay,also you earn more free points with your serve on HC.

Grass is even easier on the body, though. What about (from start of year), 15% HC, 30% clay, 30% grass, 15% HC, 5% wood, 5% carpet?

Bassus
06-12-2008, 06:40 PM
They really need to rework the schedule, and if it means sacrificing part of the post-Australian Open hard court swing, then so be it.

There should be a Masters Series event on grass that ends at least one weeks before Wimbledon begins. Its been great to see Federer-Nadal at Monte-Carlo, Rome, and Hamburg, and so it would be great to see Federer, Nadal, Roddick, and Djokovich in the same draw at more than one grass court event.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 06:44 PM
Grass is even easier on the body, though. What about (from start of year), 15% HC, 30% clay, 30% grass, 15% HC, 5% wood, 5% carpet?
I see more people slipping on grass than anywhere else. It probably is the most dangerous surface due to all the slipping.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 07:17 PM
A more useful question is "Is grass softer than concrete?" Your limestone is a straw man.



Your whole argument just got blown up into pieces. The human body is natural, and limestone naturally occurs in nature. Does that mean we should be playing on limestone too?


Better yet, should we be playing on other hard natural surfaces because they are "natural" as stated by your argument? Really, this whole "because the body is natural, and grass is natural, we should be playing on it" argument just got blown to pieces.


A much better reason to play on grass is because it forces varied play and it is softer on the body at the same time, usually resulting in higher quality tennis.

ndtennis
06-12-2008, 07:21 PM
more grass would be nice to see...

leonidas1982
06-12-2008, 09:39 PM
Funny, most of the viewers' questions on BBC's coverage of Queen's is about the length of the grass season and why there isn't a grass court masters'.

superstition
06-12-2008, 10:31 PM
Your whole argument just got blown up into pieces.
Oh really?
The human body is natural, and limestone naturally occurs in nature. Does that mean we should be playing on limestone too?
Oh, the straw man again. Impressive.
Better yet, should we be playing on other hard natural surfaces because they are "natural" as stated by your argument? Really, this whole "because the body is natural, and grass is natural, we should be playing on it" argument just got blown to pieces.
The argument is that soft organic materials like grass, gut, and wood are easier on the body than hard synthetics like concrete, poly, and stiff graphite. Your hyperbole isn't helpful. It's just silly.

superstition
06-12-2008, 10:32 PM
I see more people slipping on grass than anywhere else. It probably is the most dangerous surface due to all the slipping.
Let's see the statistics, such as knee/ankle problems due to slippage on grass versus problems due to concrete. Navratilova reduced her hard court play in the mid 80s, citing their hardness on her body. She didn't reduce grass court play for the same reason. I've never heard any pro complain that grass is hard on the body and more likely to cause injury than another surface.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 10:43 PM
Let's see the statistics, such as knee/ankle problems due to slippage on grass versus problems due to concrete. Navratilova reduced her hard court play in the mid 80s, citing their hardness on her body. She didn't reduce grass court play for the same reason. I've never heard any pro complain that grass is hard on the body and more likely to cause injury than another surface.
You got a point but still got to be careful. Especially when the grass is slightly damp. Yeah Nadal doesn't look comfortable on hardcourts. I think it has taken its toll.

HyperHorse
06-13-2008, 12:24 AM
I've got a much better idea for an extended grass court season...
Have some tourneys DURING the French Open, so guys who know they aren't going to do well on clay can get some grass court play instead of wasting time @ French Open, or if they lose early...
Or maybe in the few weeks after Wimbledon, or/and an extra tourney pushing Wimbledon a week forward.

superstition
06-13-2008, 11:40 AM
What about overlap? Aren't there already examples of multiple surfaces being used at the same time? As far as I know, hard court tournaments used to be played alongside grass events. But, there should be a Masters on grass and the WTA should have similar event(s).

kalic
06-13-2008, 12:06 PM
Grass was interesting in Borg/Connors era. Now, you dont watch tennis, you watch services. Boring...

Vision84
06-13-2008, 12:08 PM
Grass was interesting in Borg/Connors era. Now, you dont watch tennis, you watch services. Boring...

It's nice variety from other styles of play and better than boring baseline bashfests on clay.

Blade0324
06-13-2008, 12:15 PM
[/QUOTE]Opinions are never equal. Opinions are estimations of truth and truth is singular. If someone's opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese that opinion is less valid than another's opinion that it is made of rock. Evidence is what counts.[/QUOTE]

So where is your evidence? Seems to me that you have none, so that means your opinion doesn't count. Sounds good to me.

Blade0324
06-13-2008, 12:18 PM
Let's see the statistics, such as knee/ankle problems due to slippage on grass versus problems due to concrete. Navratilova reduced her hard court play in the mid 80s, citing their hardness on her body. She didn't reduce grass court play for the same reason. I've never heard any pro complain that grass is hard on the body and more likely to cause injury than another surface.
WOW, one whole example that is over 20 years old. There are some statistics for you. If you want to talk statistics then have them, otherwise you are just rambling incessently about what YOU think and you have your earplugs in and blinders on to other more rational ideas.

Vision84
06-13-2008, 12:21 PM
It is a widely accepted fact that concrete is the harshest surface on the body.

Vision84
06-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Opinions are never equal. Opinions are estimations of truth and truth is singular. If someone's opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese that opinion is less valid than another's opinion that it is made of rock. Evidence is what counts.

It's called objectivty versus subjectivity. Anything tangible such as the composition of an object is something that is objective. Preference of anything (ie opinions) such as what court is better is entirely subjective.

martin8768
06-13-2008, 01:48 PM
okay i got bored of this thread because of all the trolling and arguments, i mean comon guys can't we have one thread that everyone can share their opinions without someone trying to make their opinion right and everyone else's wrong? anyways once i see someone quoting more then 2 times in one post it seems like their just trying to start a argument,

back on topic, i believe the grass season is to short, but the game is evolving and it seems like grass hasn't changed since ever, and some could say that grass is a tradition of tennis, and i think grass should never go away, but things change and the surface is not what most of the players enjoy i think, it's sometimes inconsistent, and these days, with technology, athletes can argue that they should each get a equal advantage, but grass is tricky and its never the same on ever spot of every court.

edmondsm
06-13-2008, 02:56 PM
back on topic, i believe the grass season is to short, but the game is evolving and it seems like grass hasn't changed since ever, and some could say that grass is a tradition of tennis, and i think grass should never go away, but things change and the surface is not what most of the players enjoy i think, it's sometimes inconsistent, and these days, with technology, athletes can argue that they should each get a equal advantage, but grass is tricky and its never the same on ever spot of every court.

Most would tell you that grass HAS changed, especially at Wimbledon. But I don't think that that has anything to do with the length of the season. Tennis venues the world round are just able to make more money with hardcourts. You don't have to do anything to a hardcourt comparitively, you just lay the surface and play. Grass courts need constant attention and maintainence, same with clay courts, and that means less $$$$ for everybody. With the exception of the grounds crue. Grass remains simply because of tradition, if the All-England club was just looking at their bottom line they would have gone to a hardcourt years ago.

superstition
06-13-2008, 08:15 PM
Tennis venues the world round are just able to make more money with hardcourts. You don't have to do anything to a hardcourt comparitively, you just lay the surface and play. Grass courts need constant attention and maintainence, same with clay courts, and that means less $$$$ for everybody. With the exception of the grounds crue.
Less money for the players who have longer and more productive (less time injured) careers? If grass wasn't profitable, tennis would have switched to clay or hard court a long time ago. Instead, tennis was played on grass for a long time and was popular. In the 20s when Tilden really popularized tennis in America no one said "this sport stinks because of the grass".

The loss of grass courts is one of the factors that has led to the decline of tennis in the USA. Fans want to see their favorite players, not have them retire young (WTA anyone?) or have them pull out so often.

Money can be made with grass tournaments. Superficial greed that hurts the sport overall isn't a long-term strategy for profit.

superstition
06-13-2008, 08:26 PM
but the game is evolving and it seems like grass hasn't changed since ever,
Not the "evolution" thing again...
but things change
Like to 30/30/30/10?
and the surface is not what most of the players enjoy i think
I think most players prefer to have long careers and not get injured frequently.

PCXL-Fan
06-13-2008, 08:59 PM
So whats the reason for no love of carpet? and why wasn't melbourn considered for carpet?

superstition
06-14-2008, 11:17 PM
So whats the reason for no love of carpet? and why wasn't melbourn considered for carpet?
Carpet is a fast surface as far as I know, but it's only used indoors. Most tournaments, to my knowledge, are played outdoors. I doubt many people are going to press tennis to change toward more indoor tournaments, although I suppose it's possible.

It's nice to see Nadal doing so well on fast grass. It shows that even someone without a traditional grass court game can do well on the surface.

superstition
06-15-2008, 10:21 PM
One thing people should note when looking at the results to this poll is that there are a lot of countries where clay is very popular. The fact that this poll is unscientific is demonstrated by the bias in favor of hard court and against clay that's shown in the results. But, even if this poll were scientific, there's also the issue of changing perspective. If this poll would have been conducted in 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, and 1950, the results would likely be different in each decade.

quest01
06-16-2008, 10:02 AM
Whats with all the percentages, wow. I do think the grass court season should be longer. It would be nice if they extended the season and included a Masters Series event on grass.

superstition
06-17-2008, 03:46 PM
Whats with all the percentages, wow. I do think the grass court season should be longer. It would be nice if they extended the season and included a Masters Series event on grass.
Is there a WTA equivalent of the Masters Series? I know there is a year-end championship.

superstition
06-19-2008, 01:34 PM
The talk of the ATP leadership problems (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=197289) makes me hope that the grass problem will be resolved.

leonidas1982
06-19-2008, 01:45 PM
The talk of the ATP leadership problems (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=197289) makes me hope that the grass problem will be resolved.

Agreed. If Ivan Ljubicic does get a board seat, it could; he favours a US Open Series format for slams.

superstition
06-19-2008, 07:09 PM
Agreed. If Ivan Ljubicic does get a board seat, it could; he favours a US Open Series format for slams.
Which means what? Not even more hard courts, I hope. If so, I hope he'll provide complimentary wheelchairs.

leonidas1982
06-19-2008, 07:17 PM
Which means what? Not even more hard courts, I hope. If so, I hope he'll provide complimentary wheelchairs.

An even approach to the slams and their surfaces, I would assume. A mini-season within a season. If I'm not mistaken, Krajicek favours the same approach.

janipyt05
06-19-2008, 07:25 PM
Its not short because English weather will only permit for a short season, any earlier and it will rain any later and guess what it will rain.

Char
06-19-2008, 07:32 PM
It is way too short. I personally feel it should be this way:

30% grass, 30% clay, 25% hard, and 15% carpet

Just drop hard by 5% and toss it into carpet as hard court play is a little too hard on the body over the years. I might drop hard to 20%, but I voted as above.

Problem is the dates on which RG and Wimbledon fall. You'd have to move the dates around some to extend the grass series a bit, and that is about as likely as me winning Wimbledon next year. Look out Federer! ;)

Nadal_Monfils
06-19-2008, 07:36 PM
^^^ Or they could have a Grass Masters Series or two after Wimbledon and shorten the summer hardcourt season. The Masters Series wouldn't be a warm-up for Wimbledon but there is still Queens and Halle for that purpose and then there could be some more important grass tournaments.

Char
06-19-2008, 07:40 PM
^^^ Or they could have a Grass Masters Series or two after Wimbledon and shorten the summer hardcourt season. The Masters Series wouldn't be a warm-up for Wimbledon but there is still Queens and Halle for that purpose and then there could be some more important grass tournaments.

They could. I thought about that, but I wonder what pros would stick on the grass after Wimbledon is over, versus moving on to lead up series for the next slam? Maybe if, as you say, there really wasnt any hardcourt series worthy of attention for a little while to give them the incentive to stay on the grass some. It'd be such a nice thing.

willgonase10
06-19-2008, 07:41 PM
I say screw the indoor European tournaments in the fall.

Push the US Open Series & US Open back a month each and insert some more grass into the season.

superstition
06-19-2008, 08:18 PM
Its not short because English weather will only permit for a short season, any earlier and it will rain any later and guess what it will rain.
Grass tournaments can be added from places like New Zealand which have an ideal climate. And, since most tennis was once played on grass, it seems there is a way to have grass more than for just a short window.

superstition
06-24-2008, 07:33 PM
what pros would stick on the grass after Wimbledon is over, versus moving on to lead up series for the next slam? Maybe if, as you say, there really wasnt any hardcourt series worthy of attention for a little while to give them the incentive to stay on the grass some.
A Masters event would be an incentive. Plus, some players used to specialize in grass, like players specialize in the other two surfaces today.

superstition
06-25-2008, 09:00 PM
No more opinions on this? Or suggestions?

edmondsm
06-25-2008, 09:16 PM
Grass tournaments can be added from places like New Zealand which have an ideal climate. And, since most tennis was once played on grass, it seems there is a way to have grass more than for just a short window.


Honestly though what was that grass like? I don't think that most of those grass tourneys from back in the day looked anything like Wimbledon. Seeing old Aussie Open videos..........it looks like somebody's backyard in Wyoming. I think it is very expensive to maintain a quality grass court that pros (these days) would be willing to play on.

Seriously though, has competitive tennis ever been attempted on an artificial grass surface? That might be a decent compromise.

superstition
06-25-2008, 09:45 PM
Honestly though what was that grass like? I don't think that most of those grass tourneys from back in the day looked anything like Wimbledon. Seeing old Aussie Open videos..........it looks like somebody's backyard in Wyoming. I think it is very expensive to maintain a quality grass court that pros (these days) would be willing to play on.
The Tennis Channel had a special about the Evert family and it showed the old US Open tournament. Those lawns were beautiful. Also, I've seen some grass tournaments on the channel and they look great. The only ratty grass court I've seen in the AO's. Australia probably is too dry.
Seriously though, has competitive tennis ever been attempted on an artificial grass surface? That might be a decent compromise.
It's been used heavily in Australia I've heard and people say it's terrible.

superstition
06-28-2008, 04:41 PM
Quite a few people have been talking about the quality of play at Wimbledon lately, that the grass is helping to make upsets more common and things more interesting. How many would have expected Safin to take out Djokovic on a hard court? What about Ivanovic?

A section of the men's draw features guys we don't normally see much of. Tipsarevic. Clement. Cilic. etc.

superstition
08-03-2008, 01:50 PM
bump due to conversation about Nadal's criticism of the ATP.

superstition
10-20-2008, 10:45 AM
bump again.

Dedans Penthouse
10-20-2008, 11:53 AM
...... slow day eh?

Safinator_1
10-20-2008, 12:19 PM
Hell yes it is the grass court season is a joke compared to others

Blade0324
10-20-2008, 02:07 PM
Not sure why this is coming back around again but as I've said I would prefer them to get rid of grass. If they have to add some more clay or indoor carpet that would be fine but grass court tennis is just slowly becoming a thing of the past.

superstition
10-20-2008, 10:55 PM
I would prefer them to get rid of grass.
Why?

grass court tennis is just slowly becoming a thing of the past.
And if more grass tournaments come into being it will become a thing of the future. Your reasoning is specious.

Blade0324
10-21-2008, 07:06 AM
Why?


And if more grass tournaments come into being it will become a thing of the future. Your reasoning is specious.


Because grass makes for less exciting tennis IMO. I completely love long back and forth rallies from the baseline the majority of the time. I don't mind when a players comes to net to finish on occasion or as a change of pace when the opportunity presents itself but the have fast, low bouncing grass tournaments creates much net play as well as S&V which leads to short points. That is quite boring IMO. Also grass makes for more difficult TV watching due to it's color as the color of the ball. I generally am not a fan of grass. I've played on it and don't like it, it seems very unnatural to play on. I know that the roots of tennis are on grass but it still seems odd and uncomfortable. I would prefer basically clay and H/C with some indoor carpet thrown in.

Phil
10-21-2008, 07:51 AM
The grass season is too short, but I would only be in favor of extending it IF the surfaces conformed to the OLD Wimbledon grass (i.e. pre-2002)...complete with the low bouncing skids...

superstition
10-21-2008, 08:42 AM
Because grass makes for less exciting tennis IMO. I completely love long back and forth rallies from the baseline the majority of the time.
There are many clay tournaments for your preference. Some of us find topspin baselining tedious.

dbc244
10-28-2008, 03:38 PM
No doubt about it, the grass season is way too short & the clay season way too long.
Grass court tennis is so entertaining & we don't get nearly enough of it

Valdez737
10-28-2008, 09:54 PM
More clay/grass less hard

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
10-29-2008, 01:50 AM
There are too many ATP event on hardcourts!!
There is no ATP event for grass courts!! :( Wimbly is not an ATP event as far as I know!

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
10-29-2008, 01:56 AM
CLAY and GRASS please !!!
In other ways natural surfaces!!! not those synthetic stuffs!! :(

40% Clay 40% Crass 20% for carpet and hard ;)

joeri888
10-29-2008, 01:57 AM
Grass season should be longer and a bit quicker (Queens club kinda courts) hardcourts should be shorter and clay is good the way it is. I think it should be clay and Grass equally long. Hardcourts a bit longer than that and some (masters) carpet tournaments as well to add diversity to the game.

@Bless Rafa: If you put down your spanish glasses, explain to me why there should be more clay. There's a grandslam and 3 master series events on clay. That's 30% of the season. More than enough if you ask me. Hardcourts are a joy to watch as well.

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
10-29-2008, 01:59 AM
hello Joeri888

ok ok LOL so they should replace 2 hard court events with 2 grass events ;) you happy now?
Hard courts are too fast to watch no?

It sometimes reminds me of a ping pong match in a different version LOL

I am sorry I prefer to watch grass and clay tennis if I have to spend my money

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
10-29-2008, 02:08 AM
Grass season should be longer and a bit quicker No way sorry ! (Queens club kinda courts)

I am happy of how slow is Wimbly right now! and Queens should follow it :)

joeri888
10-29-2008, 02:13 AM
hello Joeri888

ok ok LOL so they should replace 2 hard court events with 2 grass events ;) you happy now?
Hard courts are too fast to watch no?

It sometimes reminds me of a ping pong match in a different version LOL

I am sorry I prefer to watch grass and clay tennis if I have to spend my money
Everyone's got his preferences, but what should happen to tennis shouldn't depend on who your favourite player is, so he can be no.1 imo. I'd like more grass than hardcourts although I love Federer, Roddick, Nalbandian in who's favour that wouldn't really be. I think for tennis it's key that there's a big diversity in surfaces that are all important and have a Slam.Now it's too many hardcourts and too little grass imo. And grass should be a lot different from both hardcourt and clay.

flying24
10-29-2008, 12:41 PM
yes there should be a couple Masters on grass and a true grass court season. I would like to see a tennis season perfectly balanced between hard courts, clay, grass, an carpet.