I bought a pair of these, the original Roland Garros edition ones. I found them on sale for £27 (about $30) at an Adidas outlet and decided to buy them on the spot, oblivious to how much criticism they got. Only now do I realise that TW rated them 2.9 overall! They noted that the arch support was uncomfortably high and caused blisters. I have very low arches and, while I agree that the arch support feels weird, it doesn't feel uncomfortable and I didn't get any blisters from wearing them. Switching from Propulse 3's, I immediately noticed the lightness and comfort (the arches were broken in within the first 2 hours). These shoes have improved my footwork dramatically, and I've had no pain in my feet from using them. They seem very durable too, mine have probably endured about 40 hours of wear already, and apart from a little scuffing at the heel area there's no signs of wear or damage. This leaves me racking my brains as to why these shoes are so hated. Bear in mind I have the Clay version, but from what I can see there's no difference apart from the herringbone sole and mesh tongue. So is it just because of the slightly awkward arches or is it something else? :?