Courts being slow is a good thing...

Apun94

Apun94

Hall of Fame
Now we all know that on fast courts, a person with better reflexes and serve will win, thus a person with more talent has an advantage. Now, talent is a God given thing, not something one can create.
However, on slow courts talent is not that big a factor. The person with better fitness and better overall skill(Serve and baseline game). Fitness and skill come because of years and years of dedication and practise. It's something one has to work for.
So, isnt it fair for the players to have slow courts? This way, even if you arent the most talented guy in the world, you still may win through sheer hardwork. The biggest example of this is Nadal. He doesnt have the talent of Fed but look at the success he has had.
I just dont know why people say that slowing of courts is such a bad thing
 
I'm a huge Fed fan, but who's to say that he's more talented than Nadal? Talented in different ways, sure, but objectively "more talented"? What does that even mean? Rafa has talent that Roger does not (playing with his non-dominant hand, for example), just as Roger has talents than Rafa does not.

It all comes down to money. People were turned off of tennis in the late 90s when the tournaments became serve fests. Hopefully, they will soon be turned off by 6 hour finals of boring, grinding tennis. In my opinion, having different styles on different surfaces is the way to attract more viewers, and therefore more money. Fairness doesn't mean anything, in real life or in the sports world.
 
Apun94 said:
Now we all know that on fast courts, a person with better reflexes and serve will win, thus a person with more talent has an advantage. Now, talent is a God given thing, not something one can create.
However, on slow courts talent is not that big a factor. The person with better fitness and better overall skill(Serve and baseline game). Fitness and skill come because of years and years of dedication and practise. It's something one has to work for.
So, isnt it fair for the players to have slow courts? This way, even if you arent the most talented guy in the world, you still may win through sheer hardwork. The biggest example of this is Nadal. He doesnt have the talent of Fed but look at the success he has had.
I just dont know why people say that slowing of courts is such a bad thing
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with slow courts - I just wish that 95% of the tournaments weren't infected by the damn things.
I like variety in tennis - give me slow, medium, fast - that's the true test of a player - how he can play on different surfaces and different speeds.
 
You basically just gave the argument for why it isn't a good thing. Why should the player that has less talent be catered to. I think each surface should play differently. I, for one, don't enjoy countless hours of ball bashing when Djokovic and Nadal and Murray play each other. It's often the same point played over and over. Also, and most importantly, the slow courts are going to shorten the players careers because it requires for most players an extremely physical style of play. It's ridiculous that Wimbledon has become the second slowest surface after Roland Garros. It promotes less versatility because you can play one way and win on every surface. I think Borg's ability to win on clay and then grass was much more impressive than Nadal doing it today because he actually HAD to serve and volley at Wimbledon all the time.
 
zcarzach said:
I'm a huge Fed fan, but who's to say that he's more talented than Nadal? Talented in different ways, sure, but objectively "more talented"? What does that even mean? Rafa has talent that Roger does not (playing with his non-dominant hand, for example), just as Roger has talents than Rafa does not.

It all comes down to money. People were turned off of tennis in the late 90s when the tournaments became serve fests. Hopefully, they will soon be turned off by 6 hour finals of boring, grinding tennis. In my opinion, having different styles on different surfaces is the way to attract more viewers, and therefore more money. Fairness doesn't mean anything, in real life or in the sports world.
Click to expand...

There should be a variety of speeds to test the players skill. Rafa is extremely talented playing one way. Fed has far more versatility than perhaps anyone ever to play. Yes, that means more talent to most, it's pretty easy to see. Fed has stayed healthy because he dictates the points. Rafa is on the defense when he plays most of the top players, but does it so well he is able to beat them most of the time. This style of play often leaves him injured unfortunately.
 
Ummmmm no, slow courts are not good. Because then the question becomes how slow is slow? You can slow down courts to such an extreme that my grandmother could compete with Nadal. So where does that leave you? In fact, extremely slow courts would favour the less fit!

Tennis courts should be as fast as possible so only the ones born strong can survive. It's just natural.
 
Apun,

Even stamina and endurance is not purely something one can work at, this too is talent. Ask anyone who knows about middle and long distance racing for example. Everyone cannot run a mile in under 4 minutes, or a marathon in under 2:15 / 2:20.

So you are trading one kind of talent for another. However, it's just possible that the second kind of talent is not as tennis related as the first is.

To put it rather crudely, you are trading the ability to hit balls with that of running them down.
 
Sentinel said:
Apun,

Even stamina and endurance is not purely something one can work at, this too is talent. Ask anyone who knows about middle and long distance racing for example. Everyone cannot run a mile in under 4 minutes, or a marathon in under 2:15 / 2:20.

So you are trading one kind of talent for another. However, it's just possible that the second kind of talent is not as tennis related as the first is.

To put it rather crudely, you are trading the ability to hit balls with that of running them down.
Click to expand...

And that's where the pharmaceutical industry comes into play. The slower the court, the bigger an impact it can have on the sport. When it becomes possible to win just by outlasting your opponent, regardless of your tennis ability and his, tennis obviously has a big problem.
 
Paul Murphy said:
I've got no problem with slow courts - I just wish that 95% of the tournaments weren't infected by the damn things.
I like variety in tennis - give me slow, medium, fast - that's the true test of a player - how he can play on different surfaces and different speeds.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

Besides, a true GOAT should be able to play the best tennis in ice or sand! Not only on the fast courts of Wimbledon 90's or USO (Sampras) or the multiple clay tournaments (Nadal).
 
I almost don't care about the actual topic presented by the OP, I think the meaning given to "talent" is of more importance here. People generally seem quite confident that talent is something "god-given". I'd hesitate to accept it's all that easy. I think what we see by Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and so on are mostly skill based. Even if there is something called "talent", the result is how the "talented" person manipulates it, through hard work and dedication.


zcarzach said:
I'm a huge Fed fan, but who's to say that he's more talented than Nadal? Talented in different ways, sure, but objectively "more talented"? What does that even mean? Rafa has talent that Roger does not (playing with his non-dominant hand, for example), just as Roger has talents than Rafa does not.

It all comes down to money. People were turned off of tennis in the late 90s when the tournaments became serve fests. Hopefully, they will soon be turned off by 6 hour finals of boring, grinding tennis. In my opinion, having different styles on different surfaces is the way to attract more viewers, and therefore more money. Fairness doesn't mean anything, in real life or in the sports world.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post.
 
The problem in the 90s was serve, not the court speed. You don’t fix one aspect of tennis by wholesale changing court speed which affects the entire game. The rest of the tennis was just fine. You had a good balance between baseliners, net players and all-court players. You don’t need a big serve to be an aggressive player, just a good one (Edberg). But you do need varied and faster court speeds. The real solution would be a way to curb serve speed without affecting the rest of the game.
 
Devilito said:
The problem in the 90s was serve, not the court speed. You don’t fix one aspect of tennis by wholesale changing court speed which affects the entire game. The rest of the tennis was just fine. You had a good balance between baseliners, net players and all-court players. You don’t need a big serve to be an aggressive player, just a good one (Edberg). But you do need varied and faster court speeds. The real solution would be a way to curb serve speed without affecting the rest of the game.
Click to expand...

How do you propose to curb serve speeds? Perhaps reintroducing the requirement of having at least one foot on the ground during the serve?
 
Medium paced is ideal. Enables defensive skills without neutralizing offense too much. We want to see some measure of interaction, not: 1 shot, hit or miss, point over throughout the match.
 
veroniquem said:
Medium paced is ideal. Enables defensive skills without neutralizing offense too much. We want to see some measure of interaction, not: 1 shot, hit or miss, point over throughout the match.
Click to expand...

Why not? On some surfaces, it would be a nice change. Better than an endless succession of: 47 baseline shots left and right, UE--oh wait, that was close, I'll challenge it. Wrong call, replay the point. Rince and repeat.
 
merlinpinpin said:
And that's where the pharmaceutical industry comes into play. The slower the court, the bigger an impact it can have on the sport. When it becomes possible to win just by outlasting your opponent, regardless of your tennis ability and his, tennis obviously has a big problem.
Click to expand...

You seem to suggest that all Rafa does is outlast his opponent, besides the doping insinuation (he might be, but then probably so does Fed). His great talent is to be able to conjure up amazing passing shots on the dead run. He also turns a totally passive, defensive position by some amazing gets that land deep into his opponent's court. Now, granted that all this is possible due to the slow nature of the courts, but it is nonetheless a talent that not many possess. Fed possesses the unearthly talent to conjure up winners from nowhere, Rafa can turn many of the same winners into amazing passing shots or neutral/favorable positions for himself -- both seem like different aspects of tennis talents to me!

And finally the cliche about talent being 99% perspiration does come to mind -- it is surely an overrated virtue.
 
netlets said:
You basically just gave the argument for why it isn't a good thing. Why should the player that has less talent be catered to. I think each surface should play differently. I, for one, don't enjoy countless hours of ball bashing when Djokovic and Nadal and Murray play each other. It's often the same point played over and over. Also, and most importantly, the slow courts are going to shorten the players careers because it requires for most players an extremely physical style of play. It's ridiculous that Wimbledon has become the second slowest surface after Roland Garros. It promotes less versatility because you can play one way and win on every surface. I think Borg's ability to win on clay and then grass was much more impressive than Nadal doing it today because he actually HAD to serve and volley at Wimbledon all the time.
Click to expand...

Definitely +1
 
Murrayfan31 said:
Slower courts shorten careers. Bad for the game.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? We should compare the retirement age of the guys when the courts were fastest ie right before 2001 with the guys when the courts were later slowed down.

Remember that before graphite that tennis was really slow, they needed fast courts and balls, and full gut because they played with 65sqin wooden rackets. Once the graphite game started the speed of the ball was tremendously faster.

Also, for those that don't understand; the #1 reason that people stuck to S&V at Wim. was because of the bad bounces. The court had huge bumps and holes ect just like you have out in your back yard.
 
Another stupid thread about the benefits of slow court. Slow court equal more and longer baseline rallies, epic long matches, blah blah, we get it.

But by your logic, shouldn't the NBA ban big guys dunking or little guys breaking people's ankles?

Should the NBA take away the mid-way jumper, since Kobe Byrant, and later in Michael Jordan's career owned that regions with their unstoppable turn-around fadaways and one dribble pull up.

Should the NBA ban Dirk Nowitzki from shooting the ball? That's 7 feet of talent shooting a one legged fadaway.

Should the NBA take away the 3 point line, or push it back further? Reggie Miller and Glen Rice made a career out of shooting 3's. Now Ray Allen is too.

Finally, what about Blake Griffin? Should the NBA raise the height of the rim? Because he's not really beating anyone with skills, he's just using his raw athleticism and talent, dunking on people night in and night out.

A sports arena is built/constructed so each individual can showcase his/her natural abilities, while another can showcase his/her different skill set. That's why there used to be different seasons of court speed/bounces throughout the year.

Now it's just slow, and slower.
 
Last edited:
Tennis today is more exciting than its ever been.

Let's not forget that the "Greatest match of all time " was in this era.

Do you guys remember that match ? That's the one where Nadal beat Federer at wimbledon .

.
 
VOLLEY KING said:
Tennis today is more exciting than its ever been.

Let's not forget that the "Greatest match of all time " was in this era.

Do you guys remember that match ? That's the one where Nadal beat Federer at wimbledon .

.
Click to expand...
Djokovic/Nadal at Australian Open was better.
 
Say Chi Sin Lo said:
Another stupid thread about the benefits of slow court. Slow court equal more and longer baseline rallies, epic long matches, blah blah, we get it.

But by your logic, shouldn't the NBA ban big guys dunking or little guys breaking people's ankles?

Should the NBA take away the mid-way jumper, since Kobe Byrant, and later in Michael Jordan's career owned that regions with their unstoppable turn-around fadaways and one dribble pull up.

Should the NBA ban Dirk Nowitzki from shooting the ball? That's 7 feet of talent shooting a one legged fadaway.

Should the NBA take away the 3 point line, or push it back further? Reggie Miller and Glen Rice made a career out of shooting 3's. Now Ray Allen is too.

Finally, what about Blake Griffin? Should the NBA raise the height of the rim? Because he's not really beating anyone with skills, he's just using his raw athleticism and talent, dunking on people night in and night out.

A sports arena is built/constructed so each individual can showcase his/her natural abilities, while another can showcase his/her different skill set. That's why there used to be different seasons of court speed/bounces throughout the year.

Now it's just slow, and slower.
Click to expand...

I just dont understand how you can bring NBA into this discussion. Lets just stick to arguments that actually make sense, ok?
BTW, these days, more people than ever before are watching tennis. Yes, because of today's technology it helps but still people love long rallies. Epic long rallies, as you said, is actually a great thing to see. Would you like to see Fed/Nadal matches end in 1 and a half hour, with no rallies and just one serve after another. That really gets boring.
P.S I do agree with you on the point that today's courts are too slow. Wimbledon and USO were meant to be fast. They should be made a bit faster, but not that much.
 
I have also noticed one thing. People generally like sloow courts as they promote long baseline rallies. But as soon as Fed looses, the fans start complaining about the slowness of courts. It's actually the *******s who are complain. They dont care about how the slow courts affect tennis, just that Fed lost and they need to blame someone/something. If Fed was winning on slow courts they wouldnt have had a problem
 
zcarzach said:
..Rafa has talent that Roger does not (playing with his non-dominant hand, for example)
Click to expand...
Anyone who brings this up should be banned from the board. It's just the most nonsense comment about Nadal's game imaginable.

Anyone, anyone who learns to play a sport a certain way regardless of how they write, eat, throw etc, learns the sport that way. It BECOMES their natural way. If it didn't they would still suck and we'd most likely have never heard of them.
 
Murrayfan31 said:
Djokovic/Nadal at Australian Open was better.
Click to expand...

Ok so you have the greatest match of all time ( you know the one where Nadal beat Federer in Wimbledon )

And then you have Joker Nadal....

Two most exciting matches of all time.

Clearly you agree that the courts should be slower.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Anyone who brings this up should be banned from the board. It's just the most nonsense comment about Nadal's game imaginable.

Anyone, anyone who learns to play a sport a certain way regardless of how they write, eat, throw etc, learns the sport that way. It BECOMES their natural way. If it didn't they would still suck and we'd most likely have never heard of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed!!!!

That is Heresy!!! Ban the infidel !!
 
Apun94 said:
I have also noticed one thing. People generally like sloow courts as they promote long baseline rallies. But as soon as Fed looses, the fans start complaining about the slowness of courts. It's actually the *******s who are complain. They dont care about how the slow courts affect tennis, just that Fed lost and they need to blame someone/something. If Fed was winning on slow courts they wouldnt have had a problem
Click to expand...

Infidel !!!!

Ban him !!!!
 
Apun94 said:
I just dont understand how you can bring NBA into this discussion. Lets just stick to arguments that actually make sense, ok?
BTW, these days, more people than ever before are watching tennis. Yes, because of today's technology it helps but still people love long rallies. Epic long rallies, as you said, is actually a great thing to see. Would you like to see Fed/Nadal matches end in 1 and a half hour, with no rallies and just one serve after another. That really gets boring.
P.S I do agree with you on the point that today's courts are too slow. Wimbledon and USO were meant to be fast. They should be made a bit faster, but not that much.
Click to expand...
How come when "slow courts" topic appear there's always someone who "jumps in" with the argument "do you want serve after serve"matches?? Nobody is freaking saying that! the courts should be faster than today standars but not to the point of being just for servers!
 
if you want to rule out talent from sport the you might as well scratch sport alltogether and give the medal to the person who practiced the most
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Should all majors be slow court?
Replies
33
Views
3K
MariaRafael
MariaRafael
T
Why were the Australian Open courts made so slow?
Replies
41
Views
9K
mattennis
M
borg25
Embarrassingly slow US Open courts. Moonballing wins!
Replies
18
Views
2K
albertobra
albertobra
D
Is Novak as good on fast courts?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Chanwan
Chanwan
Yours!05
Mats: Slow Wimbledon courts killing SV
Replies
26
Views
2K
the man to beat
T
Back
Top