tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
From ES: http://tinyurl.com/a7bjgkq
Federer should learn to adapt to the conditions. Always looking to twist things in his favour. Not a fair player at all.
hes just saying there needs to be both types of courts. Fast and slow, right now all the surfaces play the same and its terribly boring
Exactly. There should be a variety of court speeds. It would make the winners less predictable. Not a bad thing. These newbies need some help to shine :lol:
I was with Janko until the last sentence -- Agassi couldn't really defend?
Remember when clay was interesting because it was a whole different game?
Federer whinging again, or journalists being mischievous again? Yawn.
Federer should learn to adapt to the conditions. Always looking to twist things in his favour. Not a fair player at all.
Just like on blue clay, you mean? You're right, threatening to boycott the tournament was downright disgraceful.
Federer didn't like the idea of blue clay either and voiced the opinion in 2009:
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20090510/Federer_puts_his_foot_down_on_blue_clay_issue
Federer didn't like the idea of blue clay either and voiced the opinion in 2009:
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20090510/Federer_puts_his_foot_down_on_blue_clay_issue
Federer didn't like the idea of blue clay either and voiced the opinion in 2009:
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20090510/Federer_puts_his_foot_down_on_blue_clay_issue
Federer didn't like the idea of blue clay either and voiced the opinion in 2009:
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20090510/Federer_puts_his_foot_down_on_blue_clay_issue
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.
So, how is it going with your "It is impossible to play on fast HC with the modern racket and string technology" theory?
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.
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.Remember when clay was interesting because it was a whole different game?
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.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...
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".
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.
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?
That today's strings are not flat friendly. Who truly hits flat these days?
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
We shall never know
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).
They do need more variety.
It's exciting watching different tactics and strategies play out. It's exciting watching the top players adapt their games to different courts.
Serve and volley tennis was great to watch, as is baseline tennis.
It's also great when an underdog plays the tournament of their lives and makes it to a grand slam final.
None of these are happening anymore. Don't get me wrong the Novak/Fed final was awesome to watch, but there have been many tournament finals in recent memory that have been monotonous. The same patterns over and over and over again.
Oh, but we know.
Countless efforts to win at the WTF or Cincy say a lot.
You have not elaborated. You clearly stated, that racket and string technology are responsible for the slowing of the courts, but did not explain how this exactly happens.
My own experience says, that different courts play in a differrent way with exactly the same racket and string setup.The differences for me as an amateur can be felt very clearly! I can only imagine what it means for the Pros.
So, the question is, if what you say is true, and everything is dependant on the racket and string setup, how is that possible?
How is it possible, that Pros like Federer and Nadal are having different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surface, if the racket and string setup is so decisive, and the differences between the surfaces are "negligible" as you put it?
That is, what you should elaborate on.
David Ferrer is responsible for everything!
My main point is, court conditions are different everywhere, but the biggest difference from the conditions of past eras to today's conditions, is the racquet technology and the fazing out of carpet courts on the tour.
When a basically weaponless Ferrer is winning indoor on a supposedly fast surface you know the courts and balls have gotten too slow.