PDA

View Full Version : have all courts become homoginized?


tennis-hero
05-14-2009, 04:27 PM
and if so, does it detract from anyone in the near future who might win a calender grand slam

could we in fact say that

since all courts are now so similar, and the field so weak and over saturated with poor baseliner top spin wanna bes, that there is no variety

and no skill

and no multiple surfaces

does a calender grand slam count in such an era

can we really compare it to the great Laver

can we even compare winning the FO-wimby double to the magnificent way borg did it

can we really even compare it to agassi winning both when they were polar opposites?

i ask you, is tennis today really tennis anymore?

dincuss
05-14-2009, 04:29 PM
Well, it is slower, but its not some drastic slowdown. And the tennis played now a days IMO is more physically demanding then it was before, due to more running and more baseliners.

Zaragoza
05-14-2009, 04:41 PM
There's more variety of surfaces now than when Laver won the Grand Slam.
This is another silly thread from tennis-hero who is afraid that Nadal might win the career Grand Slam someday so he is obsessed with discrediting Nadal, the only active player who has won Slams on 3 different surfaces.

Winners or Errors
05-14-2009, 05:02 PM
Well, I'd like to see Nadal win the career Grand Slam, but even with just grass and clay the courts were less homogeneous before they changed the grass at Wimbledon. Silly how much they've slowed down the grass there and made it slower than hard courts. Slow courts are slow courts, no matter what they're made of. More variety would be appreciated by this tennis fan.

That said, if I were the grounds-keeper at Wimbledon and someone told me I could grow grass that would still be green at the end of the tournament, I'd probably have jumped at the chance. Grounds-keepers don't really care about the sport; they care about the health of their plants. In other words, it was probably inevitable that Wimbledon would become slower.

Doesn't take anything against Nadal really, as this will simply be a "my era is better than your era" issue. If he keeps up this pace for a few years and can win just one major after the age of 30, he will have my vote for GOAT. Longevity is one of my criteria.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 05:06 PM
There's more variety of surfaces now than when Laver won the Grand Slam.
This is another silly thread from tennis-hero who is afraid that Nadal might win the career Grand Slam someday so he is obsessed with discrediting Nadal, the only active player who has won Slams on 3 different surfaces.
Excellent insight into why this thread exists at all.

sh@de
05-14-2009, 05:50 PM
^ Yep... seriously guys, just get over it. If you don't like Nadal, you can't do anything about it, and it's not nice to try in all sorts of underhand ways to discredit him.

Bud
05-14-2009, 05:59 PM
There's more variety of surfaces now than when Laver won the Grand Slam.
This is another silly thread from tennis-hero who is afraid that Nadal might win the career Grand Slam someday so he is obsessed with discrediting Nadal, the only active player who has won Slams on 3 different surfaces.

Bingo! Nail, meet hammer :)

S H O W S T O P P E R !
05-14-2009, 06:06 PM
Oh please. You guys think everything is a huge conspiracy to let Nadal win and you're bent on proving it. Just get over the fact that Federer is out of his prime.

tudwell
05-14-2009, 06:24 PM
Are surfaces really that homogenized? The Wimbledon organizers themselves said they slowed it down, but by no means does it play like clay, as some here allege.

I think it's string technology more than anything that has contributed most to the dominance of baseline play. Then again, there've always been lots and lots of baseliners, in all eras. There just happens to be a lack of serve-and-volleyers vying for the top spot at the moment.

Winners or Errors
05-14-2009, 07:06 PM
When Wimbledon became slower than the USO and the AO, it became the closest of the majors to playing on clay. It may not play like clay, but it's certainly no longer the fastest major.

It used to be interesting to see players migrate from the slowest to fastest major in a short period. It is no longer that much of a transition. That is what people lament.

Why it is that saying the courts are homogenized is a knock on Nadal I just don't understand. Federer has played in the same conditions, after all. Are those of you who think that simply thinking folks who were fans of the 80s and 90s, when Wimbledon was the fastest major and the FO was the slowest, are trying to say players since 2001 are less versatile?

Silly discussion, really, because we will simply never know if Nadal would have adapted to pre-2001 Wimbledon. He is pretty close at the USO... Just not sure he could have dealt with the horrific bounces on pre-2001 Wimbledon grass... interesting debate, but ultimately pointless.

slicefox
05-14-2009, 07:27 PM
he does have a point.

You nadal fanboys are too full of nadal to take a look into these facts.

you have zero counter-arguments. Grass court slower than hard... wtf has tennis become? Even safin remarked "at wimbledon you can stay at the baseling and not even worry about anyone coming up to the net".

Do these people want all tournaments to be exactly the same? baseline to baseline? Can't we have at least one serve & volley slam?

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 09:16 PM
The courts are more homogenized than when Sampras was playing no doubt, but they're suddenly not more homogenized than when Federer was ruling over Hewitt and Roddick for several years.

Nadal_Freak
05-14-2009, 09:20 PM
When Wimbledon became slower than the USO and the AO, it became the closest of the majors to playing on clay. It may not play like clay, but it's certainly no longer the fastest major.

It used to be interesting to see players migrate from the slowest to fastest major in a short period. It is no longer that much of a transition. That is what people lament.

Why it is that saying the courts are homogenized is a knock on Nadal I just don't understand. Federer has played in the same conditions, after all. Are those of you who think that simply thinking folks who were fans of the 80s and 90s, when Wimbledon was the fastest major and the FO was the slowest, are trying to say players since 2001 are less versatile?

Silly discussion, really, because we will simply never know if Nadal would have adapted to pre-2001 Wimbledon. He is pretty close at the USO... Just not sure he could have dealt with the horrific bounces on pre-2001 Wimbledon grass... interesting debate, but ultimately pointless.
Why people don't like your argument is because it is wrong. Grass is still the fastest slam. They continuously average under 20% break percentage. You can't be slow and be that low of a percentage. The joke is people like you continuously giving out false information. Australian Open is by far the closest to a clay court speed wise.

380pistol
05-14-2009, 10:03 PM
Oh hell yeah, the courts are homogonized. The same people who say the courts are the same, and produe breaking #'s are the same ones who say they were tired of the serve a thons net rushers when the grass was fast.

The ATP and the powers that be have totally ruined the game. Grass is no longer grass, and no one can refute Wimbledon groundskeepers who sod the damn grass. The USTA has flat out admitted the Deco Turf II used 2003-present is slower than the original 1978-2000. And many are of the belief that grass (Wimbledon) is slower than Deco Turf II (US Open).

A lot won't admit as it goes against the favourite players, especially if they are modern or current, and now there's no carpet, so how is the playing field. Even if the calendar slam is won by someone now (a great accomplishment), how can one honestly overlooked that the fastest slam they won it on would be slower than 2 slams 2000 and prior?? You just can't. Annd to think this is many asked for and said was a good thing.

I guess it's true..... be careful what you wish for!!

tudwell
05-14-2009, 10:04 PM
When Wimbledon became slower than the USO and the AO, it became the closest of the majors to playing on clay. It may not play like clay, but it's certainly no longer the fastest major.

It used to be interesting to see players migrate from the slowest to fastest major in a short period. It is no longer that much of a transition. That is what people lament.

Why it is that saying the courts are homogenized is a knock on Nadal I just don't understand. Federer has played in the same conditions, after all. Are those of you who think that simply thinking folks who were fans of the 80s and 90s, when Wimbledon was the fastest major and the FO was the slowest, are trying to say players since 2001 are less versatile?

Silly discussion, really, because we will simply never know if Nadal would have adapted to pre-2001 Wimbledon. He is pretty close at the USO... Just not sure he could have dealt with the horrific bounces on pre-2001 Wimbledon grass... interesting debate, but ultimately pointless.

What evidence do you have that the grass at Wimbledon is now slower than the hardcourts at the U.S. and the Australian? All the statistics I've seen (break percentage, aces, etc.) indicate that Wimbledon is still the fastest major.

380pistol
05-15-2009, 12:08 AM
There's more variety of surfaces now than when Laver won the Grand Slam.
This is another silly thread from tennis-hero who is afraid that Nadal might win the career Grand Slam someday so he is obsessed with discrediting Nadal, the only active player who has won Slams on 3 different surfaces.

So what about grounskeepers and scientists (biologists). They same just to discredit Nadal as well I summize.