They need to make the French Open surface fair

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by NoBadMojo, Jun 11, 2006.

  1. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I am not saying this because Fed lost, but the French Open has always been an anomoly with one trick ponies winning it, and many of the best of all time not able to win there. Now the clay there plays even more slowly than the clay at places like Rome and they are using heavier balls. I think that is ridiculous. It doesnt even make for good tennis. Even W has changed the courts to give the dirtballers a chance to win. What tennis doesnt need is to find more ways for people to play strictly from the baseline. I really dont even consider it a Grand Slam anymore other than in name only. Today's match was a classic example...it wasnt even enjoyable tennis no matter who won..there was only one really terrific point in the entire bunch of boring tennis..the defensive point Fed played while down 4-5 in the 4th. IMO.
     
  2. JayxTheKoolest

    JayxTheKoolest Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    445
    Spoiler.

    Anyways, I think the surface favors a completely different style of tennis when compared to the grass courts. If you don't like this, then that's your opinion.
     
  3. Gilgamesh

    Gilgamesh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    FO should stay clay forever. That is it's legacy. It is the most prized clay tournament.

    One trick ponies? Over the last few years it would appear to seem so but in it's history no. Borg dominated both clay and grass. Two completely opposite surfaces. Sure a lot of greats could not win FO but lets not blame the clay. :rolleyes: Lendl could never win Wimbleton should we take away grass?
     
  4. Warriorroger

    Warriorroger Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,603
    Great champions win, no matter the surface, BTW, the French clay is on of the fastest claycourts in the worlds, so don't see your point.
     
  5. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    Warrior,

    So, according to you, Budge, Laver, and Agassi are the only players who were ever great, since they're the only one's who've won GS' on every surface they played?

    I guess Sampras is just some chump, too; after all, he never won at the French Open. What do 14 grand slams mean?

    Ridiculous.
     
  6. ShcMad

    ShcMad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    During a match in the first week of the '06 FO, Nadal supposedly asked the umpire to spray some more clay on the surface because he claimed that it felt it was as quick as a hardcourt.
     
  7. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,355
    I disagree. I like variety in surfaces - I personally think that Wimbledon should speed the grass back up.

    The more different surfaces there are, the more different playing styles will be viable.

    On the contrary, it would seem much more unfair to me if one particular playing style could be used to dominate on all surfaces.
     
  8. Simon Cowell

    Simon Cowell Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    354
    I think they should make it grass so Federer can win his grand slam and the fans on here can stop crying.
     
  9. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    All surfaces are made slower now, grass, hard, and clay. It is just the way they want to do things these days.
     
  10. Tennis_Monk

    Tennis_Monk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    3,477
    If all courts were same in all grandslams, then why play 4 grandsams ? have one mega slam per yr and we are done.

    A true player shuld adopt to all conditions and win against variety of surfaces. Pistol Pete is Great tennis player. But his game is not good enough to win FO. His strengths (among others) are his Bludgeoning Serve and S & V game. Those are neutralized in FO.

    A true clay court player needs to have a Heavy TopSpin shots and ability to grind rallies from baseline. These skills are neutralized in Wimbledon.

    Roger Federer came close to solving FO puzzle. He may eventually solve it or (may be he wont).
     
  11. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    Warrior,

    You said,

    With the obvious implication that Federer isn't a great player, because he didn't win, "no matter the surface". Therefore, I had to ask, you must think Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, etc, were also not great players either, right? Because all of them had at least 1 surface they couldn't win the Grand Slam on.

    My point wasn't about excuses or anything. Nadal won, played the better game, end of discussion in that regards. No-one is saying Federer should have won, and I'm certainly not saying there was anything unfair about it. I'm simply saying that Federer is still a GOAT, and is a great clay-courter.
     
  12. allcourter

    allcourter New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Variety makes it more fun to watch how players adjust to diff. surfaces but the master will take them all. In that sense, Nadal is excluded but Federer may. The 06 French Open was there for Roger to take but he didn't tactical counter Nadal's high spin. He should use more b/h slice to Nadal's b/h forcing him to hit up on the ball and move to the net to finish points off. May be next yr. Federer take the French?? :rolleyes:
     
  13. Roforot

    Roforot Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,196
    I think the surface allows one-trick ponies to beat up higher ranked players in the early rounds, but for the most part, the champions are solid players who do well on hard courts as well.
    Having said that, I was hoping there'd be some rain overnight so the courts would play faster.
     
  14. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,236
    Fed needs no excuses...his body of work speaks for itself...being #1 on every surface but clay (where he is a lowly #2) is not bad! He is still the one to beat, but I enjoy seeing other challenge him...we need a great rivalry (unfortunately, Nadal needs to pick up his game on the other surfaces if it's going to elevate to Borg/Connors, Pete/Andre, etc.)
     
  15. textbook strokes

    textbook strokes Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    446
    How pathetic is this thread:mad: !. And yet we should believe this has nothing to do with Fed's lame performance!.
    Don't blame Roland Garros, the most classy GS that still means something to modern tennis (Grass is a joke!), just because a great player had an horrible day!.
    The tournament was very interesting, and I recall several good matches like Mónaco- Ljubicic, Ferrero-Gaudio, or Nadal- Mathieu.
    Now we have to endure some nobodys during the grass "season", like Popp, Arthurs or Dent.
    By the way, the OP remembers that #s 1,2,3 and 4 made the semis?- How unfair is that?
     
  16. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    how pathetic is your post? your post clearly shows you know nothing about tennis and its history. no wonder i rarely post n this secion of the board. there is a long list of players who the only majour they won is the french and a long list of great players like the other two best of all time <sampras and laver> who never won the french. if that doesnt make this majour a freakish anomoly then nothing does. i dont appreciate your callng my thread pathetic..shows a distinct lack of class. You also clearly dont understand that the grass at W now plays more like a higher bouncing hardcourt than the grass of old and that baseliners like Nalbandian do quite well there.
    Also anyone with reading skills can see tat I prefaced my thread by sayin that it didnt have anything to do with this one sinle match. It was a general statement that I think they should speed up the clay at the French so that one dimensional grinders dont usually win...
    nice post there chief...dont supose you will apologize
     
  17. barney

    barney Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    135
    The French Open is what it is. An extreme test of endurance, movement, and consistency. This is what makes it so unique and special. And so difficult to win.

    From my understanding, most of the tennis communities in Europe and South America consider the French to be the world's #1 tennis tournament. I'm not sure why most Americans feel that way about Wimbledon.

    Totally disagree. IMO.
     
  18. textbook strokes

    textbook strokes Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    446
    I'm sorry Nobad, but I really don't find a better adjective for your thead. Perhaps you should give yesterday final a couple of days before posting:( .
    About Wimby, they changed the grass precisely because something was wrong, but that's not the case with the French Open.
    About Tennis history; I'm not ant expert but I think Laver did win it in 69 against Ken Rosewall in 3 (Also in 62, before the oper era).
    Too bad Roger couldn't !.
     
  19. Arafel

    Arafel Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,142
    Connors won the U.S. Open on clay once (against Borg) and made the finals the other two times it was held on clay. He also won the U.S. Clay Courts several times back when it was a big tournament, and I feel certain that if he had been able to enter it in 74, or hadn't boycotted it from 75-78, he would have won at least one FO.

    That's not to say that Sampras, Borg, McEnroe et al weren't great players, but I don't think you can quite lump Connors in with the other crowd.
     
  20. Arafel

    Arafel Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,142
    Since Laver won the Grand Slam in both 62 and 69, he won the French. It was Sampras who could never break through, and in fact never made the final.
     
  21. katarddx

    katarddx Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    completely agreed! if a player is considered the best then it should be playing well on it - pretty simple! keep the Dirt!!!!!!!!!
     
  22. North

    North Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    936
    I couldn't agree more, especially the one trick pony winners. I spent part of the match paying bills - write a check, look up and six more baseline groundies have gone by - yawn. It would be nice if the idea for each Grand Slam meant the player had to win by being able to do it all, not just one style of play. BTW, do you think they maybe slowed Wimbledon down a bit too much?
     
  23. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,333
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    i'm not exactly sure who all these "one trick ponies" are who keep winning roland garros. though i agree, the tournament has been a thorn in the side to some great players. but so what? if anything, that should be a source of pride for the french. that their tournament is so hard to win. i mean, top players have skipped the slams that they don't feel they have a shot at winning. are we gonna blame that on the tournaments, too?

    the top men and women already have the deck stacked in their favor so that they may advance in the slams. we protect 32 seeds now (which i think is lame). the top players play on the better courts, at the better times. i mean, maybe we can have the unseeded players play in their bare feet, with one arm tied behind their backs? that should REALLY help these supposed "great players" who can never seem to win in paris.

    personally, i like upsets. i like seeing underdogs win. there have always been players who have an advantage on clay. but other players have advantages on other surfaces. that's just the way it is. sometimes, even when you're "the best" you STILL can't win 'em all, as the saying goes.

    when the same couple of players are winning all the slams, people b*tch. when the same couple of players DON'T win all the slams, people b*tch. i guess there's just no pleasing everyone, is there?
     
  24. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    yeah they need to change roland garros to grass courts!
     
  25. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    lol..laughing here....i brain cramped when i typed that laver didnt win the French.it dawned on me right after i wrote it....I expected to get attacked for it, but thanks all for not jumping me.
    yea..boring tennis for sure..i really think they need to speed things up there at least within the realm of reasonable especially these days when there is already so much baseline grinding going on.
    W make their courts high bounding and non skidding unlike the grass of old to accomodate the whiney dirtballers (remember when they were threatening to boycot W because of the seedings? they were seeded lower because they went out in the first round because they couldnt play on the grass). I think it fair the French be played on a more neutral surface..seems reasonable to me.
    Who wants to watch endless corss court exchanges and players coming in to deal with short balls then retreating back to the comfort of the baseline....err 20 feet behind the baseline....maybe they should put a wall up behind each court making it impossible to play from that far back..sholdnt have to hit 3 winners to actually win the point
     
  26. North

    North Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    936
    ROFL - would make an interesting video game.
     
  27. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    aye..or you could make it part of the real game....be able to play the ball off the back wall like you can in racquetball, paddle tennis, etc....then you would have one dirtballer who is a wall coupled with a wall which is a wall...... ;O

    I guess I like to see all the court and all the shots being played rather than just mostly forehands...
     
  28. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,540
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    They should change every GS' surface to grass, so Federer can win anything...


    :roll: :rolleyes: :roll:
     
  29. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,956
    Location:
    Antarctica
    The French Open is the French Open and like it or not, it's about red clay and long rallies. Sometimes the weather will be usually dry and hot throughout the fortnight, speeding up the courts (but only to a degree). This year, the first week, it was dank and cold and the courts played "heavy/slow."

    As lousy as some thought yesterday's match was, see if you can get your hands on some film/tape of e.g. 1987 Wilander - Lendl: that was enough to put you to sleep. Even worse, were the Borg routs over Vilas ('75 & '78)--absolute disasters that had the crowd derisively whistling out of boredom during some of the interminably long points between the two, to the point that even Philipe Chartier, The French Tennis Federation President admitted afterwards that it was a boring mess and that something might eventually have to be done. But things run in cycles and fortunately the French Open hasn't always centered around 2 guys willing to play "patty-cake" back-and-forth-forever tennis. Nadal, for all his pre-match 'in-yer-face' Guido-ishness, isn't some nondescript, faceless baseliner merely content to lollygag you to death with moonballs ad nauseum....waiting...waiting for his opponent to miss.
     
  30. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,333
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    well, YOU might not want to see it. and maybe I don't want to see it. but there are tons of folks out there who love roland garros and the red clay.

    i know the french have gotten a lot of stick during this tournament for being "rude" or whatever. but they know their surface, and what can be done on it. they know that it's difficult to be aggressive all the time, but it's not impossible to be aggressive. plenty of past champions have shown how to do it; how to take your opportunities and finish off the point. true, you have to be much more selective and thoughtful about it, but as dedans said, even the french don't want you to just stand way back there and hit crosscourt backhand after crosscourt backhand until the cows come home. it isn't fun for the fan in the stands anymore than it is for the fans watching at home.

    every surface is what it is. it's what the player does on it that counts.
     
  31. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    This is precisely my point....it was boring tennis in my opinion, and i dont understand why the court played so slow for the finals with the hot conditions...it should have played at it's quickest...I wasnt saying many of the matches in the olden days werent boring as well (that's kinda my point). i can understand that others may not think it was boring and that's col beans....i do however think they shouldnt slow down the conditions even more than the other clay events, because I think variety is nice and i would have enjoyed a Federer (or anyone else for that matter) be able to contrast the grind it out style with an all court style, but the court conditions precluded that
     
  32. Kevin T

    Kevin T Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,417
    Location:
    Too far from the Blue Ridge
    I agree with Mojo that the final was a dud. I probably enjoy the FO least of all the slams because I really don't like watching the grinding baseline style of play. Different strokes, I guess. Mojo is definitely correct when mentioning the "one trick ponies". Roland Garros has produced a number of champions since the 70's, and especially in the 90's and 00's, that have never won another slam and often not even been competitive. Anyone remember Andres Gimeno? No? How about Panatta? Maybe? Those guys are household names. Real world beaters. Lendl, Wilander, Borg, Agassi, Courier won other slams but in the last 15 years you have winners like Gaudio, Kuerten, Moya, Bruguera, Gomez, Chang, Muster, Noah. No other slam wins except for the dirt. If you look at men's champs at Wimby since the late 60's, only Stich, Cash, Krajicek and Goran never won another slam. But every one of those guys was a major threat or made the finals at other slams. With the exception of Orantes in 1975 and Rafter's 2 wins, all the US Open champs have had success at the other slams. Same goes for the Aussie with the exception of Korda, Johansson and Kriek.

    And if you want an insomnia cure better than Xanax laced with vodka, grab some French Open matches from the 70's and early 80's. Moon ball heaven.
     
  33. Brad Smith

    Brad Smith Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    The match yesterday was boring because Federer didn't play well. A well played clay court match can be just as exciting as one on other surfaces. There have been plenty of boring Wimbledon finals with too many aces and service winners. I like the contrast these two provide at the extremes of the sport as well as the variety of surfaces in between. Today's clay court game is more exciting than 20-30 years ago because players can hit with so much more power and spin even when standing 10 feet behind the baseline.

    I also believe that the variety of surfaces makes it possible for a greater variety of players to make a living which makes the sport stronger overall. The clay court specialists in particular can play almost their entire schedule on clay if they want to. This wouldn't be possible if there wasn't interest in it. There used to be a lot more tournaments in the US, and these were mainly hard courts or indoors, but over time these have moved to Europe or South America where clay is the more popular surface.

    As for my two cents on Federer, I think his backhand is great but it's not a clay court backhand and against a lefty Nadal it breaks down. A one handed backhand can be a great weapon on clay (Muster, Kuerten, Costa, Gaudio) but the true dirtballers wait more on the ball and hit it with a more Western grip than Federer. They can hit the shot with heavy spin over and over again. Federer uses a less extreme grip and uses his incredible timing to generate spin and to take the ball more on the rise, but on clay it's hard to do that since the bounces are not as consistent. It's also hard to hit that shot over and over again especially against Nadal's heavy spinning lefty forehand. The same is true to a lesser degree with Federer's forehand -- it's more semi-Western than the full Western preferred by true dirtballers and he uses his timing more than grip to generate spin. He is so good he can get away with it and beat most guys out there on clay, but against Nadal it's not enough.
     
  34. shawn1122

    shawn1122 Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,131
    The skill in tennis comes from being able to hit winners, not returning winners because you are fast and play a "safe" brand of tennis.

    However, it's true that Wimbledon also promotes a one-dimensional style of tennis.

    So, why can't we all just love hard courts and denounce these stupid "traditional" grand slams?
     
  35. JeffG

    JeffG New User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    47
    I think the exact opposite should occur- make the grass at Wimbledon slicker than snot. Different surfaces should favor different styles of play. As long as everyone is playing on the same surface at a particular tournament, it's fair.

    While I didn't think their complaints were made in total good faith, I do think the dirtballers had a point about seeding at Wimbledon. Afterall, highly ranked players are typically given corresponding seeds at Roland Garros, even if they have terrible records there.

    Roddick is a perfect example as a five seed this year. If seeds are to be determined by past success, he should certainly be in the twenties, if seeded at all. He's 4 and 6 lifetime at Roland Garros with three first round exits. Can you imagine the outcry if he didn't get a seed though?
     
  36. MaxT

    MaxT Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    341
    I totally agree with NoBad. FO surface is like mud!

    There were clearly many points that should have been over, with such depth and angel, but because of the surface one can always flip a lob and start the point again. Eventually the one attacking and constructing points makes a mistake. It basically rewards the style of perpetual heavy topspin. For the players and fans, this style is as interesting as chewing wood.

    That is why I say, if Fed, who plays attack tennis better than anyone in history, cannot eventually win over a spinner. The game is in trouble.

    Equivalently, if a tennis player loses to a wrestler in mud, you don't ask the tennis player to become wrestler, you fix the mud!
     
  37. DoubleHanded&LovinIt

    DoubleHanded&LovinIt Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,007
    Federer has dominated TMS Hamburg which has the slowest clay in the world. Federer couldn't attack and play an all-court game because Nadal kept it deep and to his backhand, consistently.

    I do agree with NoBadMojo, though, that it was strange that conditons during the final were so hot and yet, the court was so slow. That's an excellent point. I wonder why that was?
     
  38. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,863
    It wasn't slow, that was just Fed's excuse for being too nervous/tired(90 degrees) to come to net more.

    Did you see the amount of mishits/balls flying 1st 2 sets? That is typical of fast conditions on hot days.
     
  39. DoubleHanded&LovinIt

    DoubleHanded&LovinIt Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,007
    Yup, you guys got me. I'm assuming that the court played slow because Federer said so. That is my fault. I shouldn't believe him, apparently.
     
  40. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,863
    Nadal didn't say it was slow.
    In the 20 years I've watched the French, virtually all the players say when its hot, conditions are fast. Yet Federer says otherwise(& he only said it when he was asked why he didn't come to net more)
    Imagine if he said he was too nervous to come to net. That would be an admition no player would ever make & it would show that Nadal is really in his head.

    If it was slow, there would have been a lot of long rallies, there weren't.
     
  41. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,828
    What the duece, are you really saying this?

    The reason the courts are slower is that the basline bashers in many peoples opinion were ruining tennis. They want to see more serve and volley, think this over for a second, the new rackets and string have increased the ball speed to a much higher degree making it almost impossbile for the S&V and ect so that the BLB would win time and again.

    That makes tennis one dimensional and boaring, so they are simply evening things back out.

    Fed just simply got owned end of story, and the different surfaces and ect make it more challenging, tennis is interesting because not eveyone can do it.

    That is what is so great about the FO, it is so hard for the hard courters to win there, but you saw them doing better than ever this year.

    Life is about challenges only losers hate challenges
     
  42. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,454
    Well stated,jackson vile.
     
  43. Guga_x

    Guga_x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    I just do not get why you say that RG is a freak's show, that should be faster bla bla bla, lose its traditional slow clay etc., and then you whine when on the other side of the spectrum they did what you are defending for the French. They slowed the courts to stop the freak show at W, where guys that can only serve win games (Karlovic anyone).

    Now guys seriously, especially you NBJ, from whom I have a lot of consideration from your technical post on other parts of this forum, this is a stupid discussion. diversity is great. I am glad I get to see high level tennis on clay courts on Europe and South America, Fast Courts on Africa and North America, Indoor Carpet on Asia, and Grass on .... well in England ;) ; with different playing styles on each surface. That is what keeps tennis interesting. If all tennis matches would be played on one surface, with everyone playing the same style, than it would be boring.

    Finally, if you get bored watching 20 ball backcourt rallies, like I do get bored watching (not playing) S&V for an entire match, than don't watch and use that time to play how you like to play instead.
     
  44. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    oh you deem it a stupid discussion i see...i guess you are the person who determines such things and are smarter than everyone else...tennis IS boring now at the pro level other than a few players..thats my point....it's constant baseline grinding ..a fitness grind more than anything else and for the French to make their surface even more conducive to such play isnt so good i dont think..the history of this tourney speaks for itself...lots of one trick ponies and many of the best of all time who havent won the event. these days having a great fitness trainer and terrific medicine cabinet is more important than being able to play the entire court and hit all the shots

    By the way you guys, this thread isnt about Fed..it isnt about Nadal..it's a general comment about how I feel they should make the surface there more conducive so more players have a chance to win like they've done at Wimbledon and to encourage more variety of play..maybe even have some matches with contrasting styles. anyone who can read can see this wasnt about federer. by the way dude..only a small handful of players even play constant serve and volley on the tour these days, and NONE of them are top players....so you dont even see this style much anymore...so i dont know what sport you are commenting about...all you see is the grind........yawn

    conclusion: I think it is more enjoyable to watch players hit all of the shots than just some of the shots or basically a bazillion forehands
     
  45. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    NBM,

    Good thread topic, once again. But I don't mind RG being RG. It is an extreme. I have no problem with that. However, I do mind the powers that be artificially manipulating conditions at Wimbledon though, for a couple of reasons. It had always been an extreme and many felt in the opposite direction. RG rewarding endurance of mind and body, willingness to engage in almost unending rallies, resolve etc., and allowing those with a skillset perhaps lacking in serve or stature or the ability to blast an opponent into submission to instead outlast their opponents with marathon-like aerobic endurance of mind and heart. Fine. While not aesthetically pleasing to me I fully acknowledge, appreciate and respect those skills in an athlete. Awesome.

    Where I have a problem is with Wimbledon in that they are doing everything short of calling scores in French and using Weed-B-Gone on the turf to turn the Euro half of the Grand Slam into two dust bowls. Wimbledon used to reward huge servers, anaerobic fitness, blink of an eye lightning quick reflexes, micro-wave speed strategies, do or don't tennis. Some saw that as boring as some see the monotonous metronomic rallies the conditions at RG reward. I didn't. I saw the unique skills and gifts those conditions rewarded. Fast. Lightning fast tennis requiring equally awesome skills to successfully prosecute for seven rounds in order to hoist hardware.

    To me they were both beautiful in their own diverse ways. The contrasts stark, the requisite skill-sets to excell on each markedly different. And once or perhaps twice in a lifetime we got to see that guy, who could do both and did both on surfaces diametrically opposed to each other. Laver, Borg and Agassi and their like. As great as JMc, Lendl, Edberg even Sampras were they just were not diversely skilled enough. Close, but just not there. Fed may never do it despite establishing himself as the Vilas to Nadal's Borg on clay.

    But in prior eras, including Borg's, Wimbledon was greasy fast and RG was often mud-like slow. Now the grass at AELTCC is playing more similar to the terre batu than it is to the hardcourts of Flushing or Melbourne. Even the Aussie Open, while unique and absent the sliding of a granular surface, is closer to French-like speed than a traditional hardcourt. But it is at least unique.

    Simply stated the surfaces are not as different as they once were. They seem be becoming homogenized more and more. If someone duplicates Borg's 3/3 back to backs at RG and Wimbledon with the conditions as they are now it will pale in comparison to Borg's achievement because the surface and balls used at Wimbledon have substantively changed the game-style there to such a great degree as morphing the only grass court championships into something more similar to RG than it ever was in the past.

    Give me diverse. Give me the specialists who excell at either the grind of RG or the fighter pilot speeds of the old Wimbledon conditions. For the anticipated nay-sayers, you'll still have the "fair" tests of the Aussie and US Opens to give each a chance to ply their style on more level playing fields for majors. And to continue the age old arguments of who is better the irresistable force or the immovable object.

    I would say leave RG as is but return Wimbledon to as it once was and then every once in a while, perhaps every third or fourth generation of players, there will be that guy, the one, who can do it on everything from one extreme to the other who will allow us to more ably debate the GOAT. JMHO.
     
  46. tykrum

    tykrum Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    378
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Okay the original point was that the French Open has champions that are "flukes" or not considered amongst the greatest of all time. But let's think about it this way - in general, winning in tennis at the highest level favors a more attacking style of play. Most of the greatest players played a style where they relied on their attacking skills - skills that are nullified at the French. Players that rely more on their defense will lose for the most part on other surfaces against players with superior offense, but their defensive skills have the chance to shine on a clay surface.
     
  47. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Thanks Fiver. I enjoyed your post. I think we're saying the same things here. I wasnt in favour of them making W play more like a slow hardcourt than grass either, I was just commenting that it does, and if they are further homogenizing our sport, it's ridiculous that the French would make the play even more one dimensional than it already is..at least they should make it play like the other surfaces like the others have done.

    In any case, I dont think the surface speed and changing the balls is the problem any way. Now we have a entire new crop of players who learned to play with modern style (abrupt swing paths, western forehands, etc) and larger headed frames. Things are not going to change I dont think unless they change the equipment limits for the Tour only. If they limited the frames to any combo of length plus width = 36" or make the max size perhaps around 90, I think the syle of play would be far more diverse and you wouldnt see nearly as many baselining clones out there. nadal and others with that style need every bit of their 100 headsize..
     
  48. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    True that, NBM, true that!

    5
     
  49. Kaptain Karl

    Kaptain Karl Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    5,236
    Location:
    The High Country of Colorado
    I agree with (what I think) NoBadMojo is posting. I believe the French clay is TOO slow. (Leave it dirt, just make it a touch more realistic.)

    This may not mean "slow it down," but ... make the outside areas less conducive to the ridiculous make-an-unbelivable- "get"-and-reset-the-25-ball-counter-for-this-point bunch.

    Yikes! Someone does not know much about clay courts around the world.

    Ashe used to say running on those courts was like running in mashed potatoes.

    Agreed. I turn it on with the volume low ... and if the crowd goes nuts enough to get my attention, I watch the replay of the last five strokes of the previous point. The French is SO out of whack on the Endurance/Skill Scale ... at least it's a cure for insomnia.

    The rest of Kevin's post was a clear delivery of the facts, too. Good job!

    Huh???

    A "fast" RG Centre Court is still very slow compared with other clay.

    Hello??? How you gonna have long rallies when one player has gone on a walkabout? The short points were not solely a function of the court speed, but the absence of Roger Federer, IMO.

    My dream for the Majors would be...
    ... Oz on hard
    ... French on normal clay
    ... Wimbledon on slick grass
    ... US Open on Har-Tru

    - KK
     
  50. DoubleHanded&LovinIt

    DoubleHanded&LovinIt Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,007
    Kaptain Karl,

    That's what dreams are for. The USTA, I don't think, will ever have the U.S. Open on any kind of clay (even the faster stuff like Har-Tru).
     

Share This Page