PDA

View Full Version : The courts need to be slowed down


JustBob
09-10-2012, 06:37 PM
20+ shots rallies on "fast" USO courts and finals lasting 5 hours is not enough. As it stands, I have time to get up, go take a leak, come back and watch the end of the point. Heck, not even enough time to wash my hands, granted I can do it (quickly) at the AO. The courts need to be slowed down so we get 50+ shot rallies, then I'd even have time to make a stop in the kitchen, grab something from the fridge, and still catch the end of a point. And since a 5 set final would last approx 8 hours, it would be well worth it, not to mention an accurate statement, to take a (work) day off to watch tennis!

PaulFCB
09-10-2012, 06:40 PM
Or you can go to work after seeing the first 3 games, come back after 8 hours of work and see the last set while enjoying a pizza and 2 beers.

yemenmocha
09-10-2012, 06:40 PM
You know... there were a couple people who employed the serve and volley strategy on a few points in the tournament, so that's sufficient proof that the courts are too fast still.

I agree.

KineticChain
09-10-2012, 06:43 PM
Ok i was afraid this wouldn't be a sarcastic post. But yea I had to stop watching the final because it was so uneventful and uninteresting.

90's Clay
09-10-2012, 06:44 PM
35 shot rallies at at the USO just does not look RIGHT to me after watching all these years

monkey-ranch
09-10-2012, 06:45 PM
Exactly, they should make the court out of jello and use 10 and under foam balls. 5 hrs+ matches are not enough. We demand more tennis, more rallies and more lights its too dark also. I suggest a relay system, 1 player plays 2 or 3 sets and another one comes in and plays 3 sets more. The loser is thrown into a lava pit.

timnz
09-10-2012, 06:52 PM
Since the tennis authorities want tennis to be so slow these days, why don't they change the rules to allow up to 2 bounces of each side?

KineticChain
09-10-2012, 06:59 PM
^^^ and if it's a winner, the point must be replayed.

Sid_Vicious
09-10-2012, 07:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGgXoJopIGk

:)

90's Clay
09-10-2012, 07:00 PM
Any slower and they may as well play in mud

kishnabe
09-10-2012, 07:02 PM
:lol: thread is hilarious.

ninman
09-10-2012, 07:02 PM
Forget the courts, we need to look at the balls. They need to start using something similar to a cricket ball, and have all wooden racquets (including the "strings").

JustBob
09-10-2012, 07:09 PM
I suggest a relay system, 1 player plays 2 or 3 sets and another one comes in and plays 3 sets more.

Excellent idea. We could have 264 players in the draw instead of 132. Except that the "extra" 132 players would be paired with the players in the draw. 1 with 264, 2 with 263 etc... Then we get rid of MTO's, so the only option for a tired/injured player is to have his replacement play the rest of the match.

JustBob
09-10-2012, 07:11 PM
^^^ and if it's a winner, the point must be replayed.

Yes, and if you serve an ace, you lose the point. How dare you! We simply cannot allow this nonsensical faster play.

bluescreen
09-10-2012, 07:17 PM
I really think a lot of the "pusher" tennis today was due to the weather conditions, not the court speed. The wind was absolutely horrendous in the first couple sets. And personally, I think it made the first set pretty compelling.

fednad
09-10-2012, 07:17 PM
20+ shots rallies on "fast" USO courts and finals lasting 5 hours is not enough. As it stands, I have time to get up, go take a leak, come back and watch the end of the point. Heck, not even enough time to wash my hands, granted I can do it (quickly) at the AO. The courts need to be slowed down so we get 50+ shot rallies, then I'd even have time to make a stop in the kitchen, grab something from the fridge, and still catch the end of a point. And since a 5 set final would last approx 8 hours, it would be well worth it, not to mention an accurate statement, to take a (work) day off to watch tennis!

Awesome thread! Made my day!
And, the bold part had me in splits :)

monfed
09-10-2012, 07:25 PM
OP its gonna be like this till Roger retires. It's actually gonna get slower imo.

JustBob
09-10-2012, 07:30 PM
Hopefully, at some point, the greedy *******s running the networks paying big bucks for the rights to broadcast the slams will get tired of these neverending matches screwing up the rest of their schedule. ;)

monfed
09-10-2012, 07:31 PM
They will eventually realise but what's the point? Too late, the GOAT got screwed. He should be sitting on 20+ slams easy right now,sad.

zapvor
09-10-2012, 08:00 PM
lol
ok i have to say its true though. with todays modern topspin game, they should speed courts up, not slow it down. sighhhhhhhhh

westside
09-10-2012, 08:03 PM
Players racquets must be strung at 70lbs plus. We can't be having winners flying off the stringbed

redpurusha
09-10-2012, 08:19 PM
But seriously, after the 1st set I went ahead and played a match, then came back to watch the last set.

I know most posters here and tennis fans are obsessed with keeping 5 sets. I would like to know the average time of a 5 set match in the 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s etc, vs today. The technology has allowed for longer rallies and matches. I love tennis, but I'm not watching 5 straight hours of tennis. Congrats Murray Lets put that GB drought to bed already.

Lovely_Bone
09-10-2012, 09:06 PM
I like watching the really long matches. There is more drama, and the long rallies get really intense. Imo, tennis isn't met to be a game of 2-3 shots per point. Where's the fun in that? In the old days of extremely fast courts there was so much less talent required to play, and amazing shot making wasn't really as much of a needed skill. Also, imo, tennis is becoming what it should be. If you watch the really old matches, they were slow, but when technology made racquets so much more powerful, the game sped up dramatically and went away from what it was meant to be. Now with the courts slowing down, it's just balancing back out to WHAT IT SHOULD BE. May I remind you, most sporting events are longer than the average best of 5 AT THE FRENCH OPEN. The other 3 are even shorter(obviously).

I really don't know why people complain about this so much, it's really improving the game if anything. I do think, however, that for now the courts are a good speed. No further slowing is really needed.

kanamit
09-10-2012, 09:42 PM
Watch US Open clips from even 2005 or 2006. The court has very clearly been slowed down. It's a frackin' shame.

kelawai
09-10-2012, 09:47 PM
Points should get bigger. Like play up to 90 or 95 love. Lets make deuce at 100 :)

cork_screw
09-10-2012, 09:52 PM
Murray was crushing the ball today. I was surprised Djokovic wasn't more offensive.

Bryan Swartz
09-10-2012, 09:58 PM
The main thing that has changed is players sliding on hardcourts where they didn't used to. Flexibility training, technology etc. have all improved. I'd like to one of either USO or AO be more like Paris in speed but the days of super-fast hardcourts are gone. They can't be sped up to that level without making return of serve an anachronism.

Russeljones
09-10-2012, 10:52 PM
I endorse this thread.

Grapto
09-11-2012, 04:19 AM
If what they want to broadcast is endless rallies...
and they don't care the court speed and they can still keep their rally going.

Nathaniel_Near
09-11-2012, 04:43 AM
I imagine that the courts will continue to get slower and slower for the next few years before the trend reverses.

Warmaster
09-11-2012, 06:06 AM
I like watching the really long matches. There is more drama, and the long rallies get really intense. Imo, tennis isn't met to be a game of 2-3 shots per point. Where's the fun in that? In the old days of extremely fast courts there was so much less talent required to play, and amazing shot making wasn't really as much of a needed skill. Also, imo, tennis is becoming what it should be. If you watch the really old matches, they were slow, but when technology made racquets so much more powerful, the game sped up dramatically and went away from what it was meant to be. Now with the courts slowing down, it's just balancing back out to WHAT IT SHOULD BE. May I remind you, most sporting events are longer than the average best of 5 AT THE FRENCH OPEN. The other 3 are even shorter(obviously).

I really don't know why people complain about this so much, it's really improving the game if anything. I do think, however, that for now the courts are a good speed. No further slowing is really needed.

So, how many times have you played tennis yourself?

Fast courts and amazing shotmaking go hand in hand.

Sentinel
09-11-2012, 09:59 AM
Yes, and if you serve an ace, you lose the point. How dare you! We simply cannot allow this nonsensical faster play.

Why not ban overhead serving. Only underhand. That way there will be none of those horrible double-faults that mar today's game. WTA will become respectable and Dementieva may come back and win some slams.

Shots must not be hit harder than 50 kmph. A violation for trying too much/hard can be issued.

Fusker
09-11-2012, 10:17 AM
Yeah, it would have been much better tennis watching two guys targeting the lines in 30 mph wind gusts. That's some quality stuff...

ivan_the_terrible
09-11-2012, 10:22 AM
There was a 54-shot rally in the first set I believe - You had time to run out & buy beer during that one :)

Interestingly, the longest US Open final before this was Lendl vs Wilander @4hr54mins. I knew Mats was a pusher, but was Lendl trying to beat him at his own game or what?

GS
09-11-2012, 11:20 AM
I like what McEnroe recently said about Wimbledon's slower surface now---"It's more like a track meet instead of a tennis match."

mattennis
09-11-2012, 03:54 PM
I don't like it at all. Tennis is becoming a marathon contest, where touch, creativity and flat-hit winners are almost non-existant.

Easy solution would be to go back to "worse" racquet and string technology. That way it would be inmensely more difficult to hit passing-shots or retrieving shots (like it was in previous decades, giving an edge to the player who attacked first in the point).

They will never do this, I am sure of that (strong racquet and strings commercial profits).

If they mantain current racquet and string technology, and they speed up the courts, or at least some courts, we would see at least some variation, but you would have the "problem" of having an Isner or Karlovic type of player winning 95% of first serve points by ace or unreturned serves.

Goran and Krajicek (among others) used to be like this, but these players always would be a minority, so I don't think it would kill the game appeal.

But I think they are going to slow down things even more because they think casual viewers like extremely long rallyes, but many of the beautiful and interesting things about tennis are missing this way.

Bowtiesarecool
09-11-2012, 05:04 PM
I Got It... Wiffle Balls!!!

Federer20042006
09-11-2012, 07:10 PM
Who doesn't want to watch guys play point after point where they just hit it back and forth until one of them makes an error?

JustBob
09-11-2012, 07:29 PM
I don't have a problem with (some) slower courts, I have a problem with the (relative) uniformization of surfaces which was achieved by slowing down the fastest surfaces to the point where the difference between "fast" and "slow" is barely noticeable and all surfaces at slams essentially reward the grinder/baseliner style of play. Give it a few more years and you'll end up with 10 Murray/Djokovic clones in the top 10.

Not to mention you're gonna have player's careers last 5 years instead of 10.

Vrad
09-11-2012, 10:41 PM
I don't have a problem with (some) slower courts, I have a problem with the (relative) uniformization of surfaces which was achieved by slowing down the fastest surfaces to the point where the difference between "fast" and "slow" is barely noticeable and all surfaces at slams essentially reward the grinder/baseliner style of play. Give it a few more years and you'll end up with 10 Murray/Djokovic clones in the top 10.

Not to mention you're gonna have player's careers last 5 years instead of 10.

Agreed. Earlier the FO was the slow court, and the others varied in speed, but were much faster.

Now pretty much every slam sees the same kind of play because the courts are all slow.

That being said, I don't think the US Open final was as much a reflection of the slowness of the court as the difficult windy conditions.

TennisCJC
09-12-2012, 07:05 AM
They will eventually realise but what's the point? Too late, the GOAT got screwed. He should be sitting on 20+ slams easy right now,sad.

This true. If they had not slowed the courts and balls, Federer would have +4 or +6 slams and Nadal would have -2 or -4.

USO and Wimby should be sped up a wee bit. Poly strings give groundstrokes an advantage. When you combine poly strings with slower courts, higher bounces and slower balls; you end up with 30 point rallys at USO and Wimby and baseliners dominating. No chance of S&V returning to play a small part in the game until this changes.

Too bad too because it is a lot more fun to see a contrast in style. Federer and Murray at Wimby was one of the better matches this year because Murray played aggressive baseline tennis and Federer came in around 75 times in 4 sets. The contrast made it exciting and kept the points short and crisp.

VPhuc tennis fan
09-12-2012, 12:06 PM
Someone here mentioned that this year court surface was even slower than last year's. Is that true? What did they do? Change the carpet or whatever material that makes the court? I wasn't aware of it. Any tips?

ibbi
09-12-2012, 01:53 PM
I could be completely and disastrously wrong, but on hard courts doesn't a lot of the slowing down of the surfaces have to do with the altering of the courts to make them easier on the players bodies? That's no excuse for what they've done to Wimbledon, but still. I just pine for the variety between surfaces, and I want carpet courts back.

They've just basically made the game easier to play with the strings, and the surfaces, and so on, and so on, it might make the game more popular, there might be a greater influx of younger players, but yes, the skill and variation that used to be required is dying out. It was nice to be able to see different players and different skill sets succeeding from one tournament to the next, and it was a sign of true greatness when someone could go the distance on all of them.

In 115 or so years of Grand Slam tennis there were 13 players with career slams, in the past decade we've had 4 of them, Djokovic is an almost inevitable Roland Garros away from one, and recently we had Henin just a Wimbledon away.

Winner_DownTheLine
09-13-2012, 07:23 PM
how about they raise the height of the net? this will make the isner types to go away and bring more net play hopefully. thoughts?

tennisMVP
09-13-2012, 08:10 PM
20+ shots rallies on "fast" USO courts and finals lasting 5 hours is not enough. As it stands, I have time to get up, go take a leak, come back and watch the end of the point. Heck, not even enough time to wash my hands, granted I can do it (quickly) at the AO. The courts need to be slowed down so we get 50+ shot rallies, then I'd even have time to make a stop in the kitchen, grab something from the fridge, and still catch the end of a point. And since a 5 set final would last approx 8 hours, it would be well worth it, not to mention an accurate statement, to take a (work) day off to watch tennis!

There was a 54 shot rally in the final.

MichaelNadal
09-13-2012, 08:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGgXoJopIGk

:)

Omg Johnny Mac is too cool there!