Yes, that's why Tiriac came up with the idea of changing the red clay to blue clay because he wanted to alienate all the "normal people". :???:
Yes, we should all go back to the days of watching tennis matches in black and white, on grainy 9 inch TVs. I mean, they did it in the old days!It's funny growing up watching tennis Red hardcourts were pretty common..no HD..white tennis ball...normally one camera angle.
I think you people are staring at the computer to much and have ruined your eyes if you can't follow the ball lol
It's funny growing up watching tennis Red hardcourts were pretty common..no HD..white tennis ball...normally one camera angle.
Tbh I find the red clay a lot easier on the eyes - much more comfortable to watch. My eyes grew tired after watching a few sets on this newfangled blue dirt.
I still can't see why they can't simply work on changing the colour of the ball. Tiriac intends to do this even for the blue clay.
What's the opposite of red clay on the colour spectrum? That's all you need to know to produce better visibility.
Honestly, Ive never not been able to track a tennis ball.
Then again, I have 20/15 vision
It's easier to see the ball at Wimbledon on the green grass because it's almost always cloudy and gloomy there, without the bright sunshine that can wash out the color of the ball and the courts.
Okay blue clay lovers your dream is gone, now with real clay the 2 best players are in the finals. So go ahead and keep wishing everything was blue but it is done with along with fed.
They can also beat him on blue clay, but they were not stupid enough to risk injury in a minor tournament with RG and O coming up. Fed can enjoy beating Birdie in the minor leagues.
I don't quite understand this "blue" clay business -- it's clay regardless; by that line of reasoning we should also be distinguishing between the various subtypes of hardcourts and their varied colors and contesting the legitimacy of a certain type of hard surface (with a certain type of color) being called a "hardcourt".
I don't care if you have x-ray vision, the blue clay is no significant improvement in terms of ball visibility.
Here's an idea, why don't we see if the All England Club will dye its grass blue. Grass is green, in case you weren't aware.
Rome has a wonderful, laid back feel with beautiful grounds, in contrast to the gaudy feel of Madrid.
Yes, because both Djokovic and Nadal proved that in Madrid......uh....oops.....they were both clueless and couldn't adapt on blue clay and lost early, didn't they?They can also beat him on blue clay, but they were not stupid enough to risk injury in a minor tournament with RG and O coming up. Fed can enjoy beating Birdie in the minor leagues.
Adapt to the blue clay-like substance, more accurately, but the reality is that Nadal-Djoko are now at the top.
Whatever. Federer is the only guy who can play on anything......blue clay, carpet, wood, ice, gravel, brick, sand, - you name it.Adapt to the blue clay-like substance, more accurately, but the reality is that Nadal-Djoko are now at the top.
Whatever. Federer is the only guy who can play on anything......blue clay, carpet, wood, ice, gravel, brick, sand, - you name it.
Adapt to the blue clay-like substance, more accurately, but the reality is that Nadal-Djoko are now at the top.
Yes, Federer was the best and still has the best game, but he's no longer at the top.
Yes, Federer was the best and still has the best game, but he's no longer at the top.
The best movie doesn't always win an Oscar.Ya right he has the best game but he can no longer win a major, this makes a lot of sense. It really looked like he had the best game today against joker. Well i guess it makes sense if you are a ******* that lives in la la land.
The best movie doesn't always win an Oscar.
The best TV show doesn't always win an Emmy.
The best book doesn't always win a Pulitzer.
The best song doesn't always win a Grammy.
The best scientist doesn't always win a Nobel Prize.
Likewise, the best game doesn't always win a major. Winning a major is not the only thing that determines "the best game".
The best movie doesn't always win an Oscar.
The best TV show doesn't always win an Emmy.
The best book doesn't always win a Pulitzer.
The best song doesn't always win a Grammy.
The best scientist doesn't always win a Nobel Prize.
Likewise, the best game doesn't always win a major. Winning a major is not the only thing that determines "the best game".
mellowyellow;6550135 If it was not for those draws and performances Fed may have been No.2 already especially if he would play Monte Carlo. That is a 500 point hole right from the get go if he wins the extra 500 to replace it![/QUOTE said:*******s with all excuses. What a bunch of losers.
Some of Fed's loses were somewhat out of his control. Players he usually beats playing out of their comfort zone. Like Tsnonga, Berdych, Arod... I really think the Berdych and Tsonga matches would have went that way for Nadal too, Djoko would maybe have toughed them out but but even skeptical of that. If it was not for those draws and performances Fed may have been No.2 already especially if he would play Monte Carlo. That is a 500 point hole right from the get go if he wins the extra 500 to replace it!
Yes, best game when comparing a 25 year old with 25 year old. At the moment, Fed is an increasingly distant third, which is still a remarkable achievement.
The best movie doesn't always win an Oscar.
The best TV show doesn't always win an Emmy.
The best book doesn't always win a Pulitzer.
The best song doesn't always win a Grammy.
The best scientist doesn't always win a Nobel Prize.
Likewise, the best game doesn't always win a major. Winning a major is not the only thing that determines "the best game".
So now it was when fed was 25? Like i said you do not live in reality, now you say fed is a distant 3rd. But how can that be if he has the best game?
All that is gold does not glitter,The best movie doesn't always win an Oscar.
The best TV show doesn't always win an Emmy.
The best book doesn't always win a Pulitzer.
The best song doesn't always win a Grammy.
The best scientist doesn't always win a Nobel Prize.
Likewise, the best game doesn't always win a major. Winning a major is not the only thing that determines "the best game".
A game that can easily adapt to playing on blue clay.Really then what determines the best game then?
A game that can easily adapt to playing on blue clay.
... At the moment, Fed is an increasingly distant third, which is still a remarkable achievement.
Lets have a new experiment : the next Madrid tournament, Tiriac suddenly announces just before the first match that ALL the players will be playing with a mandatory wooden Jack Kramer/Maxply strung with old strings. No more babolatian madness. The players will be provided with their racquets before the beginning of each match....
The wood racquets will be painted all black so any pro sponsored by any company can play. Just put a sticker with the sponsor's name on the racquet and its logo on the strings.One small problem: only players who are sponsored by Wilson or Dunlop could play.
A game that can easily adapt to playing on blue clay.
^There is a difference between ability and execution.
The wood racquets will be painted all black so any pro sponsored by any company can play. Just put a sticker with the sponsor's name on the racquet and its logo on the strings.
You forgot the word - "yet". :wink:To bad the majors are not played on blue clay, because he does not seem to be able to adapt to those surfaces any longer.
The wood racquets will be painted all black so any pro sponsored by any company can play. Just put a sticker with the sponsor's name on the racquet and its logo on the strings.
It means that both Nadal and Djokovic are 5-6 years younger than Federer so they can still run around like rabbits. That doesn't mean they have better games than Federer.So this means what? Fed has the best ability but cannot execute it anymore? Wow what a waste he has the most ability but can't out play joker or nadal any longer when it counts at the majors. Ya okay this makes a lot of sense i guess to somebody.