Federer wants faster surfaces

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Steve0904, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    They had more long rallies with their opponents on hardcourts than a lot of people think.

    Fine, bring back carpet. I've long been calling for the number of hardcourt tournaments to be considerably reduced.

    Yes, there were surface specialists, because in the 1990s, despite there being more power than ever before, it still wasn't near the level of today's game, and there were also carpet courts widespread on tour as well. Players could also go off on their own schedules, playing predominantly on a certain surface throughout the year. These days, there are compulsory tournaments and 0 pointers for missing such tournaments.

    In the 1990s, you had good clay-court players going "oh, Wimbledon, I'll give that a miss", and serve and volleyers going "I'll take it easy on clay and not play too much on it".

    Didn't see what? Make all today's players have the strings of 20 years ago, bring back carpet courts and let players play wherever they wish, and we'll be back in 1990s conditions pretty quickly. Then again, make people use the racquets of the 1960s and 1960s playing conditions will return. Is that really the way forward? Because I think it's going backwards to the past.

    You could try watching the matches from today and matches from past eras and see for yourself. The biggest difference by some way is the amount of authority, power, depth and spin that players can get on their shots as a result of racquet and string technology.

    Whereas in the 1960s, players felt compelled to go towards the net and play in the forecourt, due to the lack of authority, power, depth and spin (relative to more modern eras), this contrasts with today's game, where players can smash balls with authority, power, depth and spin with relative ease from their own baselines, so now players feel compelled to stay back on the baseline and are reluctant to come forward.

    No, I'm used to how some people are always bemoaning modern conditions compared to past conditions. This was just as prevalent in the 1990s. In the 1990s, people were convinced that power was bad for tennis and wished for a return to the old days, yet the power in today's game is far greater than the 1990s. The moaners today bemoan today's conditions and wish a return to the 1990s tour conditions that were so criticised at one time. You couldn't make it up.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  2. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,693
    A better mixture of fast and slow court tournaments would be better for the bodies and long-term health of guys like Nadal and Djokovic. So much grinding on slow hard courts season after season can't be good for the players' joints.

    Probably the most ideal surface distribution at the big tournaments was from 1975-1977 (even though the Aussie Open was a lesser major then). All 4 majors were on natural surfaces (2 on grass, 2 on clay) and the two biggest non-slam events, the Masters and WCT Finals, were on indoor carpet.

    It's a shame that hard court events would soon proliferate and become so dominant on the tour.
     
  3. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,238
    THere should be 50/50 for slow and fast courts. That would be fair for all players since they get to play on surface that's best suit for their game. Right now, the slow courts suit for players such as Spain because they are the grinder/defensive type of players. No wonder Spain has so many top players. Have more fast courts, Spain would take a big hit.
     
  4. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    But that is not the answet to my question, is it?

    Besides, I have seen them play from the beginning. Before them, as well. ;)


    At least we agree on something.

    I know what the conditions back then were.

    The 0 pointer thing is a weak argument. We have seen how easy it is to pass on the ones, that people do not want to play. Also, they STILL could play their game, if the conditions/surfaces are presented. Who says, that if the speed returns, there will not be specialists, who will be eager to place their preparation around those tourneys?

    Nah, you are using false argument. You assume, that the schedule and the tournaments will remain the same, and the added tournaments will be somewhat out of the "points". And why would the players
    even have to endure 0 pointers? We are talking about the speeding of the surfaces of the current tournaments (part of them, of course).

    Also, you are heavily speculating, that with the modern technology it will not be possible to play on faster (than the current) surfaces. What are your facts, that support that, apart from "yeah, the game nowadays is much more powerful"?

    The game is marginally more powerful, then when the slowing began (around 10 years ago).

    Prove, that it is much more powerful.


    Why should the claycourt specialists receive special attention at Wimbledon or grasscourt specialists at RG? Who said, that the surfaces should be suitable for everybody? Isn't that the whole point of the variety of the surfaces?

    Don't be ridiculous.



    Why would someone do what you suggest?

    Noone suggests, that the sport restores the previous order. The people (including me) want variety of the surfaces, not the old racket and string technology.

    You seem to think, that the speeding of the surfaces will make the sport impossible to play with the current technology.

    I know, that you are wrong.

    Moreover. Whether you and others want it or not, this is the only way for the sport to go forward. I can assure you, that the current means are exhausted and we are faced with a situation, where something will be done. And it is not further slowing of the surfaces.

    Like I said before, I have watched enough matches from any meaningful era in Tennis. We are not debating, whether the sport has changed.

    They are, and PART of the reason is, that it has become increasingly easy to pick the serve and also to stay in the rally. Can you make a guess why is that so?

    I thing that you do not understand what the people actually want.

    The fact, that the people speak about the conditions during the 90ies, doesn't mean, that they want the game to be like it was in the 90ies (it is impossible anyway). They want to see variety (which was part of the 90ies tennis).

    And again, what makes you believe, that tennis cannot be played with the modern racket and string technology on fast surfaces?

    I am willing to challenge your theory.

    Let us make a hypothetical situation, where the grass at Wimbledon is fast as it was in the 90ies. Take Nadal, with his power, autority and put him against Sampras with his own racket and strings setup.

    Who do you think will have the upper hand?

    If what you say is true, then Nadal should have the upper hand, right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  5. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York
    It seems some people argue for the sake of arguing. Mustard's explanations are well informed, to the point and perfectly clear. The only people who don't "get" them are the people who don't want to. And they keep ranting on and on repeating the same generalities and subjective nonsense. A lot of threads degenerate because of that tendency. Too bad.
     
  6. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end

    Like it or not, the surfaces will become faster again. That is absolutely sure.

    It will be then clear, who is right.

    Untill then, we will enjoy your posts.

    :twisted:
     
  7. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York
    There will always be a debate as to whether surface speed is right or wrong and it will always be discussed (we know that because it's always been). I thought Mustard gave a good perspective on that also.
     
  8. zam88

    zam88 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    you know what would be sweet?

    if they played on wood... like an NBA floor.


    Ball ought to move fast on that surface.

    or maybe Ice... that would kick ass.... really see if they could move... lots o slipping and sliding... tear a few ligaments and stuff
     
  9. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,516
    Many times the winner in a tennis match hits less winners than the loser. But guess what they don't go by how many winners a player hits, that does not mean ****. The only winner that counts is the winner of the match.

    Roger hit 10-15 more winners than joker did. Well isn't that great and what exactly does he get for that? Then you claim that joker just counts on his opponents errors, really it sounds like you have never seen him play.

    And the God fed that has 17 GS is so great then why did he not hit more winners so he could have won the match then? Oh thats right the courts are to slow. He is playing inside in perfect conditions were the ball stays low and now all of a sudden he loses and the courts are to slow. Funny I never heard that when he was winning the year end exhibition tournament.
     
  10. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,789

    I 100% agree. The lack of fast indoor events is appaling... a disgrace.

    Loads of clay and slow hard court events though. The game suffers tremendously and the tennis become a grind fest . Yawn.
     
  11. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    I will write slowly, so you can understand me. :)

    The speed of the surfaces will be increased sooner or later. And, since the racket technology will be the same or even better, you and others will have the chance to see for yourself, that it is far from impossible to play in such conditions.
     
  12. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    What does "better racquet technology" mean? Because the best racquet and string technology to date (i.e. today's) sees baseline play predominate on tour, because players can now dictate rallies from their own baselines with authority, using power, depth and spin.
     
  13. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    In the context of our conversation "better" means, that IF the racket technology changes, the new one will be extending the features of the current technology. We sure will not be going back to wood. I don't think so.
     
  14. BeGreat

    BeGreat Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    322
    Tennis coaches, and tennis commentators, are no different from political commentators. They don't care about facts. They just want to senstationalize everything.

    The major shifts in tennis technology occurred with the switch from the 70s and 80s rackets to the 90s rackets. that's it. since then, the changes have been almost entirely gimmicky and have centered on marketing.

    there is absolutely no real evidence out there that one string type is so different from another as to render it a unique specimen. it's all bs.

    mcenroe goes on and on about how today's strings make it possible to pull of impossible shots. what a load of crap. even at the professional level, where the tiniest of changes and improvements can make a big difference, the changes and improvements made in tennis technologies are negligible.

    i've seen jim courier impart silly spin on the ball at the french, just like nadal. nadal may do it more, but not because of strings or rackets. but because of his technique.

    coaches, player, and especially commentators need to shut the hell up about technology.
     
  15. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It is not crap. Watching Jim Courier dominate the 1992 French Open is a lot different from watching Rafael Nadal dominate the French Open in today's era. There's a totally different sound when the racquet makes contact with the ball, and there isn't the same power, depth and spin in 1992.
     
  16. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    People, just watch this year Dubai (which was a faster outdoor hard court than any other outdoor hard court this year, though in the 90s and 80s there were SOME outdoor hard courts much faster still, let alone many indoor carpet tournaments in the 90s and 80s) :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztaAZbDaVsk

    Watch it and you can see CLEARLY that it is FASTER than the rest of outdoor hard courts they use today.

    I loved it (Dubai this year). It was a surprising pleasure to see ONE tournament with a slightly fast hard court today.

    Here you can see that the points in general are different. They try to win the point earlier. They are much more aggressive. Super-defence is not THAT MUCH rewarded (though it is ALWAYS an important factor on any court and condition), but great aggressive shots ARE rewarded.

    Feliciano Lopez becomes a very dangerous player in these conditions, for example.

    The matches tend to be closer, with just one decisive break in each set, and usually there are much more tie-breaks sets. For this reason the matches usually are more tense, there is more uncertainty, top players casualties are much easier,...

    And they played with current racquet and string technology, but still you can see it was great tennis, very entertaining tennis on a fast hard court.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  17. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    Both Andre Agassi and Todd Martin (among others) have said that Poly strings have been the greatest change in the game of tennis since the wood-->graphite transition.

    It is not only that they impart more spin, it is that being less powerful strings ("dead" strings) allow you to hit in a different way. You can hit with an amazing head-speed swing and still (because poly strings are less powerful) you don't send the ball out of the stadium. (You could almost do the same thing with gut, but if strung at a very very high tension=less power).
     
  18. nikdom

    nikdom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,725
    Location:
    Tennisville
  19. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York
    So Hewitt says the WTF courts were slow and Fed said they were fast. Great consensus there.
     
  20. nikdom

    nikdom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,725
    Location:
    Tennisville
    Fe did not say fast, he said faster, presumably compared to some of the other hard court tournaments.

    In any case, how should they know anything about anything? You on the other hand, with your DVD watching and expert court knowledge, are unassailable.
     
  21. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York
    As I said, players themselves have conflicted impressions about courts. Which means one can discuss court speed until the end of time and people will never agree.
     
  22. Sartorius

    Sartorius Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,471
    Where did Fed say that?
     
  23. 2ManyAces

    2ManyAces Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    FL
    I can only imagine that Rafa will now call for slower courts
     
  24. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,823
    Location:
    shiran
    There is no envy in my heart, you fresh green troll. My heart and mind are purer than the first snowflake of the winter that floats in the air as it falls from the sky.

    German players, as you well know, have a well-documented history of criminal behaviour toward competition. While I am not in the position to punish them for their despicable conduct, as a member of the public and a good decent person, I should be permitted to voice my honest opinion of outrage and disdain, shared by wide masses of freightened and silenced decent people, for the criminal behaviour of talentless players who piled up cheap slams in a weak era and channeled stolen money into money-laundering places.
     
  25. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    Stupid guy stupid excuses.This is an exactly the same surface and court he dominated the last 2 years.I think both Fed and Rafa loves to give people something to talk about,ıf you guys have a lot time thats fine.Fed got old and thats why he is losing he has stop this idiot excuses.More faster surfaces he is going to lose more and more to likes Berdeych and Del Po.His return of service got seriously non affective as the years goes by,ı can see him losing more and more to big serving guys on faster surfaces.
    Rafa also have his own agenda of course but 7 months of hard court tennis too much and becomes a big bore it is indeed unhealthy as well.There should be more grass court tournaments.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  26. tennisbuck

    tennisbuck Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,052
    of course fed wants more fast and nadal wants less blue clay and more regular. they all want more of what they can win on. credit to djokovic for never pushing specific surfices
     
  27. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,616
    There is actually an objective measurement of court speed, but it seems to over-estimate court speed in relation to player opinion.

    Nevrtheless it works as a comparative tool and Bercy of several years ago was the fastest.
     
  28. 2ManyAces

    2ManyAces Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    FL
    This shows how much surface matters. Makes you appreciate the players who dominated all surfaces.
     
  29. swordtennis

    swordtennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,194
    Imagine if there were more all round courts?
    Federer would most likely extend his career titles.
    Federer is even greater than what his records and achievements indicate IMO.
    In all honesty I am not sure there are any fast court tournaments left.
     
  30. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,926
    Tennis needs a mix of surfaces - fast, medium and slow.
    Variety is a thing of the past - look at what's happened to Bercy.
    Too much slow rubbish permeating the game.
    Fed is dead right.
     
  31. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Here is the total winner/UE for the 4 slams:
    AO: 6821 / 6966
    RG: 9363 / 9172
    W: 10241 / 6182
    USO: 7278 / 7077

    Odd that AO has more unforced errors than winners. More evidence that AO is ridiculously slow. Anyway I think they should speed up the faster surfaces just a bit, there should be a lot more winners then unforced errors.
     
  32. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    Very smart way to look at this
    this proves that slow surfaces --> longest rallies --> more ue --> boring tennis

    AO, USO and WTF should be played on fast courts.
    End of discussion
     
  33. Tafmatch

    Tafmatch Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    295
    Nice find! At least on of the HC slams should be faster
     
  34. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,429
    I respect your input on these boards Mustard, but you sound like a broken record there. Almost as if you're defending someone.

    When players have less time to prepare for a shot, their "authoritatively deep shots" (your words) will become sporadic rather than the norm. To think otherwise is to massively overestimate the tennis intelligence of most players today (including Murray, Djokovic and Nadal).
     
  35. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Exactly, I was wondering how can a poster like Mustard say that
     
  36. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I really don't understand why the posters don't want at least one fast surface for Majors. They all talk about balancing and at the same time wants ONLY slow courts

    Why can't we have Wimbledon on fast grass and US Open on fast hard courts. They can have a slow hard court Major at AO. This would give enough for attacking players also.

    Bobby Jr recently opened a thread about the Llodra v/s Isner match at Paris. I too watched it and it was really entertaining to watch.

    It's really sad that we won't have serve and volley players in the future. People here are thinking from only Nadal v/s Federer perspective. Once their favorites are all gone and when Tennis becomes just six hour long rallies from base lines on all courts they truly realize that how boring Tennis has become. I am sure that's gonna happen if you are a genuine fan of Tennis
     
  37. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    The WTF was mud-slow. Federer lied that it was fast to avoid being seen as a sore loser, which is what he would've looked like if he had admitted the court was slow.
     
  38. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I never felt the 02 court is fast. Even when Roger beat Rafa last year, I never felt it was fast. The court was slow but bounce was also slow. Rafa can't attack Roger's backhand. If the court was fast there would have been more winners
     
  39. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    Because obviously technology has advanced so much since the 90s. Oh wait, that synthetic string was around for ages :rolleyes:


    Even in the early 2000s there was a decent amount of variety, although leaning more towards baselining. That being said, it really didn't take off till around 2003 or so when everything gradually started to slow down more and more.



    Odd that Roland Garros has almost as many winners as Wimbledon does. Oh wait, no it's not. That's because RG is ridiculous fast for a claycourt.
     
  40. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Right, NamRanger, are you seriously suggesting that the technology that Courier was using at the 1992 French Open is no different to the technology of today's game?
     
  41. TennezSport

    TennezSport Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    Northern NJ, USA
    Bingo..........We have a winner!

    Variety is the spice of life and tennis, more challenges = better players; Nuf Said.

    Cheers, TennezSport :cool:
     
  42. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    Surprising that the Fed didn't mention anything about the poly, maybe because it benefits his game too much.

    "Federer believes slower courts and balls, combined with improved fitness levels, may have tipped the balance too far in favour of those for whom no ball is unreachable."
     
  43. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    Did anyone check pseudofed's blog on this specific subject? Just hilarious
     
  44. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    So Fed is now stupid. I went back and read Federer's comments again as reported by ESPN. He did not complain about the surface at the O2. You are making an ad hominem argument without knowing the facts. What does that make you?
     
  45. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    I think Federer played pretty well with all gut strings. I may be wrong but didn't he beat Pete with all gut in his PS85 at Wimbledon in 2001?
    I don't deny that having poly in his crosses helps Fed (as poly does almost all tour players-heck it even helps my crappy 4.5 game). However, if we took away poly strings and modern racquets, in my opinion, Federer's game would be less affected than most of the players.
     
  46. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916

    Are you suggesting that the technology of the midplus size racquets of the 90s is completely different from the technology today? Nadal, Davydenko, and various other top pros use strings that have been around for the 90s. The move to poly strings coincided with the slowing down of the surfaces. Don't be ridiculous. Yes, there have been very minor improvements since the 90s till now, but if you seriously think that things like the changing of balls, the changing of surfaces, etc. don't have anything to do with how the game is played today, you really have 0 clue what you're talking about.


    Just look at what happens when a true fast court surface is played on. It doesn't matter that Nadal can put tons of spin on the ball; he isn't going to get a racquet on the ball with his large and loopy swings if the surface is fast enough. The reason why pros in particular began to switch to polys (including guys like Henman, Federer, Safin, etc. who typically played with full gut setups before) is that the surfaces are conducive to the poly string.


    For example, the Babolat Pure Drive has been around FOREVER. Duralast, and various other polys that pros use has been around FOREVER. Even the newer "soft" polys are not much different from the poly strings of the 90. Everyone that actually plays tennis, and not just talks about it (like the vast majority of the general forum) knows exactly what I am talking about. Various racquets today are just simple paintjobs of late 90s racquets. To believe that technology suddenly caused the shift to baselining is completely asinine.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  47. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Good post, NamRanger.

    I have a collection of older racquets and I can hit with them just fine compared to my new racquets. I stayed true to the prostaff 85 for quite some time before bumping it up an extra five square inches. :)

    I can even hit with plenty of spin using a full bed of old synthetic gut (with a racquet from the 90s). I don't hit often with full natural gut because I am a frequent string breaker (I usually use a poly hybrid). I feel confident that the pros today would be able to generate significant depth, pace, and spin even if they were using "ancient technology" from the 90s. :roll:
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  48. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    That is my experience and observation as well.

     
  49. Borrelli

    Borrelli Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    CT
    Simple as that!
     
  50. Mick3391

    Mick3391 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    WA State
    Yea I read a bunch about this last night, unbelievable really. It begs questions such as would the Nadal and Djokes of the world do well in the 90's, or likewise would Sampras do well today.

    This stuff is HUGE. I read that they have slowed down the courts so they can get longer rallies for the fans, the problem is that this TOTALLY distorts GOAT and stats for players. If Fed played on mainly faster courts of the 90's would he have a better record than in the 2000's? Likewise would Nadal and Djoke do worse in the 90's?

    Maybe Feds "Demise" is not age but slower courts, I do know this, they have to stop screwing around with the courts for fans sake, make them uniform, I mean keep clay clay, grass grass, but keep the speed consistant for each surface.

    Yea, come to think of it Sampras did poorly on slow surfaces, maybe he would be average today.
     

Share This Page