Regarding the color itself, I am more or less neutral. On the one hand there is some improvement in contrast (though I have no difficulty seeing the ball on normal red clay). On the other hand, I would be nostalgic of the traditional color if it were eliminated. It's an old, venerable surface.
What needs to be determined here is whether the unusual slipperiness of these courts was related to the process of creating the blue clay, or if it was simply an unintended consequence of the way they laid the courts down, excessive compacting or whatever. There is conflicting information about this. They shoud test this thoroughly to ensure that in fact the blue clay behaves exactly the same as the red clay.
Applauding the unusual slipperiness just because it tends to shorten points and produce more “winners” is a pretty infantile reaction, but not a surprising one among the crowd of attention-impaired tennis fans who think that the quality of tennis increases in inverse relation to the average length of points, and that the ideal point duration should be roughly in the order of the duration of intercourse between rabbits.
Even if you like the very short points in ultra fast surfaces, the enthusiasm for the slipperiness is silly because here the "quickening" of the court is achieved mostly by crippling the movement of players, so it's mostly an illusion, and it is vulnerable to all kinds of reductio ad absurdum arguments. If the abundance of “winners” that so excite this childish crowd is achieved not by the quickness of the bounce but by putting a kind of leash on the player’s movement, well then a match between two severly lame players should become a festival of winners, and presumably a source of extasis to these puerile fans of expediency. Thinking people should reject it offhand, especially in the middle of the clay season leading to RG.