Federer: SLOWER courts favor point construction

[objectivity]

yes but they are TOO slow, they have gone too far the other way, just like really fast courts were a dull, really slow courts are dull

how is it too slow? seriously. we have to be objective about this. every player still has the ability to put away the point when they get the chance to, even on clay. this isn't the case if you look at clay court tennis of the 70s and 80s. that was really a battle of attrition. but look at the FO of modern days. i see plenty of baseline battles, but i also see that every player has the ability to put away the ball when the opportunity arise.

look at the USO even. i see plenty of fabulous winners struck by players. there's really long rallies as well, but it is ridiculous to suggest that players are not able to strike winners anymore and it is just an unforced errors fest. that is simply preposterous.

 

[rufus_smith]

Very few aces are being hit by the best players in the world. That tells you all you need to know about the playing conditions

 

[mattennis]

are you seriously saying that someone like goran ivanisevic -- fabulously successful on grass, and fast grass no less -- has a broader skill set than the likes of rafael nadal? he basically got to 4 wimbledon finals with ONE shot. or how about philipoussis? same thing. krajicek.

and of course the "most skilled players of all time as regarded by historically were broadly better on faster courts than slower ones"... because historically there were much more tennis played on grass than clay! at one point, 3 out of 4 of the GS were on grass... how else should players shape their games? obviously they had to shape their game styles towards grass or fast surfaces. you want to bet in 30 years time your statement will still be the same?

Goran Ivanisevic had all the shots, all the strokes. He had no patience, yes, he was a head-case, yes, but he was not bad on clay. He won 3 titles on clay (and Stuttgart clay and Kithbuehel were two important clay tournaments back then), he played 9 finals on clay overall, reached the QF of the French Open three times and was finalist in M-1000 tournaments on clay several times.

There is more, you'll never reach 4 Wimbledon finals (and two more SF) with just a great serve. He did it because of his serve, his return of serve, his passing-shots, his volleys and his quickness and reach.

Krajicek and Philippoussis could also hurt you with any shot, and they both won titles (defeating great clay courters) on clay too.

 

[Russeljones]

are you seriously saying that someone like goran ivanisevic -- fabulously successful on grass, and fast grass no less -- has a broader skill set than the likes of rafael nadal? he basically got to 4 wimbledon finals with ONE shot. or how about philipoussis? same thing. krajicek.

and of course the "most skilled players of all time as regarded by historically were broadly better on faster courts than slower ones"... because historically there were much more tennis played on grass than clay! at one point, 3 out of 4 of the GS were on grass... how else should players shape their games? obviously they had to shape their game styles towards grass or fast surfaces. you want to bet in 30 years time your statement will still be the same?

The fact that you don't understand what he's said suggests you don't have much experience playing tennis. The reaction time and preparation (for the shot) on a faster court requires considerable skill.

 

[ricki]

The problem is most of the rallies end with an unforced error. You need a mix of fast and slow surfaces. Point construction is a joy to watch on clay while aggressive winners are a joy to watch indoors. You need BOTH.

no, thanks. You seen match of big hitters on clay? Its much more fun than on "fast" courts.

 

[bjorn23]

How much slower have the hard courts gotten the last 6 or 7 years? It seems like the balls just die and slow down significantly now. I remember them playing a lot faster in fed's true prime. (2004-2006)

 

[objectivity]

The fact that you don't understand what he's said suggests you don't have much experience playing tennis. The reaction time and preparation (for the shot) on a faster court requires considerable skill.

did i ever say that fast courts "do not require skill"? did i? huh?

you were the one who claimed that grass courts require a broader skill set than clay courts. i am challenging you on that. but did i ever say that grass courts "do not require skill"???

 

[slicetea]

I dont mind slow courts

 

[slicetea]

Cant edit, but what others have said is correct fast courts favour ballbashers and servers, too slow favour grinders.

 

[jg153040]

are you seriously saying that someone like goran ivanisevic -- fabulously successful on grass, and fast grass no less -- has a broader skill set than the likes of rafael nadal? he basically got to 4 wimbledon finals with ONE shot. or how about philipoussis? same thing. krajicek.

and of course the "most skilled players of all time as regarded by historically were broadly better on faster courts than slower ones"... because historically there were much more tennis played on grass than clay! at one point, 3 out of 4 of the GS were on grass... how else should players shape their games? obviously they had to shape their game styles towards grass or fast surfaces. you want to bet in 30 years time your statement will still be the same?

This is the problem. You are not as objective as you claim. You are subtly trying to say winning on slower surfaces takes more skills.

And making fun of Feds point construction. Feds entire game is now bad, not only his point construction.

You should see Fed in his prime. His point construction was amazing. How do you think he is 2nd only to Nadal on clay? Even in 2011, he defeated god mode Nole at RG. He also has amazing AO record, 10 consecutive semis, 4 wins, 5 finals.

You saying that fast surfaces require less skills and saying Fed doesn't have good point construction is just not true.

That insults great players like Sampras and older greats.

 

[mattennis]

This court is faster than any court we have today. A lot of skill is required to play on such fast conditions, because you just have no time to react or setup your strokes. And by the way, this match was not a serve fest neither a serve-and-volley match (current players would still play baseline tennis on this faster courts if they existed today, it is just the way they play today).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfEDoksTz4

For me, a baseline battle on a really fast court is much more entertaining than a baseline battle on current slow-as-hell courts (with current balls).

 

[ledwix]

Point construction on slow courts tends to instantly reset to neutral after the offensive shot is chipped back. Players these days play 80% commitment offensive drives which are easily returnable in slow conditions. So it becomes an endurance drill, not a constructed point in the sense of favoring transitions and finishing at the net.

The favoring of angles are a cool effect to clay courts, though.

 

[objectivity]

This is the problem. You are not as objective as you claim. You are subtly trying to say winning on slower surfaces takes more skills.

And making fun of Feds point construction. Feds entire game is now bad, not only his point construction.

You should see Fed in his prime. His point construction was amazing. How do you think he is 2nd only to Nadal on clay? Even in 2011, he defeated god mode Nole at RG. He also has amazing AO record, 10 consecutive semis, 4 wins, 5 finals.

You saying that fast surfaces require less skills and saying Fed doesn't have good point construction is just not true.

That insults great players like Sampras and older greats.

when did i ever make fun of Fed's point construction?!

when did i ever say that fast surfaces require less skills?!

huh??! when did i ever claim that winning on slower courts take more skills?!

what are you talking about??!! all i did was point out that federer himself said that slower surfaces require more point construction. and i was using that to refute those on the forum who deny this aspect of play. what are you talking about?!

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

when did i ever make fun of Fed's point construction?!

when did i ever say that fast surfaces require less skills?!

huh??! when did i ever claim that winning on slower courts take more skills?!

what are you talking about??!! all i did was point out that federer himself said that slower surfaces require more point construction. and i was using that to refute those on the forum who deny this aspect of play. what are you talking about?!

Fascinating. you are being accused of making phantom arguments.

 

[Bobby Jr]

did i ever say that fast courts "do not require skill"? did i? huh?

you were the one who claimed that grass courts require a broader skill set than clay courts. i am challenging you on that...

No, but - others already beat me to the point - you clearly misread my post.

You appear to confuse non-skilled aspects of the game with skills. E.g. Being super fit is not a skill, but having great half-volleys is. The slower the court the less emphasis there is on skill and the more there is on running, fitness and consistency.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

This court is faster than any court we have today. A lot of skill is required to play on such fast conditions, because you just have no time to react or setup your strokes. And by the way, this match was not a serve fest neither a serve-and-volley match (current players would still play baseline tennis on this faster courts if they existed today, it is just the way they play today).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfEDoksTz4

For me, a baseline battle on a really fast court is much more entertaining than a baseline battle on current slow-as-hell courts (with current balls).

I think the tennis from the late 90s to mid 2000s was the most entertaining time to watch. There was a big variety of players and courts, and there were more people winning tournaments. Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray would still do really really well on fast courts, but it would make if more interesting to see them play aggressive players on those courts.

 

[Le Master]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfEDoksTz4

For me, a baseline battle on a really fast court is much more entertaining than a baseline battle on current slow-as-hell courts (with current balls).

Jeez. Today's match of Djokovic vs. Del Potro looks almost slow motion compared to that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhCXOeeUclQ

 

[timnz]

Exactly

Exactly right in your representation!!

 

[Steve0904]

Jeez. Today's match of Djokovic vs. Del Potro looks almost slow motion compared to that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhCXOeeUclQ

That's because it was. Just watch any Federer-Agassi match from 2003-2005 and you'll notice the same thing. Any combination of any of the players from Federer's era will give you the general idea actually.

 

[Steve0904]

I think the tennis from the late 90s to mid 2000s was the most entertaining time to watch. There was a big variety of players and courts, and there were more people winning tournaments. Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray would still do really really well on fast courts, but it would make if more interesting to see them play aggressive players on those courts.

I agree. Some people seem to think we can't go back to those court speeds, but those were the most fun to watch IMO. I just finished watching Federer and Agassi from the USO in 2005, and it was a lot of fun. No grindfests. Two guys actually attacking the ball and taking it on the rise. Not ace after ace. IMO, that time was the perfect mix between serving and playing on the baseline. Wimbledon was still "semi-fast" and the AO and the USO played different enough that you could tell the difference. Plus, the AO was on a real surface, not this blue plexi crap we have today.

 

[BrooklynNY]

A lot of this comes down to coaching as well.

The game just requires different strategies on slower courts, I think Fed was the first person to get it down pat, and now other players have adopted it.

For example, Serve out wide on the duece side, and hit into the open court is the play on faster courts.

Now you really see a lot of serve out wide, forehand wrong foot back behind to really pin them in that corner in order to start the point.

Hitting up the line used to rob players of time, whereas now you open yourself up for the flipper cross most of the time, and you lose control of the point when you just had the other player on a string.

I think things like this had a lot to do with Roddick's lack of success, or and a part of Fed's success against Roddick.

I actually do think the game is evolving back into an all court game as stronger, bigger players are coming up if this trend continues I think the all court game will become important again.

Look at players like Raonic, Janowicz, DelPo, Berdych as the future tennis player build, and enough power to hit through the current conditions.

 

[mattennis]

Jeez. Today's match of Djokovic vs. Del Potro looks almost slow motion compared to that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhCXOeeUclQ

Yes. Today's WTF (and anything else) looks like slow motion compared to that 2005 WTF court (and many more that existed before).

I really think tennis was much more entertaining on those faster courts than what you see today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4PPy3_0kY

 

[mattennis]

It amazing how slow conditions and balls have gotten in the last years even on indoor tournaments.

Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5IdPBAJXPg

This is what indoor tournaments used to be.

90% of points were few-strokes (1-4 strokes) points, short points, fast tennis. Only 1 or 2 out of ten points used to have more than 5 strokes. Fast (and in this example, baseline) tennis.

We already had long baseline rallyes in, at least, 60-70% of the tennis season. There was a 30% of the season to see fast tennis (not necessarily serve fests, the majority of matches were baseline/all court fast tennis even on the fastest indoor carpet tournaments).


You can see why Enqvist "flat" ground strokes were perfect for those fast and low bouncing indoor carpet tournaments. Enqvist would have had it more difficult on todays courts, probably. He was a machine making flat winners from the baseline on fast and low bouncing courts, but he was not a grinder.

There were many baseliners back then with flat ground strokes whose best surface was indoor carpet (and they were quite bad on clay). Enqvist was one of them.

 

[mattennis]

By the way, young Federer was great on indoor carpet. I have a hard time thinking about Nadal or Djokovic being successful on those conditions (but we will never know).

 

[objectivity]

No, but - others already beat me to the point - you clearly misread my post.

You appear to confuse non-skilled aspects of the game with skills. E.g. Being super fit is not a skill, but having great half-volleys is. The slower the court the less emphasis there is on skill and the more there is on running, fitness and consistency.

that's your opinion, and i can respect that. i tend to think though, that the slower the court, the greater emphasis there is on ball control; the faster the court, the greater emphasis on power.

i personally like to watch control. that is why i enjoyed watching federer neutralize roddick's raw power and manipulate the ball. that's my subjective preference.

nevertheless all these have nothing to do with my original post. all i was pointing out is that federer himself, the greatest player of all time almost by consensus, said that slower courts favor point construction. which directly contradicts what many people on this forum think. i was just showing that. i was not at all making any statement on skills, federer's point construction ability etc etc. AT ALL.

 

[objectivity]

This court is faster than any court we have today. A lot of skill is required to play on such fast conditions, because you just have no time to react or setup your strokes. And by the way, this match was not a serve fest neither a serve-and-volley match (current players would still play baseline tennis on this faster courts if they existed today, it is just the way they play today).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfEDoksTz4

For me, a baseline battle on a really fast court is much more entertaining than a baseline battle on current slow-as-hell courts (with current balls).

i also think the davydenko vs nalbandian match was highly entertaining. the issue though, is that was the match exciting because of the styles of the players, or the surface speed? both davydenko and nalbandian love to hover at the baseline and take the ball early. earlier than say djokovic for example. as a result, the play looks faster imho. i think a djokovic vs del potro in 2005 shanghai would still have looked pretty much the same as the current djokovic vs del potro in shanghai.

 

[Steve0904]

i also think the davydenko vs nalbandian match was highly entertaining. the issue though, is that was the match exciting because of the styles of the players, or the surface speed? both davydenko and nalbandian love to hover at the baseline and take the ball early. earlier than say djokovic for example. as a result, the play looks faster imho. i think a djokovic vs del potro in 2005 shanghai would still have looked pretty much the same as the current djokovic vs del potro in shanghai.

No it wouldn't look the same. That's the point. The court was fast therefore Djokovic for example would be forced to play aggressively. The only other option would be to watch winner after winner fly by him. Instead, because of the court, he can defend. Which is all fine and good, but it shouldn't be happening on an indoor HC. That's the problem these days. There are too many courts that favour the defender and not enough that favour the attacker.

 

[Steve0904]

that's your opinion, and i can respect that. i tend to think though, that the slower the court, the greater emphasis there is on ball control; the faster the court, the greater emphasis on power.

i personally like to watch control. that is why i enjoyed watching federer neutralize roddick's raw power and manipulate the ball. that's my subjective preference.

nevertheless all these have nothing to do with my original post. all i was pointing out is that federer himself, the greatest player of all time almost by consensus, said that slower courts favor point construction. which directly contradicts what many people on this forum think. i was just showing that. i was not at all making any statement on skills, federer's point construction ability etc etc. AT ALL.

What Bobby Jr. said is not an opinion. It is a fact that being super fit is not a skill. Anybody can be super fit, but only a few have an innate sort of talent.
What Federer said doesn't contradict what most people on this forum think about slow courts, Federer just said it in a nicer way. He could've said slower courts favour defenders like Nadal and Djokovic, and ultra consistency, and being able to run everything down, and he still would've been right.

 

[Bobby Jr]

that's your opinion, and i can respect that. i tend to think though, that the slower the court, the greater emphasis there is on ball control

... but the easier that control is to achieve because you have more time for each shot.

Achieving accuracy on a faster court is harder than on a slower court for that reason. Ergo it generally requires more skill.

..all i was pointing out is that federer himself, the greatest player of all time almost by consensus, said that slower courts favor point construction. which directly contradicts what many people on this forum think. i was just showing that.

I think you have misinterpreted what he said by some margin. He didn't say it meant it required more skill or that it took more talent - he said they favour point construction, i.e. you can't hit through them as readily so have to win differently. That does not equate to a discussion about general skills.

 

[objectivity]

... but the easier that control is to achieve because you have more time for each shot.

Achieving accuracy on a faster court is harder than on a slower court for that reason. Ergo it generally requires more skill.


I think you have misinterpreted what he said by some margin. He didn't say it meant it required more skill or that it took more talent - he said they favour point construction, i.e. you can't hit through them as readily so have to win differently. That does not equate to a discussion about general skills.

but when did i EVER said that slower courts required more skill or took more talent???!!! when did i ever say that???!!! i did not EVER said that! wat the heck???!!

 

[objectivity]

What Bobby Jr. said is not an opinion. It is a fact that being super fit is not a skill. Anybody can be super fit, but only a few have an innate sort of talent.
What Federer said doesn't contradict what most people on this forum think about slow courts, Federer just said it in a nicer way. He could've said slower courts favour defenders like Nadal and Djokovic, and ultra consistency, and being able to run everything down, and he still would've been right.

i think Federer genuinely meant that slower courts favor thoughtful construction of the point. moving the opponents from side to side to find an opening. its what he is really good at. that's why he has been so dominant. that's all.

 

[mandy01]

i think Federer genuinely meant that slower courts favor thoughtful construction of the point. moving the opponents from side to side to find an opening. its what he is really good at. that's why he has been so dominant. that's all.

Uhm..........................No.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Plenty of people have been saying this. Heck, the Bryan Brothers said a caveman can win Wimbledon. I've said for awhile that clay requires the most actual "tennis skills" because you need fitness, endurance and sharper angles to win. Faster courts give more chances to guys with lesser skills who are willing to crank it.

It's easy to extrapolate as well. If the game were played on ice, the ability to beat the top guys would go ever lower down the rankings, to where it's a complete crap shoot. Speed of surface does not help skill in this sport.

a lot of what you said has predominantly baseline play in mind, however. consider this, if the courts were as fast as ice, you'd be dumb trying to hit anything but a volley—and getting up to net, especially when the other guy has the same objective, requires a lot of skill.

if anything, i think point construction is slowed down, so a really debilitating shot on a fast court wont be nearly as debilitating as on a slow court. which raises the question, why use that same shot on a slow court when a safer two shot combo does the trick?

 

[objectivity]

No it wouldn't look the same. That's the point. The court was fast therefore Djokovic for example would be forced to play aggressively. The only other option would be to watch winner after winner fly by him. Instead, because of the court, he can defend. Which is all fine and good, but it shouldn't be happening on an indoor HC. That's the problem these days. There are too many courts that favour the defender and not enough that favour the attacker.

the issue also was that both Davydenko and Nalbandian are relatively weak servers. do you think you will still get that entertaining match if it was say Isner vs Karlovic? or how about Querrey vs Raonic?

 

[Steve0904]

the issue also was that both Davydenko and Nalbandian are relatively weak servers. do you think you will still get that entertaining match if it was say Isner vs Karlovic? or how about Querrey vs Raonic?

No, but you don't get that on any court they play on so it hardly matters.

 

[Steve0904]

i think Federer genuinely meant that slower courts favor thoughtful construction of the point. moving the opponents from side to side to find an opening. its what he is really good at. that's why he has been so dominant. that's all.

That is probably what Fed meant, but you're kidding yourself if you think that's what he's been good at his whole career. Fed's always been better on fast court than relatively slow ones like today. In his prime, Federer's primary skill for setting up a point was using his slice in the BH corner and eventually ripping a FH which was often a winner on a "faster" court, but these days he has to hit about 5 FH's to find an opening whereas on a faster court he would only have to hit 1 (or 2 at most). Which consequently helps guys like Nadal and Djokovic get back into points that they would be out of on faster courts. Either that or they get an error.

My main problem with it is that this is happening on an indoor HC, when it should be happening on clay. I have no problem with defensive skills being put on display (although I prefer attacking tennis), but I would prefer if I didn't see them used as a main tool in winning on an indoor HC. Clay, fine, but not indoor HC.

 

[objectivity]

That is probably what Fed meant, but you're kidding yourself if you think that's what he's been good at his whole career. Fed's always been better on fast court than relatively slow ones like today. In his prime, Federer's primary skill for setting up a point was using his slice in the BH corner and eventually ripping a FH which was often a winner on a "faster" court, but these days he has to hit about 5 FH's to find an opening whereas on a faster court he would only have to hit 1 (or 2 at most). Which consequently helps guys like Nadal and Djokovic get back into points that they would be out of on faster courts. Either that or they get an error.

My main problem with it is that this is happening on an indoor HC, when it should be happening on clay. I have no problem with defensive skills being put on display (although I prefer attacking tennis), but I would prefer if I didn't see them used as a main tool in winning on an indoor HC. Clay, fine, but not indoor HC.

honestly, i wonder if there was a tennis forum then, were people *****in' about courts getting slower when borg was winning wimbledon. or were people *****in' about clay courts getting faster when edberg and becker both made the semis in 1990? and edberg had actually reached FO final in 1989 too, playing S&V tennis.

i wonder.

 

[mattennis]

honestly, i wonder if there was a tennis forum then, were people *****in' about courts getting slower when borg was winning wimbledon. or were people *****in' about clay courts getting faster when edberg and becker both made the semis in 1990? and edberg had actually reached FO final in 1989 too, playing S&V tennis.

i wonder.

They both lost in the first round in 1990 IIRC
But they played a great five setter SF in 1989.

 

[objectivity]

They both lost in the first round in 1990 IIRC
But they played a great five setter SF in 1989.

sorry i meant 1989 FO. thanks for correcting.

 

[beltsman]

Point construction just happens faster on fast courts. On a slow court, if you make a mistake, you're not out of it. On a fast court, your point construction must start with a good first shot. It's less forgiving.

 

[objectivity]

That is probably what Fed meant, but you're kidding yourself if you think that's what he's been good at his whole career. Fed's always been better on fast court than relatively slow ones like today. In his prime, Federer's primary skill for setting up a point was using his slice in the BH corner and eventually ripping a FH which was often a winner on a "faster" court, but these days he has to hit about 5 FH's to find an opening whereas on a faster court he would only have to hit 1 (or 2 at most). Which consequently helps guys like Nadal and Djokovic get back into points that they would be out of on faster courts. Either that or they get an error.

My main problem with it is that this is happening on an indoor HC, when it should be happening on clay. I have no problem with defensive skills being put on display (although I prefer attacking tennis), but I would prefer if I didn't see them used as a main tool in winning on an indoor HC. Clay, fine, but not indoor HC.

but the thing is, even on a fast court, i think Federer's greatness lies less in his power but in his ability to manipulate the ball. he had such incredible mastery of every shot. able to move the opponents all over the court. that is the key difference between him and roddick. roddick only had a serve and a big forehand. sure he smacks it really hard, but he simply could not move the opponent around like Federer did. of course Federer also had power to put away shots, but its his control which is really the most outstanding.

for the same reason, while people point to Nadal's speed and tenacity as his key attributes, i think the most outstanding part of his game is really the control. he is able to shape the ball flight with spin like no other player, except for Federer.

 

[Bobby Jr]

but when did i EVER said that slower courts required more skill or took more talent???!!! when did i ever say that???!!! i did not EVER said that! wat the heck???!!

You have consistently opposed the opposite which means you are supporting that notion. This is despite it being really, really obvious that faster courts require more general skills than slower ones to anyone who has watched much tennis.

I don't know what you're seeing when you watch clay court specialists hitting 30 shot rallies, safe serves and not pulling the trigger but anyone who plays tennis knows it requires less skill than playing in the manner Sampras or Federer has most of their success with. Far less in most cases.

 

[objectivity]

You have consistently opposed the opposite which means you are supporting that notion. This is despite it being really, really obvious that faster courts require more general skills than slower ones to anyone who has watched much tennis.

I don't know what you're seeing when you watch clay court specialists hitting 30 shot rallies, safe serves and not pulling the trigger but anyone who plays tennis knows it requires less skill than playing in the manner Sampras or Federer has most of their success with. Far less in most cases.

you are obviously not a scientist or anyone trained in science. opposing your notion does not mean i support the opposite. you should go learn some basic concepts on hypothesis making and testing.

and for the record, i do think sampras and federer have incredible skills, possibly the most i have ever witnessed in a player. their backhand flicks and half volleys for example.

 

[Bobby Jr]

you are obviously not a scientist or anyone trained in science. opposing your notion does not mean i support the opposite. you should go learn some basic concepts on hypothesis making and testing.

No, I am not a scientist. It is patently obvious you aren't either or, if you are, you are terrible at forming plausible or persuasive arguments.

and for the record, i do think sampras and federer have incredible skills, possibly the most i have ever witnessed in a player. their backhand flicks and half volleys for example.

It is basically irrelevant whether you think they have incredible skills - the topic is about the construction of points which followed into which end of the speed spectrum necessitates more skill. It is blatantly obvious which one does yet you appear to consistently try and argue the other, even if just by playing ham-fisted scenarios.

 

[objectivity]

No, I am not a scientist. It is patently obvious you aren't either or, if you are, you are terrible at forming plausible or persuasive arguments.


It is basically irrelevant whether you think they have incredible skills - the topic is about the construction of points which followed into which end of the speed spectrum necessitates more skill. It is blatantly obvious which one does yet you appear to consistently try and argue the other, even if just by playing ham-fisted scenarios.

i have NEVER ever claimed that slower courts require more skills. NEVER EVER. i just do not agree that -- i think there is insufficient evidence to support the case -- that faster courts require MORE skills. if you cannot see what is the difference between that and claiming that slower courts require more skills, i have nothing more to say.

and yes, i am a scientist. i am a tenured professor of biostatistics.