seffina
G.O.A.T.
:shock:Well Nadal_Freak has finally lost his mind people.
Technically that is true.
In reality, of course, it's silly.
:shock:Well Nadal_Freak has finally lost his mind people.
: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?
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).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.
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.
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).
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?
Well, it's no doubt that money is the issue here; that is apparent.
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.):shock:Well Nadal_Freak has finally lost his mind people.
I'm sure you're right about that! (sigh) Why does everything have to be about money?Well, it's no doubt that money is the issue here; that is apparent.
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.
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.
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 know they have to resurface every year on hardcourts right? I would think that would cost more.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.
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?
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.
You know they have to resurface every year on hardcourts right? I would think that would cost more.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.)
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.![]()
.....
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.
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.
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:
.....
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
May I ask why you prefer to watch hard court tennis if you mostly play on clay?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.
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?
Well Green Clay could give the same type of matches.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.