Tennis - still best when played on a fast surface?

[laurie]

What do you guys think? I think this has been the best slam since 2001 Wimbledon. That year there were great 4 and 5 set matches from the 2nd rd right through to the final itself. 2nd rd was a great 5 set thriller between Dent and Hewitt and of course the semis and final involving Agassi, Rafter, Henman and Goran. Plus Federer Sampras, Henman v Martin were also 5 set thrillers that year. Also Goran v Safin and Agassi v Escude were good matches because one player was attacking in the match up.

So far this US Open we have had some great 5 set matches right through and it's about to get better with Roddick v Djokovic plus the two semis and final to come. The players coming through are the players who come forward the most - either via net play or aggressive shot making. Just think that the light Wilson balls and the fast surface make for great Tennis and the players really go for it.

Would you like to see more hardcourts and indoor surfaces play this quick?

 

[thalivest]

Totally agree. It would be nice to see more fast surfaces on tour. This is really bringing the best out in the players, and I am loving all the spirited matches of this tournament, and how the surface is encouraging the offensive and creative tennis we are seeing from more and more of the players.

Also contrary to what some perceive the Nadal fans would wish I think Nadal is just fine on a faster court and would relish the challenges if there were more of them. I think his mindset would be similar to mine, "BRING IT ON"!!

 

[Andres]

Paris and Madrid were prolly the most entertaining tourneys last year. Indoor hardcourts and indoor carpet is da bomb!

 

[Blade0324]

I actually like the slower surfaces as it encourages more point construction and longer rallies. A player has to work harder to set up and win a point.

 

[AAAA]

Baseline play on a fast surface is quite a different spectacle to a servefest on a fast surface. I like the former and not the latter.

At the moment the choices available will depending on the voting show either fast or slow to be preferred or it's a draw and neither outcome takes into account the playing style of the players.

 

[laurie]

Baseline play on a fast surface is quite a different spectacle to a servefest on a fast surface. I like the former and not the latter.

At the moment the choices available will depending on the voting show either fast or slow to be preferred or it's a draw and neither outcome takes into account the playing style of the players.

Indeed, the men's game has more or less gone the same way as the women's game - in the sense that men more or less play the way they want to play regardless of surface. So in the past Lendl would serve and volley at Wimbledon and Sampras and Becker would play more from the baseline on clay and hardcourts, amending their game plans according to the surface in those days.

So with that in mind, do you guys prefer to watch Tennis on faster surfaces where the urgency is increased and point construction means more winning the point outright more often than not with an ending volley shot or agressive winners - or on average longer rallies on medium paced surfaces where it's more of a grind and players can stand much further back behind the baseline on average?

For instance, faster surfaces tend to reward returners who take the ball earlier. Gasquet struggles on faster hardcourts because he wants too much time to set up his return and shots and is rushed into errors or passiveness due to dropping his shots too short often, Kuerten had a similar issue. Federer on the other hand is always aggressive and looking to hurt his opponent at every opportunity. What do you guys prefer?

 

[McLovin]

I actually like the slower surfaces as it encourages more point construction and longer rallies. A player has to work harder to set up and win a point.

Normally I would agree w/ this statement, but did you watch Murray yesterday? He was able to take all the pace off the ball & construct good points. Had he tried to outhit Del Potro, he probably would have lost.

 

[zagor]

For me definitely,no doubt about that.However USO was always my favourite slam even in the 90s when it wasn't the fastest around.I don't like neither exclusive S&V nor only baseline bashing but a combination of both and USO is just that,a slam where variety of styles can be succesfull and all-court play is mostly rewarded.

 

[alonsin]

I prefer faster courts. Even though I appreciate the point construction of the slower surfaces at the end I get tired of the long rallys where nobody is risking.

I like the courts that reward agressiveness and shotmaking as long as it doesn't turn into a serve contest. There is also a large account of tactics in faster courts. Not as much as in clay, but they also reward intelligent play

 

[coloskier]

Personally, I don't think you should win a point unless it is from a winner or forced error. Winning a match from UFE's in a long baseline rally is the worst thing that has happened to tennis. You should be rewarded for aggressiveness, and punished for just getting the ball back and hoping for the opponent making an error.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Slower is always better. With that said, the faster tournaments make it pretty interesting these days as the big 3 are about even on fast surfaces while Nadal dominates the slower surfaces.

 

[rommil]

I personally like to watch hardcourt tennis and I particularly like to play indoors where you have more control of the ball.

 

[baek57]

i like watching talented volleyers. so i guess i like fast courts since more people volley on them. although i enjoy playing on clay myself.

 

[Heavy Metal Tennis Star]

well im a pretty big server and i like to stay on the baseline, run around my bh and hit a big fh, i love indoors, no sun, no rain, no wind, no interference, plus its faster too.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

My favourite tournament was 2004 Australian Open probably.

 

[bluetrain4]

I agree that the tennis has been great and I'd like to see more fast surfaces, though I don't agree with the end-of-the-world scenarios floated by some posters due to the slowing down of surfaces.

That said, we really don't have a Sampras or Ivanesivic caliber server at the top of the game, to make fast-court matches sometimes boring like they used to be.

 

[marpiw]

Equalizers...

My favorite tournament is Roland Garros and I find that slow courts are the best for the sport and they act as ''equalizers''...fast surfaces are only nice for ''baseball players''...
I would like to ban all fast surfaces and grass and play all year long on slow courts....





-----------------------------------
Allez Alize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shavenyak]

... while Nadal dominates the slower surfaces.

like grass.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

like grass.

No like Clay. Grass is fast just like hardcourts. Clay is not that slow these days either compared to 15 years ago.

 

[shavenyak]

No like Clay. Grass is fast just like hardcourts. Clay is not that slow these days either compared to 15 years ago.

Is that why all the players interviewed and every commentator has been saying that the US Open is faster than Wimbledon?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Is that why all the players interviewed and every commentator has been saying that the US Open is faster than Wimbledon?

5 breaks in 60 games in the Wimbledon Final. I don't think happens on a slow surface. Wimbledon consistently has the least breaks, most first serve points won, and most aces of all the slams.

 

[shavenyak]

5 breaks in 60 games in the Wimbledon Final. I don't think happens on a slow surface. Wimbledon consistently has the least breaks, most first serve points won, and most aces of all the slams.

So stats > player's experience?

 

[VamosRafa]

I didn't like Wimbledon as much when it was basically one- and two-shot tennis. As guys got bigger and stronger and the racquet technology improved, that surface really favored the big servers. You would watch an ace-fest, and when a guy did manage to return a serve, it was knocked off with a volley. That wasn't much fun to watch, and I'm glad it has slowed down some. I like the groundstroke battles, employed with good serving strategies and occasional volleying. That is what we have been seeing at the US Open.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

So stats > player's experience?

Like I said before. It is much easier hitting through a court with a surface that is predictable and gives you good traction than a slippery and unpredictable bouncing surface. They both are close in speed but US Open allows for more power baseline tennis while Wimbledon allows for the most free points on serve. Also the height of bounce at Wimbledon is much higher than it used to be. Perception isn't always reality.

 

[fastdunn]

What do you guys prefer?

Just one question before I take part in this thread: When you say "quick" hard court for example, do you mean currently relatively quick hard court of US Open or 90's quick hard courts of US Open ?

 

[shavenyak]

Like I said before. It is much easier hitting through a court with a surface that is predictable and gives you good traction than a slippery and unpredictable bouncing surface. They both are close in speed but US Open allows for more power baseline tennis while Wimbledon allows for the most free points on serve. Also the height of bounce at Wimbledon is much higher than it used to be. Perception isn't always reality.

So using your logic, the unpredictable surface at Wimbledon may have contributed to service holds since that part of the court gets the most chewed up due to all the serves that bounce there as well as the 2 guys that went to net.

So all these people that have actually played on both surfaces this year are just perceiving the speed difference? The pros know nothing, I KNEW IT!

 

[laurie]

Just one question before I take part in this thread: When you say "quick" hard court for example, do you mean currently relatively quick hard court of US Open or 90's quick hard courts of US Open ?

Excuse me?

What's the difference?

They said that pre 1997 Louis Armstrong was a medium pace court - not as fast as Arthur Ashe stadium court. It's fast now isn't it?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

So using your logic, the unpredictable surface at Wimbledon may have contributed to service holds since that part of the court gets the most chewed up due to all the serves that bounce there as well as the 2 guys that went to net.

So all these people that have actually played on both surfaces this year are just perceiving the speed difference? The pros know nothing, I KNEW IT!

The fact is that serving is a bigger factor at Wimbledon than the US Open. You can't deny that. Returners thrive more at the US Open.

 

[shavenyak]

The fact is that serving is a bigger factor at Wimbledon than the US Open. You can't deny that. Returners thrive more at the US Open.

That's fine, I'm not debating that, I'm talking about the speed of the court. Actually all we're all really talking about is how high the ball sits up.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

That's fine, I'm not debating that, I'm talking about the speed of the court. Actually all we're all really talking about is how high the ball sits up.

It's too hard to tell but like I said. Players move much better on hardcourts. There is 5% more breaks at the US Open. It is close to call the great powerful shots off the baseline or the serving advantage at Wimbledon. Better movement allows for more power. I think Nadal gets hurt the most on hardcourts by how well people move and return his serve. I don't think they can take it that early on grass.

 

[fastdunn]

Excuse me?

What's the difference?

They said that pre 1997 Louis Armstrong was a medium pace court - not as fast as Arthur Ashe stadium court. It's fast now isn't it?

I don't think so. US Open slowed their court between 2001 - 2003 and other tournaments in US Open series followed it. Some people think hard court speed stayed same but they did not. Everything slowed between 2001-2003.

As I recall, USTA spokeman officially described the process of slowing down the DecoTuf at US Open between 2001 and 2003.

 

[tlm]

The fast courts suck, nothing but a serving contest. Thats why the weak athletes like roddick+ fish can even play good.