Just how different are the hardcourts at the Australian Open compared to the hardcourts at the US Open? Enough to be considered different surfaces?

Do you think Australian Open and US Open be classified as slams in different surfaces?


  • Total voters
    40
I mean, the proof is in the pudding, and we also have a fairly large sample size of that proof, proving that there is definitely a substantial difference between the two hardcourts in those two grand-slam events. Question is, just how substantial is that difference? Is the difference as big as the difference between Wimbledon's grass compared to Australian Open's hardcourt and US Open's hardcourt? If that's the case, shouldn't they just be considered different surfaces altogether, even if both slams are classified as 'hardcourt' slams? Shouldn't they be differentiated by 'fast hardcourt' and 'slow hardcourt' (or perhaps by some other sub-classification), instead of just 'hardcourt' to clear things up and make things more specific?

I mean, if both grand-slams were similar enough to be justifiably labelled the exact same surface, where winning one grand-slam event in either adds to overall hardcourt slam tally, then surely, there'd be no logical reason for why Novak Djokovic should have 6 more Australian Open titles than US Open titles and Nadal only having 1 Australian Open title in nearly 2 decades compared to 4 US Open titles. Only Federer has relatively an equal number of both, due to the most balanced game out of the others. Even Sampras has only two Australian Open titles compared to five US Open titles.

Now does anybody really think or believe if we had two Australian Open slams in a year, instead of just one, and the US Open at the end of the year was to be replaced by another Australian Open grand-slam, identical to the Australian Open in the beginning of the year, does anybody truly believe or think Djokovic would have only won 3 Australian Open titles in the Australian Open that takes place at the same time that the current US Open takes place? Don't you think he'd have roughly the same number of Australian Open titles at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the year? US Open evidently appears to be substantially different than Australian Open, so much so that it's unfair to conflate them both into one, and label the winner of either slam as the winner of the same 'TYPE' of slam (hardcourt) when they so clearly aren't.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Question is, just how substantial is that difference?
The 2012 Australian was one of the greatest matches ever played. Either player could have won.

It was abdolutely dead even. Rafa was even ahead big in the fifth.

Yet we are supposed to beleive that Rafa is suddenly Djoker's patsy at the Australian Open.

Wrong!

 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
I have no idea which one is faster now. Last year they said USO was fast and now AO is supposed to be the fastest its ever been.
 
Last edited:

Ogi44

Rookie
The 2012 Australian was one of the greatest matches ever played. Either player could have won.

It was abdolutely dead even. Rafa was even ahead big in the fifth.

Yet we are supposed to beleive that Rafa is suddenly Djoker's patsy at the Australian Open.

Wrong!

You conveniently forgot that he played 5 1/2 hours with Murray before that. They had simillar match at RG 2013 when both were rested, and Djokovic even beat Nadal there, but still nobody questiones Nadal superiority over him at RG.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
How is the AO different from the USO if any hardcourt can differ from itself on a yearly basis?

There are bigger differences in clay played in Madrid compared to clay played in Rome, so why should clay be considered one surface in that case?

There is only one clay slam obviously, but we are discussing a wider point about surfaces here.
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
USO last year had a court speed index of 2 while AO was at 4. AO is always faster typically and that was particularly true this year because I heard commentators talking about how the surface has less sand mixed in to make it less gritty. Djokovic said in a post-match interview after one of the early rounds that this was the fastest AO court he had ever played on.

 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
In terms of legacy they can be considered roughly same. It's not a problem to just say Novak has 12 hard court slams or Rafa has 5 or whatever. It only makes a difference for us über obsessed tennis dorks that want to talk about humidity levels and air flow compared to grit of the sand grain in the paint. For 99% of the world, a hard court is a hard court. There are differences, but not giant differences.

The point in making a differentiation is helpful when we're talking about predictions. Don't watch Novak's performance on Sunday and think it's an indicator of how the US Open will go. And don't trick yourself every January into thinking Nadal's going to win it because of what happened in New York.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Pretty sure Plexi is considered a different kind of hard court from something more traditional like the Open.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
You conveniently forgot that he played 5 1/2 hours with Murray before that. They had simillar match at RG 2013 when both were rested, and Djokovic even beat Nadal there, but still nobody questiones Nadal superiority over him at RG.
Nobody questions it because of the 2020 RG slaughter. and humiliation. Both players were healthy. What is your excuse for that?

Rafa was injured at 2015 RG. Other than that, Djoker has never been competitive at RG against Rafa. Not even close.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
For 99% of the world, a hard court is a hard court. There are differences, but not giant differences.

The point in making a differentiation is helpful when we're talking about predictions. Don't watch Novak's performance on Sunday and think it's an indicator of how the US Open will go. And don't trick yourself every January into thinking Nadal's going to win it because of what happened in New York.
You are saying that the differences are very minor but enough to make a difference at the pro level, so that
Rafa could win the US Open against Medvedev but not be competitive at Australian.

Is that your point?
 

ibbi

Legend
Hard courts vary widely, but I don't know that I'd say enough to be considered different surfaces, as they share the same basic qualities. Balls used, and general conditions make a massive impact too. The general difference just between the day and night sessions at this Australian Open were pretty telling.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
You are saying that the differences are very minor but enough to make a difference at the pro level, so that
Rafa could win the US Open against Medvedev but not be competitive at Australian.

Is that your point?
Yes, enough to make a difference but not enough to be worth calling them separate surfaces.
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
The issue is not with the surfaces. The major problem is with the OP.
The proof is not in the pudding.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The commentators were stating, make of it what you will, that the courts had an unusually high amount of use before the AO so they looked shinier than usual.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
The commentators were stating, make of it what you will, that the courts had an unusually high amount of use before the AO so they looked shinier than usual.
Who uses these courts? Are they open to the public?
Have you played on them?
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
How much cooler was the AO this year. Didn’t see the ice towels very much. Slightly slower conditions due to that possibly which might offset the court a little?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
USO last year had a court speed index of 2 while AO was at 4. AO is always faster typically and that was particularly true this year because I heard commentators talking about how the surface has less sand mixed in to make it less gritty. Djokovic said in a post-match interview after one of the early rounds that this was the fastest AO court he had ever played on.

LOL no.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In terms of legacy they can be considered roughly same. It's not a problem to just say Novak has 12 hard court slams or Rafa has 5 or whatever. It only makes a difference for us über obsessed tennis dorks that want to talk about humidity levels and air flow compared to grit of the sand grain in the paint. For 99% of the world, a hard court is a hard court. There are differences, but not giant differences.

The point in making a differentiation is helpful when we're talking about predictions. Don't watch Novak's performance on Sunday and think it's an indicator of how the US Open will go. And don't trick yourself every January into thinking Nadal's going to win it because of what happened in New York.
And don't predict which player between X and Y will win their match in tournament A just based on what happened in tournament B.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Pretty sure Plexi is considered a different kind of hard court from something more traditional like the Open.
What we have here is evidence of which posters play tennis and those who do not. The two surfaces are vastly different. Chalk and cheese. While USO has been consistent in 10 year blocks the AO changes every year which i think they do to be unique. It is not a slam built on tradition.
When discussimg traditional hard courts i look at USO. Australia has had 3 or 4 different surfaces.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
You are saying that the differences are very minor but enough to make a difference at the pro level, so that
Rafa could win the US Open against Medvedev but not be competitive at Australian.

Is that your point?
Why is Nadal being mentioned on this thread? This is about surfaces
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You have no evidence for any of this. You just made it all up.

Australia went from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion, and then chose a different supplier.

The USO used to be considered very fast, whereas now it ranks slower than Australia so how is that consistent?

What we have here is evidence of which posters play tennis and those who do not. The two surfaces are vastly different. Chalk and cheese. While USO has been consistent in 10 year blocks the AO changes every year which i think they do to be unique. It is not a slam built on tradition.
When discussimg traditional hard courts i look at USO. Australia has had 3 or 4 different surfaces.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The USO went from grass to clay to hardcourt but their hardcourt stability just changed as did Australia's:

The U.S. Open tennis tournament is changing the brand of its court surfaces for the first time in more than 40 years.

The U.S. Tennis Association announced Monday it has a five-year agreement for the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center to use Laykold hard courts made by Advanced Polymer Technology.

They replace DecoTurf, the hard-court surface played on at the U.S. Open since 1978.

Laykold courts have been used at the Miami Open and New York Open and for Fed Cup matches in the United States.
 

Biotic

Professional
What we have here is evidence of which posters play tennis and those who do not. The two surfaces are vastly different. Chalk and cheese. While USO has been consistent in 10 year blocks the AO changes every year which i think they do to be unique. It is not a slam built on tradition.
When discussimg traditional hard courts i look at USO. Australia has had 3 or 4 different surfaces.
Didn't you just few minutes ago in that other thread call Nadal's 2010 "a surface slam". Without the AO? :-D :-D :-D

Man, you really are full of ****.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
What is really funny is that Laykold courts are made in Australia, so the AO chose Spain whereas the USO chose Australia.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Didn't you just few minutes ago in that other thread call Nadal's 2010 "a surface slam". Without the AO? :-D :-D :-D

Man, you really are full of ****.
There are 3 consistent surfaces then the ever alternating AO. So Nadal.did a surface slam. Ao is different now to 2010.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
AO has had grass, then a rubbery hard court, and then a cusioned acrylic hardcourt. So three over a hundred years. Or two if grass to hardcourt is considered pivotal.

FO and W have obviously been more consistent, not the USO. The Americans experimented with clay, so that's one more than the AO, but they did use Decoturf for too long a time.

The Americans changed companies to Laykold in 2020, but you appear not to have noticed.

AO has had 3 or 4 surfaces. FO W and USO have been consistent. Hence a surface slam is judged across those 3. 2010 AO v 2021 AO is a totally different surface.
 
Last edited:

Beckerserve

Legend
AO has had grass, then a rubbery hard court, and then a cusioned acrylic hardcourt. So three over a hundred years. Or two if grass to hardcourt is considered pivotal.

FO and W have obviously been more consistent, not the USO. The Americans experimented with clay, so that's one more than the AO, but they did use Decoturf for too long a time.
USO since 1980-2019 was decoturf.
AO is no longer cushioned. It is greenset not plexicushion. Please research this. It changes last year.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The USO and the AO both changed companies. Please stop your adulation of Nadal and look at things like surfaces with some objectivity.

USO since 1980-2019 was decoturf.
AO is no longer cushioned. It is greenset not plexicushion. Please research this. It changes last year.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Not really. You don't appear to have followed anything, that's all.

He interrogated me about who I supported with the implication that I was biased.

But he's the one who is a Nadal supporter, and the AO is Nadal's worst surface in terms of slams.

What a pivot lol, those goalposts got moved so fast they did a somersault.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
The USO and the AO both changed companies. Please stop your adulation of Nadal and look at things like surfaces with some objectivity.
What has Nadal got to do with this thread? I have not mentioned him as he like other players is irrelevant on this thread. We are talking surfaces not players. Stay on topic please. AO has had 4 surfaces that play vastly different.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Nadal would have lost them all if the AO stayed with grass, but as it is one AO is a pitiful accomplishment.

What has Nadal got to do with this thread? I have not mentioned him as he like other players is irrelevant on this thread. We are talking surfaces not players. Stay on topic please. AO has had 4 surfaces that play vastly different.
 

Atennisone

Hall of Fame
RG and WB still stand out in a very big way.
Next Gen is Who Gen on Grass and on Clay Thiem and Tsitsipas are suddenly consistent players.
AO and UO are very similar, but UO has had some weird years
 
Top