ATP 500: Rotterdam Feb 7-15, 2009

Who Will Win Rotterdam 2009?


  • Total voters
    118
  • Poll closed .

seffina

G.O.A.T.
:shock:Well Nadal_Freak has finally lost his mind people.

Technically that is true. :) He is, according to the points, the fourth best person on the hardcourts. He is, on the other hand, the second best claycourter.

In reality, of course, it's silly.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
:shock:Well Nadal_Freak has finally lost his mind people.

Well how many clay finals did Federer reach last year? How many hard court finals did he reach? It's not without merit. Do you remember Federer's 2008 season?
 

edberg505

Legend
Well how many clay finals did Federer reach last year? How many hard court finals did he reach? It's not without merit. Do you remember Federer's 2008 season?

Ah, I see so 1 bad season and he would be for getting rid of hardcourts. Are we just gonna forget that 2004-2007 never happened?
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Because the money has to come from somewhere to maintain the court surface. And if you think the ratings are low now, just imagine what they would be like here in the states if you see more clay courts.
I don't know, I like clay courts, there used to be a lot of green clay courts in the US (even at USO). Didn't the Americans enjoy watching Connors win on them? I can't understand why Americans would be hostile to clay. I don't think that's the reason why it's all hard now. (There also used to be grass courts in the US).
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
WTF? How can you assume it was during practice on a hardcourt? You are aware that tennis players train without actually hitting a ball on a court right? So now hardcourts cause back injuries? Seriously, where are you getting this stuff from ? The majority of back injuries are caused by long term repetitive use.

Well...what else would he be practicing on? Go read the articles. I'm not POSITIVE, but grass and clay courts aren't just readily available any old time, especially since it happened before uh...Madrid? It's an assumption, but a fairly safe one.

Yes hard courts can cause back injuries because of the pounding your back and legs take on hard courts. Repetitive use, ok. But where would this repetitive use be most harmful. Man I wonder how hard some of you guys play?

Do you HONESTLY play on hard courts and not feel the effects? Has ANYONE here played on anything other than hard courts? You just can't understand if you haven't played on every surface. It's a useless argument because you can't understand that natural surfaces are 1000x times better for you, and frankly more enjoyable to play on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

edberg505

Legend
I don't know, I like clay courts, there used to be a lot of green clay courts in the US (even at USO). Didn't the Americans enjoy watching Connors win on them? I can't understand why Americans would be hostile to clay. I don't think that's the reason why it's all hard now. (There also used to be grass courts in the US).

Well, it's no doubt that money is the issue here; that is apparent.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Ah, I see so 1 bad season and he would be for getting rid of hardcourts. Are we just gonna forget that 2004-2007 never happened?

Huh? This was in response to you saying Nadal freak was crazy for saying he does better on clay NOW. He DID do better on clay. You're mixing two different things here now. His results, vs. why hard courts should be abolished.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Well, it's no doubt that money is the issue here; that is apparent.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. You admit this.

Now tell me, is money more important than the health of the players? Have you noticed how many guys are taped up out there? Would you honestly like to see Nadal done at 25 because of ATP schedule requirements and hard courts? Or would you rather he play until he is 30 on a shorter season with far less or no hard courts?
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
:shock:Well Nadal_Freak has finally lost his mind people.
No, he's right. In 2008, Federer made several master finals on clay (Monte-Carlo and Hamburg) and none on hard. On clay he was beaten only by Rafa (and Stepanek!). On hard court he was beaten by a lot of different players. On grass he made the final of the 2 tournaments he played. Definitely last year hard court was his worst surface (it was redeemed of course by the USO win but if you look at all his other results, including Olympics, it's pretty clear.)
 

edberg505

Legend
Well...what else would he be practicing on? Go read the articles. I'm not POSITIVE, but grass and clay courts aren't just readily available any old time, especially since he it happened before uh...Madrid? It's an assumption, but a fairly safe one.

Yes hard courts can cause back injuries because of the pounding your back and legs take on hard courts. Repetitive use, ok. But where would this repetitive use be most harmful. Man I wonder how hard some of you guys play?

Do you HONESTLY play on hard courts and not feel the effects? Has ANYONE here played on anything other than hard courts? You just can't understand if you haven't played on every surface. It's a useless argument because you can't understand that natural surfaces are 1000x times better for you, and frankly more enjoyable to play on.

Well, when I played competitively in the juniors and college we used to do a ton of training off court. So it's possible he could have gotten injured anywhere, track, gym (hardwood), or grass. There's no way that we can assume he got injured from hardcourts.

And no I don't feel the effects. I've seen 45 year old men play for hours one match and come back and push the #1 seed in an open tournament to 2 close sets.

And yes I've played on every surface you can think of except carpet. I've even played on some crap called Omni Court (that crap is down right horrible). As for clay being more enjoyable to play on well, to each his on, I can't stand the crap. I can't stand the fact that you have to sweep the freakin thing after your done getting it ready for the next players. Grass isn't bad at all. But I can only imagine that the money it takes to maintain the surface is astronomical. It's just not practical to have a ton of grass courts at this day and age.
 

Breaker

Legend
Huh? This was in response to you saying Nadal freak was crazy for saying he does better on clay NOW. He DID do better on clay. You're mixing two different things here now. His results, vs. why hard courts should be abolished.

Well he did win a slam on hard courts as well as winning Basel. He reached (4?) finals out of 5 on clay but didn't play particularly well outside of Hamburg on the surface from what I and some others saw. Still more successful on hard courts than clay in my opinion.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
It seems the bottom line is that there are two camps. Those who want hard courts eliminated for the good of the entire tour and for the health of all players.

The second camp like hard courts "just because." I frankly see no GOOD reason to keep them. Can someone please state a GOOD reason?

If this is incorrect, I'd like to know the reason.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Murray was hurt in THIS tournament wasn't he? Federer also busted his ankle in 2005, and frankly he's an anomoly. And Djokovic retires more often than anyone, not to mention the fact that he loses quite a bit.

You're missing the point. The good athletes are punished. Djokovic and Murray are not nearly the athletes that Nadal and Federer are which is why their results on grass and clay are NOWHERE NEAR Nadal and Federer. And Nadal has been winning more on hard court than either of those guys. This is pretty obvious. So Nadal is good everywhere and is therefore punished. See?

Look at all the guys that are taped up and injured. It's not just Nadal. It's just hardest on him because right now he is winning far more than anyone else. If you lose it's not going to take a toll on your body. Go look at Nadal's points breakdown on the ATP tennis site and tell me that is not insane. Yes you can point to Federer as not being injured the same way, but Federer plays a different style, and frankly Federer is a one in a million tennis player so that's just not a good example. Nadal should not be punished because he plays a DIFFERENT style. One based more on movement, tracking balls down, playing good defense AND offense etc. It's just not right. Again, play soccer/football on concrete and watch everyone go down in time. It's the same thing. Tennis is the ONLY pro sport played on solid rock hard concrete.

Something HAS to be done about this at some point. Things have increasingly gone to hard courts for no other reason than cost. They should simply be disallowed on the tour, much like aluminum bats in pro baseball. If you want to keep your athletes healthy just ban them. It's as simple as that. If you like the way HC's play try and develop a body friendly surface that has a similar bounce. Surely it's doable. It has absolutely zero to do with how the surface plays and everything to do with the fact it completely destroys bodies.

Why are there so many hard courts compared to natural surfaces, that's what I would like to know. It's such a shame, ball bashers are so boring! My other question is does anybody else have the feeling that Rotterdam court is worse than other hard courts? Why would that be?

You two are the ones that don't get it. Hardcourts are so much more economically viable then any other court it's an absolute joke that you think that the tour would be leaning toward anything else. If the players really cared about this then they should offer up big chunks of their prize money so that the tour could go to softer surfaces. Will they do this? Hah, never.

Comparing changing the surfaces of more then half the pro tourneys in the world to banning aluminum bats? LMAO. You got to be kidding me. There is no way to reason with someone who is so illogical.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
You two are the ones that don't get it. Hardcourts are so much more economically viable then any other court it's an absolute joke that you think that the tour would be leaning toward anything else. If the players really cared about this then they should offer up big chunks of their prize money so that the tour could go to softer surfaces. Will they do this? Hah, never.
You know they have to resurface every year on hardcourts right? I would think that would cost more.
 

edberg505

Legend
Ok now we are getting somewhere. You admit this.

Now tell me, is money more important than the health of the players? Have you noticed how many guys are taped up out there? Would you honestly like to see Nadal done at 25 because of ATP schedule requirements and hard courts? Or would you rather he play until he is 30 on a shorter season with far less or no hard courts?

I'm sure you're right about that! (sigh) Why does everything have to be about money?

You should probably ask the sponsors as they are really the ones who are responsible for making the tournament happen. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the tournaments may not have as many sponsors if they were to ask for a larger amount of money.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Well, when I played competitively in the juniors and college we used to do a ton of training off court. So it's possible he could have gotten injured anywhere, track, gym (hardwood), or grass. There's no way that we can assume he got injured from hardcourts.

And no I don't feel the effects. I've seen 45 year old men play for hours one match and come back and push the #1 seed in an open tournament to 2 close sets.

And yes I've played on every surface you can think of except carpet. I've even played on some crap called Omni Court (that crap is down right horrible). As for clay being more enjoyable to play on well, to each his on, I can't stand the crap. I can't stand the fact that you have to sweep the freakin thing after your done getting it ready for the next players. Grass isn't bad at all. But I can only imagine that the money it takes to maintain the surface is astronomical. It's just not practical to have a ton of grass courts at this day and age.

Why is it "not practical" in this day and age when it was fine in the past? What is the difference outside of seeking maximum profit margins, greed, and laziness? That's just plain absurd, I don't buy that for one second. It's as practical as it ever was. It's just a lawn! Millions of people in america have them. It's not a big deal.

So you don't like clay because you have to sweep for another player? That's pretty lazy and inconsiderate man. Do you hold the elevator for people or does that just put you out? I guess I don't understand that mentality. When I play on clay I actually enjoy sweeping the court and making it pristine for the next players. It's a pleasure to serve my fellow man and I enjoy looking out for others. In fact, if you ever came to San Diego, I would love to play you and would gladly pay for your court time and take you out for some lunch after. I'm actually betting we would get along great, since most people tend to come across poorly on the internet, vs. their actual personality. And I'm sure you're a cool guy.

The bottom line for me is the health of players. There is just no arguing that hard courts are good for the pros. I don't want Nadal going out early, I don't want Federer suffering injuries (even though we aren't SURE if they are from HC's, but still), I don't want Hewitt going down early because of his injuries, I don't like what happened to Kuerten, I don't like seeing so many players taped up, etc etc. It's just not cool. and the ATP is hurting their own product.

By the way I've seen 45 year olds play at the clubs. Yeah...well...not much to say about that. :)
 

edberg505

Legend
You know they have to resurface every year on hardcourts right? I would think that would cost more.

Boy you have no idea do you? How often do you think a place resurfaces a court? The University club that I used to belong to here in town resurfaced their courts maybe once every 4 years. Now you compare that to the fact that you have to water and manicure grass and clay courts much more often and there you go. I guess if you could find someone to take care of the courts for peanuts it still doesn't offset the cost.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
You two are the ones that don't get it. Hardcourts are so much more economically viable then any other court it's an absolute joke that you think that the tour would be leaning toward anything else. If the players really cared about this then they should offer up big chunks of their prize money so that the tour could go to softer surfaces. Will they do this? Hah, never.

Comparing changing the surfaces of more then half the pro tourneys in the world to banning aluminum bats? LMAO. You got to be kidding me. There is no way to reason with someone who is so illogical.

I certainly wasn't comparing it in cost. I was comparing it in principle. Once you get to the pros you are not allowed to use anything other than a wood bat. Once you get to the pros you are only allowed to play on natural surfaces. It makes perfect sense as long as you don't try and twist the intended meaning.

At least you guys admit it is solely about money and that's it. I guess tennis truly was better off in the past then since they were able to afford clay and grass. I think it's hilarious that so many people say tennis is doing great these days, better than ever, then we have people saying there is no way tennis can afford anything other than cement.

So which is it? Was tennis better off in the past and therefore could afford grass and clay? Or is it better off now but in such dire straights that we HAVE to pave over and paint the courts instead? It simply makes zero sense.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Boy you have no idea do you? How often do you think a place resurfaces a court? The University club that I used to belong to here in town resurfaced their courts maybe once every 4 years. Now you compare that to the fact that you have to water and manicure grass and clay courts much more often and there you go. I guess if you could find someone to take care of the courts for peanuts it still doesn't offset the cost.

.....

Man...I'm not sure you are paying attention here. Pro courts resurface every year as far as I know. Certainly the majors do. They are pretty much unused the rest of the time aren't they? Most of these "tour" locations are dormant aside from 1-2 weeks a year. So what is the difference if its clay, grass, or cement?

There is a decent amount of clay in SoCal here as well. And Drakulie's pictures always seem to show green clay in Florida. Of course CA and FL are the two big tennis locations in the US. Clay isn't THAT expensive to maintain. And grass is just a watered lawn, which is seen everywhere in the country. Grass is not some rare commodity. It's just grass.

And you know...if recreational places like parks and cheap clubs want to solely use hard courts cuz they can resurface them once every 5 years and let them go to heck after that, then fine. But that's not the pro tour.
 

edmondsm

Legend
He doesn't dominate on hard courts, he did awful on hard courts last year outside of the US Open, where he was about as fortunate as one could be. Did he make it to a single hard court final outside of the US? He doesn't dominate on HC's, the surface allows lesser players to beat you, for the reasons that are plain to anyone who has played on all the surfaces.

No I am not positive that his back and ankle injuries are a direct result of playing on rock hard cement. They could have happened on soft grass and clay as well, but you know...I have my doubts.

Dude have you EVER played on red clay or grass? Be honest here.

I've played on grass once, never on clay. Been playin for years on hardcouts You know why? It's soooo much cheaper. Please try to understand that you argument, while not without some measure of merit, is completely futile.


Well how many clay finals did Federer reach last year? How many hard court finals did he reach? It's not without merit. Do you remember Federer's 2008 season?

It's all about the slams baby. Win at the 2008 USO. Final at the 2009 AO where he managed to take Nadal to 5 sets. How many sets was the last FO final, I can't remember because I think I stopped watching.:neutral:

No, he's right. In 2008, Federer made several master finals on clay (Monte-Carlo and Hamburg) and none on hard. On clay he was beaten only by Rafa (and Stepanek!). On hard court he was beaten by a lot of different players. On grass he made the final of the 2 tournaments he played. Definitely last year hard court was his worst surface (it was redeemed of course by the USO win but if you look at all his other results, including Olympics, it's pretty clear.)


Federer slumped big time last year. It just so happened that it was during the hardcourt swing. If we lived in TennisandMusic land the Spring hardcourts would have been on clay and he would have lost on that too. There are many more dangerous hardcourters in the world then claycourters. Because it is a more common surface and thus a larger pool of talent on that surface.
 

edberg505

Legend
Why is it "not practical" in this day and age when it was fine in the past? What is the difference outside of seeking maximum profit margins, greed, and laziness? That's just plain absurd, I don't buy that for one second. It's as practical as it ever was. It's just a lawn! Millions of people in america have them. It's not a big deal.

So you don't like clay because you have to sweep for another player? That's pretty lazy and inconsiderate man. Do you hold the elevator for people or does that just put you out? I guess I don't understand that mentality. When I play on clay I actually enjoy sweeping the court and making it pristine for the next players. It's a pleasure to serve my fellow man and I enjoy looking out for others. In fact, if you ever came to San Diego, I would love to play you and would gladly pay for your court time and take you out for some lunch after. I'm actually betting we would get along great, since most people tend to come across poorly on the internet, vs. their actual personality. And I'm sure you're a cool guy.

The bottom line for me is the health of players. There is just no arguing that hard courts are good for the pros. I don't want Nadal going out early, I don't want Federer suffering injuries (even though we aren't SURE if they are from HC's, but still), I don't want Hewitt going down early because of his injuries, I don't like what happened to Kuerten, I don't like seeing so many players taped up, etc etc. It's just not cool. and the ATP is hurting their own product.

By the way I've seen 45 year olds play at the clubs. Yeah...well...not much to say about that. :)

It's not practical because in this day in age we are in a pretty bad recession and water shortages are pretty bad in certain areas. I can tell you right now that there's no way Australia is going back to grass because they can barely have enough water for people let alone to be wasting it on a tennis court. And that problem is compounded here in the states especially in the west. It just isn't practical at this day.

As far as the clay court thing, well just call me lazy then because the last thing I want to do after playing a tough hard fought 2 or 3 setter is sweep and water a court. If that makes me lazy then so be it. And if I'm ever in your area I'll be sure to look you up to get a game in. I've met one guy from this forum in Cali and he turned out to be a really cool guy. So if we do happen to meet and play I'm sure we'd be ok even though we disagree on a few things.
 

edberg505

Legend
.....

Man...I'm not sure you are paying attention here. Pro courts resurface every year as far as I know. Certainly the majors do. They are pretty much unused the rest of the time aren't they? Most of these "tour" locations are dormant aside from 1-2 weeks a year. So what is the difference if its clay, grass, or cement?

There is a decent amount of clay in SoCal here as well. And Drakulie's pictures always seem to show green clay in Florida. Of course CA and FL are the two big tennis locations in the US. Clay isn't THAT expensive to maintain. And grass is just a watered lawn, which is seen everywhere in the country. Grass is not some rare commodity. It's just grass.

And you know...if recreational places like parks and cheap clubs want to solely use hard courts cuz they can resurface them once every 5 years and let them go to heck after that, then fine. But that's not the pro tour.

Ah, I see so no one takes care of the courts everyday when no one uses it? C'mon now, a grass court would look like grandparents back yard. And as windy and dry as it gets in the Indian Wells area well, clay just isn't feasible. The bottom line is someone has to take care of the courts and that cost is pretty much gone with hardcourts because once it's resurfaced that's it. Nothing else is required.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
I've played on grass once, never on clay. Been playin for years on hardcouts You know why? It's soooo much cheaper. Please try to understand that you argument, while not without some measure of merit, is completely futile.




It's all about the slams baby. Win at the 2008 USO. Final at the 2009 AO where he managed to take Nadal to 5 sets. How many sets was the last FO final, I can't remember because I think I stopped watching.:neutral:




Federer slumped big time last year. It just so happened that it was during the hardcourt swing. If we lived in TennisandMusic land the Spring hardcourts would have been on clay and he would have lost on that too. There are many more dangerous hardcourters in the world then claycourters. Because it is a more common surface and thus a larger pool of talent on that surface.

Where do you live out of curiosity? It's not that expensive at all for me to play on grass or clay. 5 bucks for clay, maybe 30 bucks for grass. Free on hard court in public locations where courts are dirty and cracked. Or I could play at some cheap clubs on hard court, but it's not that different from clay for me. I live in San Diego.

Federer slumped or he is declining? We shall see. Hard courts have a "bigger pool of talent" because you don't have to move that well to win on the stuff. You can just hit the stuffing out of the ball and have a good day and beat anyone. That doesn't fly on grass or clay. That's just the way it is really.

I see so now it's "all about the slams." Ok well...if you want to cherry pick results that's one thing I guess. Federer has still lost 3 of those last 4 then.

Ok so we have determined that the existence of hard courts is solely about money (since tennis is obviously doing great and can't afford anything else!) and people have admitted that what I'm saying is correct, but "futile." Ok well...not much else to say is there? Hard courts need to go. It won't happen, but maybe there is something to the rise of hard courts correlating with the decline of tennis popularity. Just maybe.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Ah, I see so no one takes care of the courts everyday when no one uses it? C'mon now, a grass court would look like grandparents back yard. And as windy and dry as it gets in the Indian Wells area well, clay just isn't feasible. The bottom line is someone has to take care of the courts and that cost is pretty much gone with hardcourts because once it's resurfaced that's it. Nothing else is required.

Ok you have no clue what you're saying. My brother literally lives DOWN THE STREET from Indian Wells. He lives in Palm Springs. Do you know how many grass, and clay courts they have there?! Where do you think I go to play on grass??? :lol:
 

edberg505

Legend
Ok you have no clue what you're saying. My brother literally lives DOWN THE STREET from Indian Wells. He lives in Palm Springs. Do you know how many grass, and clay courts they have there?! Where do you think I go to play on grass??? :lol:

Ok, so you are saying that no maintenance is required for clay and grass? So at Wimbledon they just grow the grass and let it sit for a year until June rolls around?
 

edmondsm

Legend
.....

Man...I'm not sure you are paying attention here. Pro courts resurface every year as far as I know. Certainly the majors do. They are pretty much unused the rest of the time aren't they? Most of these "tour" locations are dormant aside from 1-2 weeks a year. So what is the difference if its clay, grass, or cement?

There is a decent amount of clay in SoCal here as well. And Drakulie's pictures always seem to show green clay in Florida. Of course CA and FL are the two big tennis locations in the US. Clay isn't THAT expensive to maintain. And grass is just a watered lawn, which is seen everywhere in the country. Grass is not some rare commodity. It's just grass.

And you know...if recreational places like parks and cheap clubs want to solely use hard courts cuz they can resurface them once every 5 years and let them go to heck after that, then fine. But that's not the pro tour.


The most expensive part of any business is the humans that you have to pay to keep things running. Grass must be watered, cut, and covered constantly. I don't know anything about clay, but I know it doesn't rake itself. Hardcourts get laid and then thats it. Maybe you repaint the lines every so often. Garauntee you that putting a new hardcourt in once a year is cheaper then putting in a new clay or grass court every year and then paying a bunch of people to maintain it.

If you really think the powers that be haven't thought this one through then you are just not thinking clearly.
 

edberg505

Legend
The most expensive part of any business is the humans that you have to pay to keep things running. Grass must be watered, cut, and covered constantly. I don't know anything about clay, but I know it doesn't rake itself. Hardcourts get laid and then thats it. Maybe you repaint the lines every so often. Garauntee you that putting a new hardcourt in once a year is cheaper then putting in a new clay or grass court every year and then paying a bunch of people to maintain it.

Exactly, and the people who maintain these courts aren't some bum off the street. These guys would be experts and expect to be paid accordingly. I should ask the owner of my old club how much it would cost to put in grass or clay courts. I live in New Mexico and I can only think of 1 club that has clay courts here and they aren't exactly the best either. In fact I think they're terrible. Here it just cost too much money to maintain those kind of courts. It's insanely dry here and I bet the water bill would be through the roof.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Ok, so you are saying that no maintenance is required for clay and grass? So at Wimbledon they just grow the grass and let it sit for a year until June rolls around?

Wimbledon is a country club, and maybe the most exclusive in the world. You can play on grass in SoCal for a few bucks. So it has nothing to do with grass itself. Of course maintenance is required. But you are acting like it's this prohibitive cost and there is simply no way it is. Clay courts don't require a ton of maintenance, and there are lawns everywhere in the country. How is a lawn of grass for tennis different than...grass anywhere else? You water...you cut. You reseed maybe once a year. Grass courts generally aren't used all year either. It doesn't take a "bunch of people" to maintain it.

You guys are acting like having some grass is the most time consuming and difficult thing in the world. This is just getting totally absurd.

Are you guys REALLY making the argument that it is incredibly expensive and prohibitive to...grow and cut some grass? Do you guys ever go outside? See peoples lawns? Come on guys don't be totally ridiculous. Seriously. Are you actually arguing that pro tennis cannot afford what just about all of middle America can?
 

edberg505

Legend
Ok you have no clue what you're saying. My brother literally lives DOWN THE STREET from Indian Wells. He lives in Palm Springs. Do you know how many grass, and clay courts they have there?! Where do you think I go to play on grass??? :lol:

That may be true, but are they up to pro standards and scrutiny? The bottom line here is "money". That's pretty much it.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
That may be true, but are they up to pro standards and scrutiny? The bottom line here is "money". That's pretty much it.

Yes they are. Do you know where Davis Cup was played against Chile on grass? Mission Hills. This is right down the street from Indian Wells. Do you know what Roddick's team said about Mission Hills? That their courts were among the best in the world. Case closed. And yes I played there.
 

edberg505

Legend
Yes they are. Do you know where Davis Cup was played against Chile on grass? Mission Hills. This is right down the street from Indian Wells. Do you know what Roddick's team said about Mission Hills? That their courts were among the best in the world. Case closed. And yes I played there.

Ok, you write to the tournaments where these hardcourt events are played and ask them why they don't have clay and grass and I promise you that you'll get the same answer I've giving you. I have no doubt about that. Also, ask them what the difference in cost is to maintain them.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Here is a picture of me playing at Mission Hills in "dry and windy" Palm Springs! Ten minutes from Indian Wells. From 2006. Obviously grass is completely unsustainable in a PRO location, even though this is available to the common folk almost year round.

img1535gf9.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zagor

Bionic Poster
He doesn't dominate on hard courts, he did awful on hard courts last year outside of the US Open, where he was about as fortunate as one could be. Did he make it to a single hard court final outside of the US? He doesn't dominate on HC's, the surface allows lesser players to beat you, for the reasons that are plain to anyone who has played on all the surfaces.

No I am not positive that his back and ankle injuries are a direct result of playing on rock hard cement. They could have happened on soft grass and clay as well, but you know...I have my doubts.

Dude have you EVER played on red clay or grass? Be honest here.

Well he did win 8 HC slams on it with barely suffering an injury,that's pretty dominating,your Sampras did great on HC as well winning 5 USO and 2 AOs,definitely not comparable to his results clay and he was a great athlete.

Still I do see your point and Federer is an exception because he has close to perfect build for tennis and moves very economically so that probably explains why so few injuries but how do you explain Lendl and Agassi having such long careers for example? Both of them did great on HC(I mean Lendl reached 8 USO finals in a row).It's usually the CC specialists that have short career while HC specialists have long careers.HC are tougher on the body but also have way less rallies on average than on clay,points are much shorter.Atleast they were before they slowed down HC along with the grass in the early 2000s.

Maybe the right idea would be to replace half of HC tourneys to carpet which as I understand is easier on the body.Or maybe just switch all HC tourneys to carpet or grass and switch USO to green clay or carpet.It's hard to tell what would be the rigth thing to do but I doubt that something will change on that matter anytime soon,most tourneys have been on HCs for how much now,20-30 years? I agree with you that players health should be a priority but unfortunately that isn't the way things work.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Here is another cool one with me in the back, and the davis cup signage visible. Pro tournaments cannot afford this stuff though. Only by me paying 100 bucks for 4 people can grass be attained. :)


img1588wo5.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

edmondsm

Legend
It won't happen, but maybe there is something to the rise of hard courts correlating with the decline of tennis popularity. Just maybe.

Where does this idea come from? It seems to me that prize money has been going up every year. Roofs are being put on stadiums, jumbotron screens are being installed.

Maybe you can afford to shell out money everytime you want to go play. 30 freaking dollars to play on a grass court. Hell, maybe I could justify doing that once a year. I can go play on a good public court where I live for free. Not all of us get to live near IW or near any clubs that have grass courts.

You think that tennis popularity will suffer because it is playing on a surface that the common-folk like me can relate too? Maybe the well-to-dos are turning off their tvs but not people who watch the Williams sisters, the Serbians, Sharapova, etc. These players would have never have played tennis if it wasn't for durable cheap hardcourt surfaces.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
Where does this idea come from? It seems to me that prize money has been going up every year. Roofs are being put on stadiums, jumbotron screens are being installed.

Maybe you can afford to shell out money everytime you want to go play. 30 freaking dollars to play on a grass court. Hell, maybe I could justify doing that once a year. I can go play on a good public court where I live for free. Not all of us get to live near IW or near any clubs that have grass courts.

You think that tennis popularity will suffer because it is playing on a surface that the common-folk like me can relate too? Maybe the well-to-dos are turning off their tvs but not people who watch the Williams sisters, the Serbians, Sharapova, etc. These players would have never have played tennis if it wasn't for durable cheap hardcourt surfaces.

Well it costs me like 5 bucks to play on clay. It can cost that much for HC out here too unless its a public location. I'm pretty common folk though. 30 bucks to play on grass is nothing IMO. I mean I have to restring my racquets every 1-2 times I play, and I do it myself because of the cost. But yeah...

Prize money is going up yeah but look at the stands at most events. Only the majors seem to be able to fill the stadiums, and maybe the masters, but only for the marquee matches. Tennis definitely has less people playing recreational tennis these days vs. the wood racquet days, it's been discussed here.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Boy you have no idea do you? How often do you think a place resurfaces a court? The University club that I used to belong to here in town resurfaced their courts maybe once every 4 years. Now you compare that to the fact that you have to water and manicure grass and clay courts much more often and there you go. I guess if you could find someone to take care of the courts for peanuts it still doesn't offset the cost.
Most of the pro tournaments do resurface every year. It would be cheaper to stick with clay. Therefore it would be best to go with the safer and cheaper surface as in clay. :D
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I've played on grass once, never on clay. Been playin for years on hardcouts You know why? It's soooo much cheaper. Please try to understand that you argument, while not without some measure of merit, is completely futile.




It's all about the slams baby. Win at the 2008 USO. Final at the 2009 AO where he managed to take Nadal to 5 sets. How many sets was the last FO final, I can't remember because I think I stopped watching.:neutral:




Federer slumped big time last year. It just so happened that it was during the hardcourt swing. If we lived in TennisandMusic land the Spring hardcourts would have been on clay and he would have lost on that too. There are many more dangerous hardcourters in the world then claycourters. Because it is a more common surface and thus a larger pool of talent on that surface.
I disagree with the slump theory: Federer did "poorly" in the winter hard court tournaments and the March masters (no final). Then he made practically every final on clay and grass (all of them except for Rome). He proceeded to do real bad in all summer hard court tournaments (apart from USO). And in the fall he again disappointed in all hard court indoors (except for Basel which was a minor tournament), retired in Paris, didn't make semi in Master Cup. So he would have had a whole year slump, miraculously interrupted in the 3/4 months of clay and grass when he had consistently high results and that would have nothing to do with surfaces? Weird.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
One thing I don't understand is that if claycourt is much more expensive than HC then how come we have most claycourts in my country(Serbia)which is as many people know quite poor? I almost exclusive play on clay,even during the winter.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
One thing I don't understand is that if claycourt is much more expensive than HC then how come we have most claycourts in my country(Serbia)which is as many people know quite poor? I almost exclusive play on clay,even during the winter.
Do you like playing on clay? Excellent question. There seems to be more than money in the proliferation of hard courts in the states. Most of Europe has tons of clay courts and (at least until recently!) all those countries are less rich than the US.
 

edberg505

Legend
I disagree with the slump theory: Federer did "poorly" in the winter hard court tournaments and the March masters (no final). Then he made practically every final on clay and grass (all of them except for Rome). He proceeded to do real bad in all summer hard court tournaments (apart from USO). And in the fall he again disappointed in all hard court indoors (except for Basel which was a minor tournament), retired in Paris, didn't make semi in Master Cup. So he would have had a whole year slump, miraculously interrupted in the 3/4 months of clay and grass when he had consistently high results and that would have nothing to do with surfaces? Weird.

Umm, hang on a sec. Isn't it just one year where he had bad results. You guys act like this is a common thing. He has one bad year and all of a sudden he should hate hardcourts? I bet if you were to ask him right now which one he would rather play on I bet he would say hardcourts without hesitation. Especially if he has to play some guy named Nadal. I mean would people seriously want to watch Nadal play all the way from IW to FO on clay? Where in the heck is the fun in watching him pummel everyone in his way?
 

edmondsm

Legend
I disagree with the slump theory: Federer did "poorly" in the winter hard court tournaments and the March masters (no final). Then he made practically every final on clay and grass (all of them except for Rome). He proceeded to do real bad in all summer hard court tournaments (apart from USO). And in the fall he again disappointed in all hard court indoors (except for Basel which was a minor tournament), retired in Paris, didn't make semi in Master Cup. So he would have had a whole year slump, miraculously interrupted in the 3/4 months of clay and grass when he had consistently high results and that would have nothing to do with surfaces? Weird.

Easier for an upset to happen on hardcourts. There is more talent on the surface because it is a more common surface then clay and grass, and it is easier to get blown off the court by a hot player on hardcourts.

Federer and Nadal excell on their weaker surfaces because they have more talent then anyone else. But you will notice that Nadal is practically invincible on clay where as he is quite beatable on hard. You would assume that, looking at Federer's results, that clay is his weakest surface. However he essentially only loses to one player on clay yet he has lost too many many players on hard, and not just last year.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Umm, hang on a sec. Isn't it just one year where he had bad results. You guys act like this is a common thing. He has one bad year and all of a sudden he should hate hardcourts? I bet if you were to ask him right now which one he would rather play on I bet he would say hardcourts without hesitation. Especially if he has to play some guy named Nadal. I mean would people seriously want to watch Nadal play all the way from IW to FO on clay? Where in the heck is the fun in watching him pummel everyone in his way?
No, the original post was that RECENTLY Fed had become better on natural surfaces so I said I agree if we consider 2008. I wasn't trying to imply anything else. Maybe it was just temporary. There's no doubt Federer had excellent results on hard court throughout his career.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Do you like playing on clay? Excellent question. There seems to be more than money in the proliferation of hard courts in the states. Most of Europe has tons of clay courts and (at least until recently!) all those countries are less rich than the US.

Well that's all I play on so I can't really compare it to other surfaces carpet,green clay or real grass(only played on some crappy artifical one or whatever it is caller).I played a couple of times on concrete but mostly it's just clay and I certainly don't mind it,it's easy on the legs and nice feel to move on it.Although I get pissed for all the clay that goes into my shoes and socks.I prefer to watch HC tennis on TV,AO and USO have always been my favourite slams,especially AO.

Yeah,I'm curious as well,I mean Serbia is a very poor country,make no mistake about that so the cost thing doesn't really cut it.Maybe it's the maintanance that is the main problem.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Well that's all I play on so I can't really compare it to other surfaces carpet,green clay or real grass(only played on some crappy artifical one or whatever it is caller).I played a couple of times on concrete but mostly it's just clay and I certainly don't mind it,it's easy on the legs and nice feel to move on it.Although I get pissed for all the clay that goes into my shoes and socks.I prefer to watch HC tennis on TV,AO and USO have always been my favourite slams,especially AO.

Yeah,I'm curious as well,I mean Serbia is a very poor country,make no mistake about that so the cost thing doesn't really cut it.Maybe it's the maintanance that is the main problem.
May I ask why you prefer to watch hard court tennis if you mostly play on clay?
 

edberg505

Legend
Well that's all I play on so I can't really compare it to other surfaces carpet,green clay or real grass(only played on some crappy artifical one or whatever it is caller).I played a couple of times on concrete but mostly it's just clay and I certainly don't mind it,it's easy on the legs and nice feel to move on it.Although I get pissed for all the clay that goes into my shoes and socks.I prefer to watch HC tennis on TV,AO and USO have always been my favourite slams,especially AO.

Yeah,I'm curious as well,I mean Serbia is a very poor country,make no mistake about that so the cost thing doesn't really cut it.Maybe it's the maintanance that is the main problem.

I have no idea why it's so prevalent in Serbia, Croatia or say the Czech. I actually thought clay would be pretty common in France but it isn't. Go figure.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
May I ask why you prefer to watch hard court tennis if you mostly play on clay?

Well because HC still somewhat rewards agressive style of play(which I prefer to watch)and big serving without turning the match serving contest(like carpet or 90s grass)but also can be pretty fair surface allowing any style pf player to succeed.My favourite surface to watch tennis is slow HC like IW,Miami,AO,Montreal etc. you see a lot of point constuction like on clay but you also see flat winners and big serving.
 

DNShade

Hall of Fame
Ok. As someone who has played on all surfaces - grass, clay(red and green, grey) carpet, plastic, wood - and played on all of them a great deal - I had to speak up. A good medium pace hard court is the most neutral surface out there. End of story. This is why there are so many events on them.

And we should really drop the whole "hard courts destroy pro players" thing. These are pro athletes - and should be up to the task. Compared to other sports - tennis is not that hard on the body. The schedule however - that is something that really should be looked at.

Now I'd like to see more events on grass and carpet etc...but just for variety and fun - not to "save the players". That is just BS.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Well because HC still somewhat rewards agressive style of play(which I prefer to watch)and big serving without turning the match serving contest(like carpet or 90s grass)but also can be pretty fair surface allowing any style pf player to succeed.My favourite surface to watch tennis is slow HC like IW,Miami,AO,Montreal etc. you see a lot of point constuction like on clay but you also see flat winners and big serving.
Well Green Clay could give the same type of matches.
 
Top