Tennis - Courts have made defence the new attack, says Federer

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by rainingaces

The players against the authorities, he wanted proper consultation. Serena and federer hated it but when they won on it they both were for it. Players like to get their excuses in rather then say to the press they love it then lose. Tourniments should take no notice of players they are hypocrits.

I can't speak about Serena, but Federer has never liked the blue clay even after he won the tournament. The difference is, Federer played on it without letting it get to him mentally, and generally crying about it, like Nadal and Djokovic did.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

I can't speak about Serena, but Federer has never liked the blue clay even after he won the tournament. The difference is, Federer played on it without letting it get to him mentally, and generally crying about it, like Nadal and Djokovic did.

Federer was against it before he struck a single ball on the surface. That should tell you, that his concerns were not because of the surface itself, but because of him being traditionalist. His concerns had NOTHING to do with how the surface plays!

Besides, blue clay played in his hands, and he still insisted, that clay should remain ..... red. I doubt, that we will see Nadal insist on changes, that could possibly harm him. EVER. Federer is in different league altogether, when it comes to such things.

[Murrayfan31]

Fed still bitter I see.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

So, how is it going with your "It is impossible to play on fast HC with the modern racket and string technology" theory?

That was never any theory of mine. My theory is quite the opposite actually, that the technology is the main reason for the so-called "slowness" of today's game.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by rainingaces

The players against the authorities, he wanted proper consultation. Serena and federer hated it but when they won on it they both were for it. Players like to get their excuses in rather then say to the press they love it then lose. Tourniments should take no notice of players they are hypocrits.

You're either ignorant or dishonest. Total crap post.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by PeteD

Remember when clay was interesting because it was a whole different game?

And, to demonstrate the point perfectly, the most entertaining French Open of the last two decades for me was the 2011 event where the balls were niceably faster when fresh (either in error or deliberately). It was such a great event and the change was blatantly evident.

In fact, when I watched it, I just knew the ITF would slow the balls down for 2012 because it was such a positive change. Their mantra seems to be: do the opposite of what worked.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Federer was against it before he struck a single ball on the surface. That should tell you, that his concerns were not because of the surface itself, but because of him being traditionalist. His concerns had NOTHING to do with how the surface plays!

Besides, blue clay played in his hands, and he still insisted, that clay should remain...

The best thing that could happen to tennis in 2012 with regards to surfaces is for the newly red clay at Madrid to be the most unmitigated ****-up of all times in terms of playing conditions. The slipperier, the more uneven the bounce the better.

Then at least the powers that be might not be so quick to ditch new ideas before they've had a chance to prove themselves in future.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That was never any theory of mine. My theory is quite the opposite actually, that the technology is the main reason for the so-called "slowness" of today's game.

I told you. You are outdoing yourself by the minute.

Could you please provide a scientific explanation of this. Elaborate on the cause and the effect and the link between them, please.

I think we are in for a very entertaining explanation "a la Nadal_Freak".

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

I told you. You are outdoing yourself by the minute.

Could you please provide a scientific explanation of this. Elaborate on the cause and the effect and the link between them, please.

I think we are in for a very entertaining explanation "a la Nadal_Freak".

If you don't know that hitting balls with more topspin makes the ball go slower and through the court less than in using the same power to hit flat balls, I don't know what to tell you.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If you don't know that hitting balls with more topspin makes the ball go slower and through the court less than in using the same power to hit flat balls, I don't know what to tell you.

...and when flatter hitters can't hit through the court, what does that mean?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If you don't know that hitting balls with more topspin makes the ball go slower and through the court less than in using the same power to hit flat balls, I don't know what to tell you.

But topspin has always been there. It's just easier and more effective now.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

...and when flatter hitters can't hit through the court, what does that mean?

That today's strings are not flat friendly. Who truly hits flat these days?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That today's strings are not flat friendly. Who truly hits flat these days?

Mustard, I am a relatively terrible tennis player compared to the pros, and I can still flatten the ball out with a full bed of poly. Can I hit with zero spin? Of course not, but I can get the rpm's down pretty low.

Like you say, if you don't understand that you can have two sets of hard courts that play at different speeds, I don't know what to tell you. Go play tennis!

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If you don't know that hitting balls with more topspin makes the ball go slower and through the court less than in using the same power to hit flat balls, I don't know what to tell you.

Oh, but it is the inherent ability of the court to take that spin, that matters.

In short. Nadal could hit with monstrous spin every ball he can put his racket on, but if the grass is slick and low bouncing it wouldn't matter (as it matters now).

Moreover. If he is playing on ultrafast and slick grass the question is on how many balls he will be able to put his racket and in a way, that he is able to apply his spin?

So, please, elaborate how exactly the development of the "new" string and racket technology is responsible for the slowing of the courts. Or do you suggest, that the courts haven't been slowed down and that is an optical illusion?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

But topspin has always been there. It's just easier and more effective now.

I know. Topspin was there in the days of Bruguera, back to Borg and Vilas, and even way before that, but the sort of topspin Nadal hits is far more penetrating as a result of today's strings.

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Like you say, if you don't understand that you can have two sets of hard courts that play at different speeds, I don't know what to tell you. Go play tennis!

I have never said that.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I know. Topspin was there in the days of Bruguera, back to Borg and Vilas, and even way before that, but the sort of topspin Nadal hits is far more penetrating as a result of today's strings.



I have never said that.

That is good to know. I am trying to figure out what you're even getting at with this issue.

Is it your hypothesis that hard courts (let us pick the AO and the USO as examples) have not gotten slower over the years (defined in a way that is independent of what racquets or balls are used), but that the new racquets/strings have made them appear that way?

Honest question.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

In short. Nadal could hit with monstrous spin every ball he can put his racket on, but if the grass is slick and low bouncing it wouldn't matter (as it matters now).

Nadal won 2008 Queen's Club. As for old Wimbledon, he never got to play on the surface, so we shall never know. Nadal reached the semi finals of Junior Wimbledon in 2002, but that was the first year the new grass was used at the tournament.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Moreover. If he is playing on ultrafast and slick grass the question is on how many balls he will be able to put his racket and in a way, that he is able to apply his spin?

We shall never know

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

So, please, elaborate how exactly the development of the "new" string and racket technology is responsible for the slowing of the courts. Or do you suggest, that the courts haven't been slowed down and that is an optical illusion?

I already have elaborated, I don't know what else I can tell you. The reason conditions are more homogeneous today than in the past, is a combination of the modern technology, the fazing out of carpet courts until they totally disappeared from tour and the change of Wimbledon grass from 70% Rye to 100% Rye. And yes, the differences between speed on different courts have narrowed over the years as well, but this factor is totally exaggerated compared to the other factors (i.e. the technology and the fazing out of carpet courts).

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I know. Topspin was there in the days of Bruguera, back to Borg and Vilas, and even way before that, but the sort of topspin Nadal hits is far more penetrating as a result of today's strings.



I have never said that.

If Hermione Granger were a Tennis fan, she'd sound just like you

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

That is good to know. I am trying to figure out what you're even getting at with this issue.

Is it your hypothesis that hard courts (let us pick the AO and the USO as examples) have not gotten slower over the years (defined in a way that is independent of what racquets or balls are used), but that the new racquets/strings have made them appear that way?

For the most part, yes, that is my point. There's this, and the fazing out of carpet courts so that they are no longer on tour. Making certain tournaments compulsory has also changed the dynamic of the way the tour works in terms of there now being a lot less "surface specialists" than in the past. In the 1990s, for example, players could go off on their own personal schedules and pack their calendar with clay-court tournaments, for example, or skip Wimbledon altogether. This doesn't really happen now.

[dimeaxe]

It's not only about surfaces, it's also about tennis balls.Up to 2002 it was ATP's standard size and weight of the ball for all tournaments,and it was lighter, and softer ball.It was easier to hit through the court with these balls.It's myth about Federer's love for ultra fast stuff, only thing that i know is that he likes surface that absorb top spin, like WTF.