Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennis_pro, Nov 17, 2012.
From ES: http://tinyurl.com/a7bjgkq
They seriously need quicker courts!!
Isnt there a thread already running on this ? i agree with the sentiment of sexi but its not gonna happen
Federer should learn to adapt to the conditions. Always looking to twist things in his favour. Not a fair player at all.
I was with Janko until the last sentence -- Agassi couldn't really defend?
Federer is spot on...
"You look at the game of tennis, in my opinion the point which improved or the level that increased in the last 10 years is not the offence, it's the defence,"
hes just saying there needs to be both types of courts. Fast and slow, right now all the surfaces play the same and its terribly boring
Exactly. There should be a variety of court speeds. It would make the winners less predictable. Not a bad thing. These newbies need some help to shine :lol:
Completely agree! they need to bring back carpet!
Remember when clay was interesting because it was a whole different game?
Maybe he was comparing it to Nole's level but still its a pretty flawed statement. He shouldve cut it off at Sampras
Federer whinging again, or journalists being mischievous again? Yawn.
And it's not now just because Nadal is so much better than the rest?
All the ttw feddies should sign a petition or something
He's doing to save the future of the sport, or at least increase the audience interest. He's 31, not 20 years old, so it's not about him but for the younger players and future generation.
Just like on blue clay, you mean? You're right, threatening to boycott the tournament was downright disgraceful.
Federer didn't like the idea of blue clay either and voiced the opinion in 2009:
Yeah, he didn't favor it, but when it came time to play he played and didn't whinge about it. He's not whinging about surfaces now either. He was simply asked what he thought about surface speed by a journalist in a press conference and gave his honest answer: the current homogeneously slow courts favor defensive play more than attacking play. We already knew that. Further, we know from recent results that faster surfaces would probably be good for his career at this point, and would probably be bad for Nadal's. Clearly, if every tournament was played on clay it would be great for Nadal. And if every tournament were played on fast, low-bouncing courts it would be great for Federer.
Fed is not saying get rid of clay, he's just saying that if a greater variety of hardcourt surface speeds were used at different tournaments it would promote a greater variety of playing styles, and therefore, possibly, a larger pool of players would have greater success on tour than is happening now. What's your problem with this, exactly? Nadal will still have his claycourt season fief.
But he played, and didn't complain during the event. He adapted to the conditions and did his best.
But there needs to be variety. I'm really sick of these Djok-Muzz-Raf 20 shot slugfests. It's always the same.
The players against the authorities, he wanted proper consultation. Serena and federer hated it but when they won on it they both were for it. Players like to get their excuses in rather then say to the press they love it then lose. Tourniments should take no notice of players they are hypocrits.
Nusstard at his best.
So, how is it going with your "It is impossible to play on fast HC with the modern racket and string technology" theory?
I can't speak about Serena, but Federer has never liked the blue clay even after he won the tournament. The difference is, Federer played on it without letting it get to him mentally, and generally crying about it, like Nadal and Djokovic did.
Federer was against it before he struck a single ball on the surface. That should tell you, that his concerns were not because of the surface itself, but because of him being traditionalist. His concerns had NOTHING to do with how the surface plays!
Besides, blue clay played in his hands, and he still insisted, that clay should remain ..... red. I doubt, that we will see Nadal insist on changes, that could possibly harm him. EVER. Federer is in different league altogether, when it comes to such things.
Fed still bitter I see.
That was never any theory of mine. My theory is quite the opposite actually, that the technology is the main reason for the so-called "slowness" of today's game.
You're either ignorant or dishonest. Total crap post.
And, to demonstrate the point perfectly, the most entertaining French Open of the last two decades for me was the 2011 event where the balls were niceably faster when fresh (either in error or deliberately). It was such a great event and the change was blatantly evident.
In fact, when I watched it, I just knew the ITF would slow the balls down for 2012 because it was such a positive change. Their mantra seems to be: do the opposite of what worked.
The best thing that could happen to tennis in 2012 with regards to surfaces is for the newly red clay at Madrid to be the most unmitigated ****-up of all times in terms of playing conditions. The slipperier, the more uneven the bounce the better.
Then at least the powers that be might not be so quick to ditch new ideas before they've had a chance to prove themselves in future.
I told you. You are outdoing yourself by the minute.
Could you please provide a scientific explanation of this. Elaborate on the cause and the effect and the link between them, please.
I think we are in for a very entertaining explanation "a la Nadal_Freak".
If you don't know that hitting balls with more topspin makes the ball go slower and through the court less than in using the same power to hit flat balls, I don't know what to tell you.
...and when flatter hitters can't hit through the court, what does that mean?
But topspin has always been there. It's just easier and more effective now.
That today's strings are not flat friendly. Who truly hits flat these days?
Fed, full of **** as usual. the worst loser ever. I hope Nole will give him another lesson soon.
Mustard, I am a relatively terrible tennis player compared to the pros, and I can still flatten the ball out with a full bed of poly. Can I hit with zero spin? Of course not, but I can get the rpm's down pretty low.
Like you say, if you don't understand that you can have two sets of hard courts that play at different speeds, I don't know what to tell you. Go play tennis!
Oh, but it is the inherent ability of the court to take that spin, that matters.
In short. Nadal could hit with monstrous spin every ball he can put his racket on, but if the grass is slick and low bouncing it wouldn't matter (as it matters now).
Moreover. If he is playing on ultrafast and slick grass the question is on how many balls he will be able to put his racket and in a way, that he is able to apply his spin?
So, please, elaborate how exactly the development of the "new" string and racket technology is responsible for the slowing of the courts. Or do you suggest, that the courts haven't been slowed down and that is an optical illusion?
I know. Topspin was there in the days of Bruguera, back to Borg and Vilas, and even way before that, but the sort of topspin Nadal hits is far more penetrating as a result of today's strings.
I have never said that.
That is good to know. I am trying to figure out what you're even getting at with this issue.
Is it your hypothesis that hard courts (let us pick the AO and the USO as examples) have not gotten slower over the years (defined in a way that is independent of what racquets or balls are used), but that the new racquets/strings have made them appear that way?
Nadal won 2008 Queen's Club. As for old Wimbledon, he never got to play on the surface, so we shall never know. Nadal reached the semi finals of Junior Wimbledon in 2002, but that was the first year the new grass was used at the tournament.
We shall never know
I already have elaborated, I don't know what else I can tell you. The reason conditions are more homogeneous today than in the past, is a combination of the modern technology, the fazing out of carpet courts until they totally disappeared from tour and the change of Wimbledon grass from 70% Rye to 100% Rye. And yes, the differences between speed on different courts have narrowed over the years as well, but this factor is totally exaggerated compared to the other factors (i.e. the technology and the fazing out of carpet courts).
If Hermione Granger were a Tennis fan, she'd sound just like you
For the most part, yes, that is my point. There's this, and the fazing out of carpet courts so that they are no longer on tour. Making certain tournaments compulsory has also changed the dynamic of the way the tour works in terms of there now being a lot less "surface specialists" than in the past. In the 1990s, for example, players could go off on their own personal schedules and pack their calendar with clay-court tournaments, for example, or skip Wimbledon altogether. This doesn't really happen now.
It's not only about surfaces, it's also about tennis balls.Up to 2002 it was ATP's standard size and weight of the ball for all tournaments,and it was lighter, and softer ball.It was easier to hit through the court with these balls.It's myth about Federer's love for ultra fast stuff, only thing that i know is that he likes surface that absorb top spin, like WTF.
Oh, but we know.
Countless efforts to win at the WTF or Cincy say a lot.
The bolded part is your opinion, and not a fact. And, going from what I have seen with my own eyes, I would say, that you are wrong.
You have not elaborated. You clearly stated, that racket and string technology are responsible for the slowing of the courts, but did not explain how this exactly happens. My own experience says, that different courts play in a differrent way with exactly the same racket and string setup. The differences for me as an amateur can be felt very clearly! I can only imagine what it means for the Pros.
So, the question is, if what you say is true, and everything is dependant on the racket and string setup, how is that possible?
How is it possible, that Pros like Federer and Nadal are having different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surface, if the racket and string setup is so decisive, and the differences between the surfaces are "negligible" as you put it?
That is, what you should elaborate on.
They do need more variety.
It's exciting watching different tactics and strategies play out. It's exciting watching the top players adapt their games to different courts.
Serve and volley tennis was great to watch, as is baseline tennis.
It's also great when an underdog plays the tournament of their lives and makes it to a grand slam final.
None of these are happening anymore. Don't get me wrong the Novak/Fed final was awesome to watch, but there have been many tournament finals in recent memory that have been monotonous. The same patterns over and over and over again.
I disagree, they both played like ****, I guess they were tired.
David Ferrer is responsible for everything!
I should point out that even Djokovic hasn't won Cincinnati. It seems to be his bogey tournament, at least up to the present day.
Nadal may not have won Cincinnati or the World Tour Finals, but he did win Dubai in 2006 on a fast hardcourt, beating Federer in the final. It was a classic case of Nadal hanging in there under an onslaught and eventually counter-punching Federer for the victory.
But besides, Cincinnati and the World Tour Finals are not Wimbledon on the old 70% Rye grass.
I have. Today's game has power, spin, depth and authority in the rallies that are unprecedented in the history of tennis. This compels players to stay at the baseline more often than not.
I'm sorry, but when have I denied that different courts play differently? I'm just saying that over the years, by far the biggest factor in the modern playing style and conditions (i.e. the way the game is played today), is the technology, much more so than surface speed (I'm talking here of speed independently from racquet technology).
Do I really need to say it again? Okay, I'll say it again, today's game has power, spin, depth and authority in the rallies that are unprecedented in the history of tennis. This compels players to stay at the baseline more often than not. This, combined with the fazing out of carpet courts, are the biggest reasons why there are not many "surface specialists" these days, and why serve and volley is close to extinction on the tour, and why baseline play predominates on all current surfaces on tour.
I think you've totally missed the points I was making. You seem to be under the impression that I think that all surfaces are exactly the same and aren't different in any way. That was never what I meant, and such a suggestion would be absurd in the extreme.
My main point is, court conditions are different everywhere, but the biggest difference from the conditions of past eras to today's conditions, is the racquet technology and the fazing out of carpet courts on the tour.
They really need to change the court speed to promote different styles of play. Players should demand it. It also hurts players physically to play long points match after match.
When a basically weaponless Ferrer is winning indoor on a supposedly fast surface you know the courts and balls have gotten too slow.
I never said, that you say, that all the courts play the same. You say, that the improvement in the racket technology and strings are so big (i.e. you say they are the main difference between now and then (phasing out of the carpet is a non issue, since it doesn't concern the technical aspect of this discussion)), that they negate compeltely the small (in your opinion) variation in direction slowing of the surfaces.
I asked you how is it then possible, that Federer and Nadal have so different results, depending on the speed and the bounce of the surfaces, if the racket and string technology is such a prevalent factor? Surely, Nadal would be having the same results everywhere on HC, since the differences in the speed of the courts are so negligible compared to the string and racket technology (since he uses the same racket and strings everywhere), no?
You didn't answer that.
Just to make sure, that we are on the same page.
You are saying, that the people stay on the baseline, because the modern racket and string technology are too much to do anything different.
My question, regarding this is: Did you watch the tourney in Madrid this year, and if "Yes" what kind of rackets did the players use?
What you want to say? Surface in Paris is not fast?
Separate names with a comma.