Such a pity what the powers the be have done to Federer

SublimeTennis

Professional
So no link?

Link? You want us to think for you? Again, if you don't have a clue, please don't embarrass yourself, do your own homework, that way you can come back on here with knowledge, and we can have a real debate. If you don't know how to read then just stay off the forum, sound good?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Link? You want us to think for you? Again, if you don't have a clue, please don't embarrass yourself, do your own homework, that way you can come back on here with knowledge, and we can have a real debate. If you don't know how to read then just stay off the forum, sound good?
You are cute when you post dumb things.

;)
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
First, some definitions, when I say "Fast Court" in reference to the last 10 years, I mean "Faster Courts in a SUPER SLOW COURT ERA", I'm NOT referring to fast courts of all of tennis history, "Of all time", sound familiar?

Today Wimbledon is as slow as FO in the 90's, this is FACT. The sponsors have slowed down the courts so they can get longer matches, more advertising.

Now if you don't understand the basics, that is Nadal, Novak, etc. play BETTER on very slow courts, and Federer and others play better on FASTER courts, please don't respond if you don't know that.

Fed started in the 80's and 90's on fast courts, all-court but mainly serve and volley. He becomes pro, the courts are still relatively fast, and (By the way these are indisputable facts), every year the courts slow down, IE they've changed the sand and grass at Wimbledon, added sand to AO and US Open courts, bottom line courts are slow, this gives guys like Nadal, Novak TIME, and I freely admit, you give them time, let them get into a groove from the baseline, they are unbeatable. Likewise, you put Fed on a faster court where they do not have time and it's not even close. The fact that a 34 year old Fed can still compete in Finals against Nadal and Djokovich on slow courts is a testament to his versatility.

Now if they would have kept the courts FAST, as in 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's fast, Fed would be in the high 20's GS's. I always say GS's are not the determining factor, that's like saying Rocky Marciano was the GOAT because he was undefeated, it's your competition and what you do against them, it's your ability to play on fast and slow courts.

Has everyone not noticed that on FASTER courts like Dubai and Cincinnati, Fed PLAYS with Djokovich? Bottom line Federer has been screwed by the universal slowing down of courts, if they were simply kept the same way Federer would be in the deep 20's GS's, and THAT DOES mean something.

I think Nadal is the greatest modern slow court player of all time, with Novak second, but OF ALL TIME? Why? Because being injured doesn't mean you are less talented, it just means you can't compete because you are injured, he would be past 18 GS's if not for injuries. Get real, Nadal with a 65" wood racquet, Gut, no time to set up, you'd never hear of him. We KNOW Fed could play great under the same circumstances.

Here is my proof once again the GS wins do not matter that much. A 20 year old player starts lets say 2005, his winning percentage is 100%, he plays for two years, wins all eight Grand Slams, then at 22 retires. Do we say he's not the best player of all time because he retired? Of course not, for we know if he continued he'd probably continue this for some time.

So this is why Fed is the GOAT, it's OF ALL TIME my friends. And please don't bring up Agassi, he used a 107 Inch racquet with Gut yes, but used very compact, short shots.

I think the best example is the GOAT, Sampras until Federer, when Fed beat him on super fast Wimbledon both with PS85's and Gut, then give Fed a 90 with Gut and Luxilon, PLUS GROWING INTO A PLAYER and you have a Sampras who got better.

Don't worry Fed fans, He's the GOAT, but watch how many respond in ignorance of court speed.

By the way, it works the opposite of course as well. Why do you think Agassi could play for so long? Where does he specialize? SLOW COURTS! Seems most get it, but it is just AMAZING, blows my brain that some don't know anything about court speed yet will make comments.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
First, some definitions, when I say "Fast Court" in reference to the last 10 years, I mean "Faster Courts in a SUPER SLOW COURT ERA", I'm NOT referring to fast courts of all of tennis history, "Of all time", sound familiar?

Today Wimbledon is as slow as FO in the 90's, this is FACT. The sponsors have slowed down the courts so they can get longer matches, more advertising.

Now if you don't understand the basics, that is Nadal, Novak, etc. play BETTER on very slow courts, and Federer and others play better on FASTER courts, please don't respond if you don't know that.

Fed started in the 80's and 90's on fast courts, all-court but mainly serve and volley. He becomes pro, the courts are still relatively fast, and (By the way these are indisputable facts), every year the courts slow down, IE they've changed the sand and grass at Wimbledon, added sand to AO and US Open courts, bottom line courts are slow, this gives guys like Nadal, Novak TIME, and I freely admit, you give them time, let them get into a groove from the baseline, they are unbeatable. Likewise, you put Fed on a faster court where they do not have time and it's not even close. The fact that a 34 year old Fed can still compete in Finals against Nadal and Djokovich on slow courts is a testament to his versatility.

Now if they would have kept the courts FAST, as in 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's fast, Fed would be in the high 20's GS's. I always say GS's are not the determining factor, that's like saying Rocky Marciano was the GOAT because he was undefeated, it's your competition and what you do against them, it's your ability to play on fast and slow courts.

Has everyone not noticed that on FASTER courts like Dubai and Cincinnati, Fed PLAYS with Djokovich? Bottom line Federer has been screwed by the universal slowing down of courts, if they were simply kept the same way Federer would be in the deep 20's GS's, and THAT DOES mean something.

I think Nadal is the greatest modern slow court player of all time, with Novak second, but OF ALL TIME? Why? Because being injured doesn't mean you are less talented, it just means you can't compete because you are injured, he would be past 18 GS's if not for injuries. Get real, Nadal with a 65" wood racquet, Gut, no time to set up, you'd never hear of him. We KNOW Fed could play great under the same circumstances.

Here is my proof once again the GS wins do not matter that much. A 20 year old player starts lets say 2005, his winning percentage is 100%, he plays for two years, wins all eight Grand Slams, then at 22 retires. Do we say he's not the best player of all time because he retired? Of course not, for we know if he continued he'd probably continue this for some time.

So this is why Fed is the GOAT, it's OF ALL TIME my friends. And please don't bring up Agassi, he used a 107 Inch racquet with Gut yes, but used very compact, short shots.

I think the best example is the GOAT, Sampras until Federer, when Fed beat him on super fast Wimbledon both with PS85's and Gut, then give Fed a 90 with Gut and Luxilon, PLUS GROWING INTO A PLAYER and you have a Sampras who got better.

Don't worry Fed fans, He's the GOAT, but watch how many respond in ignorance of court speed.
I don't like this kind of discussion because while you have a point, you don't highlight that upsets are more likely on very fast courts, so we don't know if Federer would have over 17 grand slams

Also you are ruining your point when saying today's grass is as slow as clay in the nineties
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
I don't like this kind of discussion because while you have a point, you don't highlight that upsets are more likely on very fast courts, so we don't know if Federer would have over 17 grand slams

Also you are ruining your point when saying today's grass is as slow as clay in the nineties

Thanks, but think about what you are saying "More upsets on fast courts", wouldn't it be EXCITING if we didn't actually knew who was going to win instead of "Well it's Australian Open, slow hard court Novak's the Favorite", or likewise "It's Dubai or Cincinnati, Federer is the favorite". Sorry but for me personally, upsets are EXCITING, Michael Chang beating Lendl, that's exciting.

And while clearly I'm right on court speeds, I've been called on the FACT that Wimby is as slow as 90's RG, I will source that since you are actually real, know what you are talking about, and have done your research unlike many who chime in without a clue then want sources...
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
You think Roddick would be a fair witness? He played in all the slams in 2002 and played on the same courts until he retired. In his radio show, he said, "No contest. Courts when I started were super fast, later on, not so much. By 2007 or '08, courts that were once slick had turned into molasses."

Argue with that,

Don't even engage people that don't have a clue, there are many people, no clue, never took the time to study, but suddenly they're experts, then when they can't answer questions they want you to source things for them, in other words do their work, EVERY EXPERT IN TENNIS knows all about court speed, just ignore people like that.

By the way, AO is coming up, Novak the favorite BECAUSE SLOW HARD COURTS, you and I and everyone else gets that, others have no clue, don't waste your time my friend.
 

nadalfan2013

Professional
Yeah, the courts should be back to being faster, maybe Isner and Mahut would still be playing their match at Wimbledon and would be tied 2748-2748 in the fifth set, on serve, with no break points.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Yeah, the courts should be back to being faster, maybe Isner and Mahut would still be playing their match at Wimbledon and would be tied 2748-2748 in the fifth set, on serve, with no break points.

On faster slick, low bouncing grass of the 90s, Mahut would have won that match in 4. Isner would have no time to setup that FH and wouldn't back up his serve nearly as well, every time someone would get a ball back John would be screwed.

Guys like Karlovic and Isner would do terrible on old grass.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Yeah, the courts should be back to being faster, maybe Isner and Mahut would still be playing their match at Wimbledon and would be tied 2748-2748 in the fifth set, on serve, with no break points.

Ha Ha! Hey we each have our own taste, some like physical 30 shot rally after rally, others like intelligence and strategy, that's why I've always been one to say why not make it even? Make half the season slow, half the season 90's and pre-fast, I mean aren't you sick of Nadal being the foregone conclusion of RG? Or Novak being the foregone conclusion of AO? I am. It would be a real test for the GOAT also, like NEVER BEFORE, think about it, what if Nadal for example could only do well on super slow courts, nothing on super fast courts but someone like Federer doing great on both? It's just not fair to take possibly the fastest player in history and put him on slow courts, it gives his opponents all of the time in the world.
 

nadalfan2013

Professional
There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something. Maybe in 50 years there will be no more hardcourt surfaces and it will mostly be on clay cause hardcourt makes a lot of injury and is bad on the body and feet. Would it mean that people would look back and dismiss tennis of this current era? No.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolves, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
One other note about faster surfaces/conditions, it's not always easy to tell on first sight who would benefit. Many mentioned Tsonga here for his big all-court game yet his record at AO and FO is much better than his record at USO, he also regularly gets bounced early at Cincy (which many consider to be the among the fastest masters title). A counter-puncher like Murray who gets called out on supposedly being a boring pusher actually has better results on some faster surfaces compared to Jo and anyone who followed Hewitt for example (another counter-puncher) knows his preference for faster courts.

I think two players that I'm pretty sure would benefit from faster courts are Nalbandian and Davydenko.
Good points on Tsonga, Hewitt and Murray. Nalby? Care to elaborate? I think Tsonga would do well at a faster Wimbledon though, his game is good on grass.
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
There's a reason why they slowed down the surfaces, it's because players got more powerful, the technology got better and it became all too quick full of aces and short rallies. They didn't do it for fun.

Why not complain about going back to playing with wooden rackets? or what about the period where there were 2 clay slams per year? or the one where there were 2 grass slams per year? or the years where there were no tiebreakers? or why not take away the players replay challenge? It seems that everyone just focuses on the 80's-90's or something. Maybe in 50 years there will be no more hardcourt surfaces and it will mostly be on clay cause hardcourt makes a lot of injury and is bad on the body and feet. Would it mean that people would look back and dismiss tennis of this current era? No.

Guess what, all those years were still "Real Tennis". The players just have to adapt to the conditions and rules of their own era. Stop favoring one period over the other. Rod Laver who is like 5 foot 6 would get destroyed in this current era, no matter what technology and training you give him. But it just doesn't make sense to take champions from the present and put them in the past or vice-versa. Tennis continues to evolves, but guess what it's all "real" tennis wether it's today, 20 years ago or 70 years ago.

I don't think Laver gets destroyed today. He's probably gonna be at Ferrer's level, with only a different style. He's be better or just as good as a similar sized Goffin.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
Yea, first get common sense, second Google it, do your study before you comment.

So no ya got nothing to back up your absurd made up "fact" and you've destroyed all your credibility in one ill conceived sentence.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
Link? You want us to think for you? Again, if you don't have a clue, please don't embarrass yourself, do your own homework, that way you can come back on here with knowledge, and we can have a real debate. If you don't know how to read then just stay off the forum, sound good?

It's funny how the majority of posters called you out on this (not a single poster agreed with you btw bc they don't want to embarrass themselves) and all you can do is get angry about it. You said something dumb, got called on it. Time to own it. Or just keep living in fantasyland and everyone will keep laughing at you.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Good points on Tsonga, Hewitt and Murray. Nalby? Care to elaborate? I think Tsonga would do well at a faster Wimbledon though, his game is good on grass.

Nalbandian could play ball on every surface but the biggest title he won was on carpet (2005 TMC) and there was that beautiful 2007 indoor season where he toyed with Fed and Nadal.

I think one thing Nalbo lacked in his game (relatively speaking) was power, on faster/conditions court that is negated somewhat and his court sense, touch and ballstriking reign supreme.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Nalbandian could play ball on every surface but the biggest title he won was on carpet (2005 TMC) and there was that beautiful 2007 indoor season where he toyed with Fed and Nadal.

I think one thing Nalbo lacked in his game (relatively speaking) was power, on faster/conditions court that is negated somewhat and his court sense, touch and ballstriking reign supreme.
All good points, I will say that I think Fed would have won in 2005 if not for being on crutches a few weeks earlier, but the win was epic nevertheless - as was his 2007 run.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
All good points, I will say that I think Fed would have won in 2005 if not for being on crutches a few weeks earlier, but the win was epic nevertheless - as was his 2007 run.

Maybe but then again being able to even hang with and eventually beat that version of Fed was still pretty damn impressive. Fed's movement was slightly diminished and he couldn't serve with full power but his FH was 10 times the weapon it is today and his BH held up well under low bounce as usual.

It was a pretty damn good match, as far as pure tennis goes Fed-Nalbo match-up might be the best of this era.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
If the court speeds were comparable to prior eras, perhaps folks like Tsonga etc. would've taken some of those "faster" slams from Fed. It's not like Federer wins every slam Nadal and Djokovic theoretically lose if the courts were faster/more variable (though he'd surely win some, though as well I'm not convinced that fellow greats of this era would automatically lose 'em).

Let's not also ignore the move to 32 seeds in 2001, which has surely helped prop up all the sudden consecutive QF/SF streaks of the 21st century.

No, it's just a figment of your vivid imagination. The 32-seed system afforded easier 1st rounds, but made later rounds (read 2nd round onwards) more difficult (all relative to the 16-seed system). The theory about "dangerous floaters" seeded 17-32 is overblown, and invented to explain away the inconsistencies of the former greats. The truth is, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are too good to let "dangerous floaters" take them out.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
It's funny how the majority of posters called you out on this (not a single poster agreed with you btw bc they don't want to embarrass themselves) and all you can do is get angry about it. You said something dumb, got called on it. Time to own it. Or just keep living in fantasyland and everyone will keep laughing at you.

Laugh at me? Whatever, this is how these forums go, you put out what EVERY TENNIS EXPERT KNOWS, then people attack the messenger personally, it's the Saul Alinksky model, attack and call names. What have you contributed to this forum? Do you think I want to come on here and defend myself? Why don't you listen to others, forget me, talk to ANY EXPERT, any player, I mean if you think Nadal does better on fast courts than slow courts good for you, just because it's not reality doesn't seem to bother you, and no I won't do homework for you.

Let me help you, go to Google, put in "How has court speed affected the sport of tennis", now it will require reading, and time, after a few hours, come back on, and add something to this forum except insults.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Laugh at me? Whatever, this is how these forums go, you put out what EVERY TENNIS EXPERT KNOWS, then people attack the messenger personally, it's the Saul Alinksky model, attack and call names. What have you contributed to this forum? Do you think I want to come on here and defend myself? Why don't you listen to others, forget me, talk to ANY EXPERT, any player, I mean if you think Nadal does better on fast courts than slow courts good for you, just because it's not reality doesn't seem to bother you, and no I won't do homework for you.

Let me help you, go to Google, put in "How has court speed affected the sport of tennis", now it will require reading, and time, after a few hours, come back on, and add something to this forum except insults.

Jim Courier Blog: I heard yesterday that some players are finding it more difficult to put the ball away at Wimbledon than they did at Roland Garros a few weeks ago.

Wow that was hard, I'm sweating, any other thinking I can do for you? Incidentally that took me five minutes.

Courier: I think it is a shame that a wonderful volleyer like Roger Federer has been pinned to the baseline on grass and no longer has the option to successfully serve and volley at Wimbledon. The contrasting matchup of a serve and volleyer versus a baseliner is a very attractive one. And how great would it be to see Roger vs Rafa in a scenario where Rafa was forced to serve and volley on both 1st and 2nd serves? That is exactly what we saw with Ivan Lendl vs the McEnroe’s, Becker’s and Cash’s of his time where Lendl would skip the French Open in order to dramatically transform his #1 game of baseline domination into a serve and volley game to try to complete his career grand slam. It never happened for Ivan but that is evidence of what a different surface it is today where Rafa doesn’t have to do much different on grass other than slice his serve more frequently. It’s tough to imagine Rafa winning Wimbledon in the 90’s given the surface at that time but I sure would like to see how he would adjust to having to serve and volley all of the time. He’s such a great champion and competitor and that would have been a challenge he would have enjoyed as much as we would enjoy watching it.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Jim Courier Blog: I heard yesterday that some players are finding it more difficult to put the ball away at Wimbledon than they did at Roland Garros a few weeks ago.

Wow that was hard, I'm sweating, any other thinking I can do for you? Incidentally that took me five minutes.

Courier: I think it is a shame that a wonderful volleyer like Roger Federer has been pinned to the baseline on grass and no longer has the option to successfully serve and volley at Wimbledon. The contrasting matchup of a serve and volleyer versus a baseliner is a very attractive one. And how great would it be to see Roger vs Rafa in a scenario where Rafa was forced to serve and volley on both 1st and 2nd serves? That is exactly what we saw with Ivan Lendl vs the McEnroe’s, Becker’s and Cash’s of his time where Lendl would skip the French Open in order to dramatically transform his #1 game of baseline domination into a serve and volley game to try to complete his career grand slam. It never happened for Ivan but that is evidence of what a different surface it is today where Rafa doesn’t have to do much different on grass other than slice his serve more frequently. It’s tough to imagine Rafa winning Wimbledon in the 90’s given the surface at that time but I sure would like to see how he would adjust to having to serve and volley all of the time. He’s such a great champion and competitor and that would have been a challenge he would have enjoyed as much as we would enjoy watching it.

The gradual refashioning of courts have already started much before Nadal won his first ever Grand Slam at Roland Garros in 2005. It all started with Wimbledon slowing down its surface, making it denser, resulting in high bounce of the ball. In 2002, the All England Club introduced the 100% perennial rye, ditching the old composition which was a mix of 70% rye and 30% fescue. The more durable surface did ‘slow down’ Wimbledon remarkably; that could explain why Roger Federer - a quarterfinalist of the previous year, who also ended Sampras’ winning streak at Wimbledon - suffered an early first round exit at Wimbledon in 2002.

And yes the sky is blue
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
This guy sounds identical to my post, so call him names also;

It is highly unlikely Rafael Nadal would have won as many Wimbledons and US Opens as he has if he was playing tennis in the late 90s, because his game wasn’t suited to the fast courts that used to be present.

Tennis players had to adapt to the conditions, today the three non-clay, ‘quicker’ Grand Slams more closely resemble the French Open more than ever before, allowing players to adopt the same game plan – a defensive slugfest.

One player who has been significantly disadvantaged by the tinkering with courts is Roger Federer. The slowing down of courts has enabled his biggest rivals, Nadal, and to a lesser extent, Novak Djokovic to challenge him on all four court types.

Now what is your complaint? Let me help you "You idiot you idiot troll"
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
This guy sounds identical to my post, so call him names also;

It is highly unlikely Rafael Nadal would have won as many Wimbledons and US Opens as he has if he was playing tennis in the late 90s, because his game wasn’t suited to the fast courts that used to be present.

Tennis players had to adapt to the conditions, today the three non-clay, ‘quicker’ Grand Slams more closely resemble the French Open more than ever before, allowing players to adopt the same game plan – a defensive slugfest.

One player who has been significantly disadvantaged by the tinkering with courts is Roger Federer. The slowing down of courts has enabled his biggest rivals, Nadal, and to a lesser extent, Novak Djokovic to challenge him on all four court types.

Now what is your complaint? Let me help you "You idiot you idiot troll"

Isner-Mahut 2011 enough said
Yes surfaces have been slowed down but yes it is reasonable to say today's Wimbledon grass is faster than clay in the nineties. You wouldnt see Isner and Mahut play 11 hours on clay come on...
 
First, some definitions, when I say "Fast Court" in reference to the last 10 years, I mean "Faster Courts in a SUPER SLOW COURT ERA", I'm NOT referring to fast courts of all of tennis history, "Of all time", sound familiar?

Today Wimbledon is as slow as FO in the 90's, this is FACT. The sponsors have slowed down the courts so they can get longer matches, more advertising.

Now if you don't understand the basics, that is Nadal, Novak, etc. play BETTER on very slow courts, and Federer and others play better on FASTER courts, please don't respond if you don't know that.

Fed started in the 80's and 90's on fast courts, all-court but mainly serve and volley. He becomes pro, the courts are still relatively fast, and (By the way these are indisputable facts), every year the courts slow down, IE they've changed the sand and grass at Wimbledon, added sand to AO and US Open courts, bottom line courts are slow, this gives guys like Nadal, Novak TIME, and I freely admit, you give them time, let them get into a groove from the baseline, they are unbeatable. Likewise, you put Fed on a faster court where they do not have time and it's not even close. The fact that a 34 year old Fed can still compete in Finals against Nadal and Djokovich on slow courts is a testament to his versatility.

Now if they would have kept the courts FAST, as in 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's fast, Fed would be in the high 20's GS's. I always say GS's are not the determining factor, that's like saying Rocky Marciano was the GOAT because he was undefeated, it's your competition and what you do against them, it's your ability to play on fast and slow courts.

Has everyone not noticed that on FASTER courts like Dubai and Cincinnati, Fed PLAYS with Djokovich? Bottom line Federer has been screwed by the universal slowing down of courts, if they were simply kept the same way Federer would be in the deep 20's GS's, and THAT DOES mean something.

I think Nadal is the greatest modern slow court player of all time, with Novak second, but OF ALL TIME? Why? Because being injured doesn't mean you are less talented, it just means you can't compete because you are injured, he would be past 18 GS's if not for injuries. Get real, Nadal with a 65" wood racquet, Gut, no time to set up, you'd never hear of him. We KNOW Fed could play great under the same circumstances.

Here is my proof once again the GS wins do not matter that much. A 20 year old player starts lets say 2005, his winning percentage is 100%, he plays for two years, wins all eight Grand Slams, then at 22 retires. Do we say he's not the best player of all time because he retired? Of course not, for we know if he continued he'd probably continue this for some time.

So this is why Fed is the GOAT, it's OF ALL TIME my friends. And please don't bring up Agassi, he used a 107 Inch racquet with Gut yes, but used very compact, short shots.

I think the best example is the GOAT, Sampras until Federer, when Fed beat him on super fast Wimbledon both with PS85's and Gut, then give Fed a 90 with Gut and Luxilon, PLUS GROWING INTO A PLAYER and you have a Sampras who got better.

Don't worry Fed fans, He's the GOAT, but watch how many respond in ignorance of court speed.
images
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
Jim Courier Blog: I heard yesterday that some players are finding it more difficult to put the ball away at Wimbledon than they did at Roland Garros a few weeks ago.

It's funny as heck that you cited some wish washy b.s. that doesn't even support the ridiculous statement you made.

Tipsa already tried to explain it to ya real slow and nice like, can't help ya more than that.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Isner-Mahut 2011 enough said
Yes surfaces have been slowed down but yes it is reasonable to say today's Wimbledon grass is faster than clay in the nineties. You wouldnt see Isner and Mahut play 11 hours on clay come on...

Why is it, with every thread, I get all of these likes, then nit pickers who don't know anything come not to debate, but to try to pin you down? They aren't even interested in the topic, just "Got Ya", the point is COURTS ARE SUPER SLOW MORON don't you know that? Does Nadal do great on clay because he likes the color or is it something else? Does Fed do incredible on the couple of true fast courts or is that just luck? Why is it Sampras could do great on fast grass but nothing on clay? Any reason you can think of? I forgot you don't think, you attack, well you are good at it and great at ruining good clean debate.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
OP, @SublimeTennis , I would like to get a source on this too. If anything, I heard that the FO was actually slower in the 90's than in the naughties (and Wimbledon remains faster than the FO in this day and age)
OP @SublimeTennis - still waiting.

And you cannot truly expect us to let go of such a claim and then just trust the rest of your post completely. Come on, it can't be that difficult to back up if it's so obvious. Or that hard to back down from if you used a bit of hyperbole there.

And yes, overall the fast courts are much slower these days. That doesn't mean they are slower than the slow courts in the 90's though (which, as said above) to my knowledge were even slower than now.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
OP @SublimeTennis - still waiting.

And you cannot truly expect us to let go of such a claim and then just trust the rest of your post completely. Come on, it can't be that difficult to back up if it's so obvious. Or that hard to back down from if you used a bit of hyperbole there.

And yes, overall the fast courts are much slower these days. That doesn't mean they are slower than the slow courts in the 90's though (which, as said above) to my knowledge were even slower than now.

Since I can't find the player who said that, and since that wasn't even my point, I'll do the next best thing, a little basic education on court speeds and how they affect play. So if it thrills you to say "got ya" on an obscure fact that is not my main point, good for you. Sorry if you don't get it, truly am;

The Sestée is able to measure the following:

Vix = horizontal inbound velocity (m/s)
Viy = vertical inbound velocity (m/s)
Vfx = horizontal outbound velocity (m/s)
Vfy = vertical outbound velocity (m/s)
e = coefficient of restitution (COR)
μ = coefficient of friction (COF)
T = mean ball temperature for test location/sample (°C)
c = temperature coefficient (0.003)
eT= adjusted COR for temperature T
a = pace perception constant (150)
b = mean coefficient of restitution for all surface types (0.81)
  • CPR = Court Pace Rating
Category Court Pace Rating
Category 1: Slow ≤ 29
Category 2: Medium-slow 30-34
Category 3: Medium 35-39
Category 4: Medium-fast 40-44
Category 5: Fast ≥ 45

Tournament Surface Court Pace Rating
Indian Wells Plexipave IW Category 1: Slow
Miami Masters Laykold Cushion Plus System Category 3: Medium
Monte Carlo Masters Clay Category 1: Slow
Madrid Master Clay Category 1: Slow
Rome Masters Clay Category 1: Slow
Rogers Cup Pro DecoTurf II Category 4: Medium-Fast
Cincinnati Pro DecoTurf II Category 4: Medium-Fast
Shanghai Masters DecoColor Category 4: Medium-fast
Paris Masters Greenset Grand Prix Category 4: Medium-fast
ATP World Tour Finals Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Grand Slams

Grand Slam Surface Court Pace Rating
Australian Open Plexicushion Prestige Category 4 – Medium-Fast
French Open Clay Category 1 – Slow
Wimbledon Grass Category 3 – Medium
US Open Pro Decoturf II Category 4 – Medium-Fast
Masters 500 Tournaments

Tournament Surface Court Pace Rating
Rotterdam Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Rio Open Clay Category 1 – Slow
Dubai DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Acapulco Clay Category 1 – Slow
Barcelona Clay Category 1 – Slow
Halle Grass Unknown
Queens Grass Unknown
Hamburg Clay Category 1 – Slow
Washington DecoColor Category 4: Medium-fast
Beijing DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Tokyo DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Basel Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Valencia Clay Category 1 – Slow
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Since I can't find the player who said that, and since that wasn't even my point, I'll do the next best thing, a little basic education on court speeds and how they affect play. So if it thrills you to say "got ya" on an obscure fact that is not my main point, good for you. Sorry if you don't get it, truly am;

The Sestée is able to measure the following:

Vix = horizontal inbound velocity (m/s)
Viy = vertical inbound velocity (m/s)
Vfx = horizontal outbound velocity (m/s)
Vfy = vertical outbound velocity (m/s)
e = coefficient of restitution (COR)
μ = coefficient of friction (COF)
T = mean ball temperature for test location/sample (°C)
c = temperature coefficient (0.003)
eT= adjusted COR for temperature T
a = pace perception constant (150)
b = mean coefficient of restitution for all surface types (0.81)
  • CPR = Court Pace Rating
Category Court Pace Rating
Category 1: Slow ≤ 29
Category 2: Medium-slow 30-34
Category 3: Medium 35-39
Category 4: Medium-fast 40-44
Category 5: Fast ≥ 45

Tournament Surface Court Pace Rating
Indian Wells Plexipave IW Category 1: Slow
Miami Masters Laykold Cushion Plus System Category 3: Medium
Monte Carlo Masters Clay Category 1: Slow
Madrid Master Clay Category 1: Slow
Rome Masters Clay Category 1: Slow
Rogers Cup Pro DecoTurf II Category 4: Medium-Fast
Cincinnati Pro DecoTurf II Category 4: Medium-Fast
Shanghai Masters DecoColor Category 4: Medium-fast
Paris Masters Greenset Grand Prix Category 4: Medium-fast
ATP World Tour Finals Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Grand Slams

Grand Slam Surface Court Pace Rating
Australian Open Plexicushion Prestige Category 4 – Medium-Fast
French Open Clay Category 1 – Slow
Wimbledon Grass Category 3 – Medium
US Open Pro Decoturf II Category 4 – Medium-Fast
Masters 500 Tournaments

Tournament Surface Court Pace Rating
Rotterdam Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Rio Open Clay Category 1 – Slow
Dubai DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Acapulco Clay Category 1 – Slow
Barcelona Clay Category 1 – Slow
Halle Grass Unknown
Queens Grass Unknown
Hamburg Clay Category 1 – Slow
Washington DecoColor Category 4: Medium-fast
Beijing DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Tokyo DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Basel Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Valencia Clay Category 1 – Slow
Not new to me (sorry to tell you that, mate ;)), but it's been a while since I looked at it since. A couple of points

a) do you have the ratings of the same courts in say, 1995? If not, that's still a very relevant piece of comparative data missing

b) balls matter too, do you have comparison between then and now? For example, the US Open is rated as a 4 (same as Cinci), but everyone, Fed included, seem to think Cinci plays a lot faster. The balls being one of the main factors.

c) surprisingly, Dubai is only a 3 here (as is Rotterdam), while both AO and the US get's a 4. US makes some sense (but faster than Dubai? Get out of here), the AO is surprising (but remember being surprised by it before).
Do you, the expert in court surface changes, have a comment on that?

d) as for us nitpicking your claim about FO in the 90's = faster than Wimbledon now, are you then suggesting that the FO back then was faster than a 3? Why couldn't Sampras win it then? Or are these ratings not precise enough, because balls and other stuff matters too? (we kinda have to assume that they can get the number right, don't we?).

e) a question, have you seen a place, where they not only give them a 1-5 (with no 5's - yes, I've noticed that), but a specific rating (a 33, a 42 etc.)? thanks in advance.

Finally, I do agree with your overall point. Fed's better than Rafoleray on faster surfaces, no doubt about it (Murray being the 2nd most natural on faster surfaces of the 4). Had Wimbledon been faster, he could possibly have more there as well - even in his 30's.
Then again, the risk of going out to a guy like Tsonga (or lower ranked) increases with faster surfaces too.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Not new to me (sorry to tell you that, mate ;)), but it's been a while since I looked at it since. A couple of points

a) do you have the ratings of the same courts in say, 1995? If not, that's still a very relevant piece of comparative data missing

b) balls matter too, do you have comparison between then and now? For example, the US Open is rated as a 4 (same as Cinci), but everyone, Fed included, seem to think Cinci plays a lot faster. The balls being one of the main factors.

c) surprisingly, Dubai is only a 3 here (as is Rotterdam), while both AO and the US get's a 4. US makes some sense (but faster than Dubai? Get out of here), the AO is surprising (but remember being surprised by it before).
Do you, the expert in court surface changes, have a comment on that?

d) as for us nitpicking your claim about FO in the 90's = faster than Wimbledon now, are you then suggesting that the FO back then was faster than a 3? Why couldn't Sampras win it then? Or are these ratings not precise enough, because balls and other stuff matters too? (we kinda have to assume that they can get the number right, don't we?).

e) a question, have you seen a place, where they not only give them a 1-5 (with no 5's - yes, I've noticed that), but a specific rating (a 33, a 42 etc.)? thanks in advance.

Finally, I do agree with your overall point. Fed's better than Rafoleray on faster surfaces, no doubt about it (Murray being the 2nd most natural on faster surfaces of the 4). Had Wimbledon been faster, he could possibly have more there as well - even in his 30's.
Then again, the risk of going out to a guy like Tsonga (or lower ranked) increases with faster surfaces too.

Not sure where you come up with all of this stuff man, "Court Speed Expert"? Where do you see that? I'm answering people who don't seem to understand that court speed matters, look at some of the posts, they don't even know that court speed is an issue. I'm not here to go back and forth with someone with a ill temper who likes to look smart, just make a point that COURT SPEED MATTERS, and Federer has suffered from it, simple, that's the entire point.

On another matter, I was surprised at some of those ratings also, weren't what I would think.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Not sure where you come up with all of this stuff man, "Court Speed Expert"? Where do you see that? I'm answering people who don't seem to understand that court speed matters, look at some of the posts, they don't even know that court speed is an issue. I'm not here to go back and forth with someone with a ill temper who likes to look smart, just make a point that COURT SPEED MATTERS, and Federer has suffered from it, simple, that's the entire point.

On another matter, I was surprised at some of those ratings also, weren't what I would think.
I'm confused, where's my ill temper? I'm just trying to look smart? I made a point for point discussion with you about the topic of this thread. I thought that was what you wanted?

Apparently you just want to state your OP and be done with it, @GabeT is too 'dumb':
Yea, first get common sense, second Google it, do your study before you comment.
Link? You want us to think for you? Again, if you don't have a clue, please don't embarrass yourself, do your own homework, that way you can come back on here with knowledge, and we can have a real debate. If you don't know how to read then just stay off the forum, sound good?

And I'm too 'smart' and 'ill-tempered'(wtf?) to be worthy of engaging you in a debate?

Come on, if you can't handle me ironically calling you a court speed expert, then surely you shouldn't be so aggressive towards other posters.
Have a look of your thread - some of the best posters on here have graced it with good comments. It ain't half bad.

And now please do give me your opinions on my points from a to e. You own me and the thread that.
Thanks in advance.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
Since I can't find the player who said that, and since that wasn't even my point, I'll do the next best thing, a little basic education on court speeds and how they affect play. So if it thrills you to say "got ya" on an obscure fact that is not my main point, good for you. Sorry if you don't get it, truly am;

The Sestée is able to measure the following:

Vix = horizontal inbound velocity (m/s)
Viy = vertical inbound velocity (m/s)
Vfx = horizontal outbound velocity (m/s)
Vfy = vertical outbound velocity (m/s)
e = coefficient of restitution (COR)
μ = coefficient of friction (COF)
T = mean ball temperature for test location/sample (°C)
c = temperature coefficient (0.003)
eT= adjusted COR for temperature T
a = pace perception constant (150)
b = mean coefficient of restitution for all surface types (0.81)
  • CPR = Court Pace Rating
Category Court Pace Rating
Category 1: Slow ≤ 29
Category 2: Medium-slow 30-34
Category 3: Medium 35-39
Category 4: Medium-fast 40-44
Category 5: Fast ≥ 45

Tournament Surface Court Pace Rating
Indian Wells Plexipave IW Category 1: Slow
Miami Masters Laykold Cushion Plus System Category 3: Medium
Monte Carlo Masters Clay Category 1: Slow
Madrid Master Clay Category 1: Slow
Rome Masters Clay Category 1: Slow
Rogers Cup Pro DecoTurf II Category 4: Medium-Fast
Cincinnati Pro DecoTurf II Category 4: Medium-Fast
Shanghai Masters DecoColor Category 4: Medium-fast
Paris Masters Greenset Grand Prix Category 4: Medium-fast
ATP World Tour Finals Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Grand Slams

Grand Slam Surface Court Pace Rating
Australian Open Plexicushion Prestige Category 4 – Medium-Fast
French Open Clay Category 1 – Slow
Wimbledon Grass Category 3 – Medium
US Open Pro Decoturf II Category 4 – Medium-Fast
Masters 500 Tournaments

Tournament Surface Court Pace Rating
Rotterdam Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Rio Open Clay Category 1 – Slow
Dubai DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Acapulco Clay Category 1 – Slow
Barcelona Clay Category 1 – Slow
Halle Grass Unknown
Queens Grass Unknown
Hamburg Clay Category 1 – Slow
Washington DecoColor Category 4: Medium-fast
Beijing DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Tokyo DecoTurf Category 3 – Medium
Basel Greenset Grand Prix Category 3 – Medium
Valencia Clay Category 1 – Slow

Is there a point in all this that substantiates your claim that Wimby is slower than 90s RG lol?
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
I'm confused, where's my ill temper? I'm just trying to look smart? I made a point for point discussion with you about the topic of this thread. I thought that was what you wanted?

Apparently you just want to state your OP and be done with it, @GabeT is too 'dumb':



And I'm too 'smart' and 'ill-tempered'(wtf?) to be worthy of engaging you in a debate?

Come on, if you can't handle me ironically calling you a court speed expert, then surely you shouldn't be so aggressive towards other posters.
Have a look of your thread - some of the best posters on here have graced it with good comments. It ain't half bad.

And now please do give me your opinions on my points from a to e. You own me and the thread that.
Thanks in advance.

Then DEBATE ME, don't take off one point, I can't stand that, it happens to so many OPs on this forum, they make a large point, basically that court speed matters, they make one mistake by quoting a player who said Wimby is as slow as RG in the past, do people keep you on point and debate court speeds? No, they obsess over one "got ya" point, what a waste, why can't you just debate on court speeds, I mean do you think Clay is not different than fast grass? THAT is the point, sick of trouble makers, come on I know there are a lot of aussies on here who love trouble, but why not try to debate with kindness trying to make each of us better instead of tearing us down? As I say it's not just me, I see threads devolve from great debate to personal or "Got Ya" points that aren't relevant to the main point.

It's like if I say Raonic has a ton of a serve, I mean he has a huge serve, but some will divert that he doesn't really hit a US "Ton", that kind of thing makes this forum unpleasant. In regards to that one guy, he came on said court speed didn't matter and wanted me to do research for him, my point is if someone hasn't done their own homework, why even engage in debate, I don't know a lot about Lendl, I'm not going to get into a debate about him if I don't have a clue, what happened to humility in society, everyone knows everything, yet most haven't studied a day in their lives, if I don't know something I keep my mouth shut.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Is there a point in all this that substantiates your claim that Wimby is slower than 90s RG lol?

I don't claim it, please read what I said, a pro said that, I quoted him and admitted that I couldn't find it, but you will never let me live a mistake down, will you? Heh you are all right, I'm wrong, you found an error and GOT ME, feel better?

Now that you've WON, can we debate something so overlooked, court speed?

Getting BACK on my topic, my point, would Federer be the favorite is US Open and the balls were as fast as Cincinnati?
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Then DEBATE ME, don't take off one point, I can't stand that, it happens to so many OPs on this forum, they make a large point, basically that court speed matters, they make one mistake by quoting a player who said Wimby is as slow as RG in the past, do people keep you on point and debate court speeds? No, they obsess over one "got ya" point, what a waste, why can't you just debate on court speeds, I mean do you think Clay is not different than fast grass? THAT is the point, sick of trouble makers, come on I know there are a lot of aussies on here who love trouble, but why not try to debate with kindness trying to make each of us better instead of tearing us down? As I say it's not just me, I see threads devolve from great debate to personal or "Got Ya" points that aren't relevant to the main point.

It's like if I say Raonic has a ton of a serve, I mean he has a huge serve, but some will divert that he doesn't really hit a US "Ton", that kind of thing makes this forum unpleasant. In regards to that one guy, he came on said court speed didn't matter and wanted me to do research for him, my point is if someone hasn't done their own homework, why even engage in debate, I don't know a lot about Lendl, I'm not going to get into a debate about him if I don't have a clue, what happened to humility in society, everyone knows everything, yet most haven't studied a day in their lives, if I don't know something I keep my mouth shut.
I HAVE debated you in that point for point post that you dismissed because I made a bit of fun of you with the 'court expert' phrase. Get back to me on those points and DEBATE me, will you?

More on topic from me with no bickering:
Yes, court speed matters. Yes, Rafoleray like slower courts more than Fed (Murray being better than the other 2 on faster courts though and he's at his best on medium-fast imo. However, Fed's best on that (and on proper fast) beats Murray's best there and it beats Rafa's and Novak's too. If the court is low bouncing and moderately fast to fast (perhaps even including medium), Rafa has no matchup advantage over Fed imo and Fed will win the majority of those matches - especially in bo3.

Would Fed be the favorite at the US with Cinci speed and Cinci balls? Possibly. Def. if it was 2009-2011. But the best of 5 format - and on HC no less - is tough on a 34 year old body.
But there's no doubt whatsoever that he would stand a (much) better chance with Cinci court speed and Cinci balls than US court speed and US balls.

Now back to one of my questions in the point for point post (that I still want you to reply to, please): Do you have the exact court speed number for Cinci and US respectively? Cause both are just given a 4 (rather than a 40 and a 43 for instance). Balls can make all the difference, but I would still expect the courts to be somewhat different speed wise as well
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
I HAVE debated you in that point for point post that you dismissed because I made a bit of fun of you with the 'court expert' phrase. Get back to me on those points and DEBATE me, will you?

More on topic from me with no bickering:
Yes, court speed matters. Yes, Rafoleray like slower courts more than Fed (Murray being better than the other 2 on faster courts though and he's at his best on medium-fast imo. However, Fed's best on that (and on proper fast) beats Murray's best there and it beats Rafa's and Novak's too. If the court is low bouncing and moderately fast to fast (perhaps even including medium), Rafa has no matchup advantage over Fed imo and Fed will win the majority of those matches - especially in bo3.

Would Fed be the favorite at the US with Cinci speed and Cinci balls? Possibly. Def. if it was 2009-2011. But the best of 5 format - and on HC no less - is tough on a 34 year old body.
But there's no doubt whatsoever that he would stand a (much) better chance with Cinci court speed and Cinci balls than US court speed and US balls.

Now back to one of my questions in the point for point post (that I still want you to reply to, please): Do you have the exact court speed number for Cinci and US respectively? Cause both are just given a 4 (rather than a 40 and a 43 for instance). Balls can make all the difference, but I would still expect the courts to be somewhat different speed wise as well

I agree with EVERY WORD YOU SAID! I think I misunderstood, I thought others were saying that court speed didn't matter, so I was like "What, these guys don't realize court speed matters, what"

No, I do not know comparison US Open vs Cincy, I read today that they have slowed it down even more, well you know they add sand to the paint, and they use different balls.

The balls are a huge deal as I'm sure you know, if you don't know this, try some Gamma fast balls, I like fast playing, my playing partner likes slow (He learned late, only knows modern game), so when we play I insist on Gamma, they have those without the furr, I grew up only on fast courts with small racquets, it's AMAZING how when he doesn't have time to set up I blow him off the court. As I say, I don't think anyone could argue having half the season slow, half 90's fast, I get so bored watching 30 point rally after 30 point rally, likewise it can get boring with 2-3 shot rallies.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Any evidence on court speeds?

You don't need evidence when your eyes are close to functioning okayisch. Not long ago I saw 'evidence' claiming Miami to be faster than Cincinnati (it's why Federer wins Miami every year and Djok has all those Cincinnati titles). Since then I say "to hell with evidence, **** this over-scientificated world, I'll just put on my glasses".
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I agree with EVERY WORD YOU SAID! I think I misunderstood, I thought others were saying that court speed didn't matter, so I was like "What, these guys don't realize court speed matters, what"

No, I do not know comparison US Open vs Cincy, I read today that they have slowed it down even more, well you know they add sand to the paint, and they use different balls.

The balls are a huge deal as I'm sure you know, if you don't know this, try some Gamma fast balls, I like fast playing, my playing partner likes slow (He learned late, only knows modern game), so when we play I insist on Gamma, they have those without the furr, I grew up only on fast courts with small racquets, it's AMAZING how when he doesn't have time to set up I blow him off the court. As I say, I don't think anyone could argue having half the season slow, half 90's fast, I get so bored watching 30 point rally after 30 point rally, likewise it can get boring with 2-3 shot rallies.
Perfect!
Link please?
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Why do to you think that tennis should be played on fast courts? The game is evolving, new racquets and strings give players mkre spin and power and you have yo slow the courts down or every point will be finished after serve.. And i dont think that courts are too slow, there is nice blend of everything, slow hard, fast hard, clay, grass... There is a need for a masters tournament on grass though..

I like variety, it's fair to all players. Fast courts for the fast court players, slow courts for the boring guys, and some medium stuff thrown in between. Now guys like me have Cincy and Dubai as highlights of the year, and that really shouldn't be the case (where do we have slams for???).
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Fred has only shown up to get his scraps of dessert. Novak isn't letting him and mirka marcos enjoy anything. Novak has collected his ranking points and won't cry like the moping Swiss did at 2009 Australian open.
Fact is, Fred was struggling against his muppet Roddick, Blake, fish and Isner on "non injury-causing" courts. The clown never had the chance to dominate the tour even when he was gifted slams in 2009. it's a desperate attempt on your part to create Fred floon excitement.
CJwlqVHWEAQnLC8.jpg
Novak's lost to Roddick and Hewitt in slams. LOL.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
You don't need evidence when your eyes are close to functioning okayisch. Not long ago I saw 'evidence' claiming Miami to be faster than Cincinnati (it's why Federer wins Miami every year and Djok has all those Cincinnati titles). Since then I say "to hell with evidence, **** this over-scientificated world, I'll just put on my glasses".
You need evidence if you want to measure it correctly. Even if surface speeds have changed, how much have they changed? Do we know or is it all just a guess? And if surface speeds are becoming more similar why do players find they are better at so,e surfaces than others? Maybe the difference is bigger than we believe?
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
It's clear that in 2010 the USTA went to heavier balls and grit on the surface that wasn't there before in an attempt to add longer rallies. They succeeded and Federer hasn't made a final in this decade.

Essentially since 2010, the US Open is like Indian Wells/Miami. Very little difference.
 

RalphJ

Banned
Fed hasn't always done his best at fast courts like Wimbledon. Djokovic however, has done better on them. Seems to be contradictory.
 
Top