Federer wants faster surfaces

[gregor.b]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Players have to adjust their game constantly. Miami doesn't play like IW which doesn't play like Cincy which doesn't play like Paris indoor and plays even less like clay which doesn't play like grass at all. I'm sorry but the only time when the surfaces become similar all of a sudden is when Fed loses.

I am beginning to wonder if some of the people on these boards ACTUALLY PLAY tennis, or maybe just like to commentate on it. They are different courts yes, with different characteristics, like taking spin, bounce etc, but the speed IS SIMILAR. This is the issue. When did a serve/volleyer last make a semi or final at Wimby? Maybe 2002 or 2003 being Rafter or Goran at a guess? That is a long time.

[Tafmatch]

Now look at the trends since the mid 80's(when HC started to be prevalent) onwards:

Happened in every professional sport. Don't think it has anything to do with hardcourt.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by gregor.b

I am beginning to wonder if some of the people on these boards ACTUALLY PLAY tennis, or maybe just like to commentate on it. They are different courts yes, with different characteristics, like taking spin, bounce etc, but the speed IS SIMILAR. This is the issue. When did a serve/volleyer last make a semi or final at Wimby? Maybe 2002 or 2003 being Rafter or Goran at a guess? That is a long time.

True, many of the characteristics of the surfaces remain the same but the speeds on almost all courts are drifting closer together. For example, AO and RG both play quite slow but RG is always gonna be difficult for those that can't slide very well. Same thing for grass, Davydenko(one of the best baseliners in history) is boss on HC and clay yet he never made it past 4R(got there once, beaten by Baggie) on the modern slower grass of WB that, in theory, should favor his game.

As for the S&V game, it will come back only if they lay out a lightning fast court, like when Llodra made SF in Paris MS a couple of years ago. But here's the thing, people STILL love baseline tennis, those that demand S&V tennis still seem pretty niche. Cincy is quite fast but S&V is still rare there and with today's equipment, players could dictate from the baseline on a fast court. Imagine guys like Delpo/Soderling/Berdych on a truly fast court. If their main weapons clicked, they would rarely need to come to the net to finish a point, let alone go there right after the serve.

WTF, indoor tennis, which is supposed to be quite fast, has layed out a SLOW *** COURT since it moved from Shanghai and yet this past edition, something like 250,000 fans watched the matches live, not to mention the millions that watched at home. And this is with most players staying away from the net like it was made of fire. Baseline tennis still has quite the audience it seems.

[Gizo]

Tennis will continue to be dominated by baseliners that's for sure. However even amongst those baselines there is less variety these days, with more defensive, grinding baseline tennis becoming so dominant across all the surfaces

Some faster surfaces, would at least better reward more attack-minded shot-making tennis from the baseline, with more winners and shorter points. Plus players would be able to hit more effective approach shots and come to the net at least occasionally although not regularly.

The German player Mischa Zverev came through the ranks and had a leftie serve-volley style a few years ago that was so refreshing to see. He was never going to challenge for the big tournaments or anything, but he at least looked like he could establish himself at tour level, good enough to play at the main ATP tournaments. However then he abandoned that playing style and transformed into a defensive pusher. His results declined and now he is a challenger level player.

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

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

So what does everybody else think?

Not sour grapes.
He's spoken about it at least a few times in the last few years, and not only yesterday. And why not? We don't eat hamburger, or spaghetti, or steak, or salad, or the same exact food everyday even though that dish can be our favorite, do we?

[Gizo]

Regarding hard-courts, for me one of the biggest regrets in tennis history is that hard courts have become so popular and widespread at the expense of grass, carpet and even green clay/har-tru in the USA.

9 out of the 14 biggest annual tennis tournaments on the calendar being held on the most dangerous surface on the players' bodies is just ridiculous.

I think that one grand slam and a handful of masters series and other smaller ATP events on hard courts would have been fine, but certainly not the ridiculously high number of tournaments that we have on the surface nowadays.

Over the years many players have said that grass courts have been for cows or that clay courts have been for pottery. One of my favourite quotes was the American clay-court specialist Eddie Dibbs saying that hard courts were for parking lots.

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by SoBad

How about a modest condo in a quiet retirement community in Florida - has he considered that?

No, but Nadal should. They have lots of clay court in Florida

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

No, but Nadal should. They have lots of clay court in Florida

Nah, but it seems to be a suggestion that SoBad can hardly do for himself. Envy?

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

I don't know, if you saw that gem:



I haven't seen such a bad self-ownage in a loooooong time.

Originally Posted by Gorecki

Vero types and argues like she was hit by one of Nadal's CC FH straight in the head!!!!

in fact, that is going to my sig!!!

wasn't easy to pick only one from her huge collection of gems... great sig.

[morten]

i agree with Federer, slower courts have ruined tennis more than polystrings...

[tacou]

I am not the biggest Fed fan but I don't think he sounds "sour" at all. He cites London as being one of the quicker surfaces (did he say that this week? or 2 years ago?) and rightfully includes himself as one of the tour's top defenders who benefit from the slower surfaces, and it's true.

Federer's arguments are really hard to attack. Should all the surfaces be the same speed? Or different speeds? It's the same as asking should every court in the world be the same color. No. Boring. Let's see some variety soon, please.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by VPhuc tennis fan

Not sour grapes.
He's spoken about it at least a few times in the last few years, and not only yesterday. And why not? We don't eat hamburger, or spaghetti, or steak, or salad, or the same exact food everyday even though that dish can be our favorite, do we?

I know of Federer's stance on this issue over the years. I don't think it was sour grapes, I simply said I think it will sound like sour grapes (to anybody who's not a fan of Fed, and maybe even some that are) given its timing, but I don't really think it was. He's taking his stance, and if somebody asked him a question like that, at least he was honest as he always is, but I think the timing could've been better. He even said the WTF court was fine as it is, and it's not like he can't defend. Although he will never be at a Nadal or Djokovic level, he was great at it in his prime, but obviously he's getting worse.

[TMF]

Roger wants "some" variety which is best for the sport. While it's true that he suffer because of gradual slowing down of the surfaces in the past years, but many players who thrives on fast surfaces suffer even more. Tsonga, Roddick, Soderling, Del Potro, Berdych to name a few would have a better career had there were more fast courts.. NOle and Nadal are at where they are right now because all the slow surfaces rewards their style. Federer is the only exception that he can play both on slow and fast court, although he would have even better results had there were more faster courts.

Federer is not speaking for himself, but for the entire tour so game can be more balance, because certain players just play better on fast court and vice versa.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Originally Posted by TMF

Roger wants "some" variety which is best for the sport. While it's true that he suffer because of gradual slowing down of the surfaces in the past years, but many players who thrives on fast surfaces suffer even more. Tsonga, Roddick, Soderling, Del Potro, Berdych to name a few would have a better career had there were more fast courts.. NOle and Nadal are at where they are right now because all the slow surfaces rewards their style. Federer is the only exception that he can play both on slow and fast court, although he would have even better results had there were more faster courts.

Federer is not speaking for himself, but for the entire tour so game can be more balance, because certain players just play better on fast court and vice versa.

No he's speaking for himself and Soderling, Del Potro and Berdych would not prefer faster surfaces.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by namelessone

And you think this is normal? Just because HC is cheap? Yes, it's cheap and it's also one of the reasons why players are retiring at a younger age than past players, their bodies wear out earlier on(yes, tennis is more physical nowadays but it doesn't help that 2/3 times on tour you are starting and stopping on asphalt). The guys that didn't catch the HC revolution in full swing played tennis well into their 30's and that was at least partially because natural surfaces were so prevalent on tour.

Gonzalez - retired at 46.
Emerson - retired at 47.
Laver - retired at 41.
Newcombe - retired at 37.
Rosewall - retired at 46.
Ashe - retired at 37.
Nastase - retired at 39.
Connors - retired at 44.
Vilas - retired at 40.

If you look at most top players from the 60's - 70's(or before that), they played tennis well into their mid 30's and some didn't stop until they hit 40 years of age, unthinkable today.

Now look at the trends since the mid 80's(when HC started to be prevalent) onwards:

Wilander-32.
Lendl(who was a machine) - 34.
Edberg - 30.
Becker - 32
Leconte - 33.
Cash - 32.
Chang - 31.
Kafelnikov - 29.
Krajicek - 32.
Muster - 32(unless you count his ill advised comeback in 2010-2011)
Moya - 34.
Rafter - 30.
Courier - 30.
Ivanisevic - 33.
Sampras - 31.
Kuerten - 32.
Gaudio - 33.
Coria - 27.
Ferrero - 32.
Safin - 29.
Roddick - 30.
Ljubicic - 33.

And I think that Davydenko and Hewitt(both 31) have one-two more years on tour before they pack it in.

It seems nowadays you need to be some sort of freak to even reach 35 years of age and still be on tour. I'm not saying that HC is surely to blame for this but it's a weird coincidence that once this surface(that is toughest on the body) became the most common on tour, the retirement age for most top guys started to become early 30's instead of late 30's-early 40's like in the past. And before you say that it is because of slow HC that grinds them down earlier on, know that 90's had PLENTY of fast surfaces(carpet anyone?) and yet almost all the famous players from that decade retired in their early 30's.

Personally, I think that more grass instead of HC, coupled with the existent clay season will prolong overall player longevity. HC should be at most 40% of the tour instead of the 65-70% it has today.

Sorry but you're omitting a very important fact here, players in 60-70's (and before that) played 3 slams on lightning fast grass unlike today's Wimbledon where players grind each other down in 30+ stroke rallies.

That's not even mentioning wood racquets, no poly etc. which also factor in longevity, it was a different time with somewhat different skillsets being rewarded.

Somehow I doubt you and your fellow Nadal fans (including Nadal himself and tio Toni given their comments on surface speeds and proposed changes to the game) would be thrilled to see so much tourneys on old-school grass and don't you dare claim old grass would lead to Karlovic and Isner types being contenders (a made up excuse by proponents of slowdown and homogenization of the game), they wouldn't do **** on old grass, their utterly horrible ROS and athleticism would guarantee that without a shred of a doubt.

Another fact you also omitted is that usually HC specialists have significantly longer and more injury-free careers compared to CC specialists, if clay is such an awesome surface, why is that I wonder? Maybe because it's easier to keep points short on HCs instead of engaging in grueling rallies and fitness contests?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

No he's speaking for himself and Soderling, Del Potro and Berdych would not prefer faster surfaces.

With bigger serve and power of course they would. The bigger players doesn't have the movement to grind on slower surfaces, having short rally is a plus for them.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

It's always want, want, want with Federer. Never thinking about the other players. He wants to be a gentleman while the rest burn. What tennis NEEDS is more clay-court tournaments, compared to hard-court, since hard-court tournaments take up too much of the calendar.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by zagor

Somehow I doubt you and your fellow Nadal fans (including Nadal himself and tio Toni given their comments on surface speeds and proposed changes to the game) would be thrilled to see so much tourneys on old-school grass and don't you dare claim old grass would lead to Karlovic and Isner types being contenders (a made up excuse by proponents of slowdown and homogenization of the game), they wouldn't do **** on old grass, their utterly horrible ROS and athleticism would guarantee that without a shred of a doubt.

Another fact you also omitted is that usually HC specialists have significantly longer and more injury-free careers compared to CC specialists, if clay is such an awesome surface, why is that I wonder? Maybe because it's easier to keep points short on HCs instead of engaging in grueling rallies and fitness contests?

I said grass, not necesarily old school grass though tbh I couldn't care less what kind the grass. Grass is softer on the body, it's one of the original surfaces and personally, I like watching grasscourt tennis more than on HC I've seen better matches in Queens than in many some MS.Don't know if Karlovic/Isner would be contenders but they are guy who tower at over 2 meters tall and on old grass their balls would stay lower on this surface, even if subsequently they couldn't reach their opponent's shots as well. Personally I think that they would do better on old grass.

As for specialists, what are specialists nowadays?

Almagro, a guy that heavily relies upon clay for points, played as many HC tourneys this year as he did clay(11 to 11). The southamerican/spanish contingent(the usual suspects for clay prowess) usually plays more HC events per year than clay so they end up spending more time on HC than on clay per year even if they were better on the red stuff. It's the nature of the tour.

As for HC'ers having longer careers, I doubt it. Most of the clay "superstars" of the 90's, Muster(32), Bruguera(31), Costa(31), Gaudio(33), Ferrero(32), Kuerten(32) retired in early 30's and even these guys spent more time per year on a HC than on a claycourt, at least for most of their playing years. They are called CC specialists because of their results but they spent most of the year playing on hardcourts just like their counterparts.

Is Chang a HC'er or a CC'er(won RG but also won several HC MS and made finals in AO and USO)? If we go further back, what is Wilander, a CC'er or a HC'er? Lendl, a guy that won almost as many CC events as he did carpet ones, what is he? So called CC'ers like Kuerten or Ferrero made Tour Finals on fast hardcourt and a "dirtballer" like Kuerten managed to beat Agassi and Sampras back to back in TMC 2000.

From the 90's onwards the tour consisted mainly of guys playing on HC, with a little clay and grass thrown in. Some were good on clay and got labeled "specialists" but even these guys played most of their year on HC and in the long term suffered for it.

Are you really gonna deny that natural surfaces are far kinder to the body than starting and stopping repeatedly on freaking asphalt? I agree with you that the tech changed, that surfaces speeds varied, than tennis got more physical/professional but I do find it strange that since HC took over the tour in the 90's, the average age for retirement has dropped by 7-10 years.

[Ms Nadal]

We do need a variety of surfaces, I agree with Roger.

[wangs78]

Two simple points.

1) Fed's comments are absolutely self serving, and in two distinct ways. One, he stands a better chance on faster courts against his top rivals who are all better defenders than they are attackers. Two, greater variability will make it harder for any one player to dominate. You'll wind up back in the 90s, where top fast-surface players tended to rack up the most points in a season and then during the clay court season a bunch of Europeans will claim the dirt titles.

2) Is tennis better off with greater variability of courts? I think so. The whole point is indeed to make it very hard to achieve winning on all surfaces. It seems like today any of the top players can do it primarily with outstanding defense and just ok offense.