Federer wants faster surfaces

[TennezSport]

Originally Posted by Feather

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 low. Rafa can't attack Roger's backhand. If the court was fast there would have been more winners

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

Cheers, TennezSport

[TheNatural]

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."

[TennisLovaLova]

Did anyone check pseudofed's blog on this specific subject? Just hilarious

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by nikdom

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.

Originally Posted by mistik

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.

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?

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

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."

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.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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?

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.

[NadalDramaQueen]

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

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.

That is my experience and observation as well.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

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

[Borrelli]

Originally Posted by TennezSport

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

Cheers, TennezSport

Simple as that!

[Mick3391]

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?

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.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

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.

All of these strange comparisons of if the courts were faster and what if poly was not allowed. And fed would be affected less without poly than other players would be. These are beyond hilarious!

How about living in reality instead of all of this woulda, coulda shoulda fantasy land that so many here seem to reside in.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

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.

The reason they slowed the courts down was to stop the snoozefest serving contests that were going on. The Sampras era is were this began because the game was so fricking boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by tlm

The reason they slowed the courts down was to stop the snoozefest serving contests that were going on. The Sampras era is were this began because the game was so fricking boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats why you should have a mix of both!!!

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Thats why you should have a mix of both!!!

It is hilarious, how some people say, "Everything should be slow, because otherwise everything will be fast".

Black and white thinking much, eh?

[Netspirit]

I don't know anyone who dislikes winners in tennis. I think even Nadal and Simon fans would agree that even a good rally is a build-up for the culmination (winner), and that slow courts & more errors simply do not look good.

The problem with fast courts was not the winners, it was the serve. That shot was so powerful that lots of rallies could not even start. They could have nerfed the serve (for example, by removing the second serve rule so all serves would automatically become more conservative) but instead they chose the screw up the whole dynamics.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

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.

Fantastic post ! Very good

[Omega_7000]

Originally Posted by TennezSport

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

Cheers, TennezSport

This post summarizes everything!

I can't believe people have a problem with what Fed's saying. he isn't asking for all courts to be fast. he's asking to include more variety to make it more interesting. How anyone can have issues with this is beyond me!

[tlm]

Originally Posted by Omega_7000

This post summarizes everything!

I can't believe people have a problem with what Fed's saying. he isn't asking for all courts to be fast. he's asking to include more variety to make it more interesting. How anyone can have issues with this is beyond me!

Funny how last year when he won this same tournament I did not hear him say anything about the court being to slow. He has won this event many times but never heard anything about it being to slow until this year when he lost. How there is anyone that can not see the hypocrisy in this is beyond me.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by tlm

Funny how last year when he won this same tournament I did not hear him say anything about the court being to slow. He has won this event many times but never heard anything about it being to slow until this year when he lost. How there is anyone that can not see the hypocrisy in this is beyond me.

Last year he wasn't asked about the courts being too slow. This year he was. He was simply answering questions.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Last year he wasn't asked about the courts being too slow. This year he was. He was simply answering questions.

Really where did you see that he was asked?