Federer wants faster surfaces

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

What have Sampras and Becker to do with this discussion?

And, Sampras and Becker were having 20-25 shot rallies on HC/carpet/grass on a regular basis? Really?

They had more long rallies with their opponents on hardcourts than a lot of people think.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Also, we are not talking about HC only. We are talking about grass as well. We are talking about carpet as well.

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

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Yet, in the 90ies there were a lot more surface specialists. Now everybody is a specialist, because the differences between the surfaces in terms of speed, have greatly diminished.

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".

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Really? The best chance? Didn't see that on the faster surfaces that are still presented on Tour.

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.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

So, when exactly was known, that the new strings are a problem for the fast surfaces?

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.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

You talk about fear of change, but what you are demonstrating is exactly that - fear of change, isn't it?

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.

[Gizo]

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Warmaster

Agreed.

Now we just need to speed up the courts so we can have our precious balance!

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

They had more long rallies with their opponents on hardcourts than a lot of people think.

But that is not the answet to my question, is it?

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

Originally Posted by Mustard

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

At least we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mustard

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".

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.

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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?

[veroniquem]

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

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.

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.

[veroniquem]

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.

[zam88]

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 ***.... really see if they could move... lots o slipping and sliding... tear a few ligaments and stuff

[tlm]

Originally Posted by bbfl

Yeah poor Fed has won only 17 GS. Djokovich is too defensive who is relying on opponents errors, did you see the winners on the final? Roger made 10-15 more winners than Djoko. That's why Murray's and Djoko's style is too boring to watch. Tennis only will lose if they keep playing like this.

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 sh!t. 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.

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

SOURCE: http://www.tsn.ca/tennis/story/?id=409373








My thoughts on this are as follows:

This will sound like sour grapes from Fed given its timing, but I've always agreed with him in this regard, but I can almost guarantee that fans of the other 3 won't. He's not saying all the courts should be fast, he's just asking for some variety. There are probably too many HC's as it is, and almost all of them are too similar IMHO, not to mention the grass is slower. Think of it this way if you're a fan of 1 or more of the other 3. It should prolong their careers, and that would be better for everyone.

So what does everybody else think?

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

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.

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

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.

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

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.

[BeGreat]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You can't go back to the 1990s because the racquet and string technology is different. Tennis changes and evolves by going forwards, not backwards.

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.

[Mustard]

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.

[mattennis]

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.

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by BeGreat

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.

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).

[nikdom]

Hewitt agrees -

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/news/arti...faster-courts/

Says he saw the WTF and the courts seemed awfully slow to him. So there you go.

[veroniquem]

So Hewitt says the WTF courts were slow and Fed said they were fast. Great consensus there.

[nikdom]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

So Hewitt says the WTF courts were slow and Fed said they were fast. Great consensus there.

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.