5555
Hall of Fame
How did you come up with that conclusion?
PS This is the last time I asked the above question. If you do not answer I will conclude that you lost the argument because I claim the opposite (negative claim).
How did you come up with that conclusion?
PS This is the last time I asked the above question. If you do not answer I will conclude that you lost the argument because I claim the opposite (negative claim).
L
Laurie
Guest
Are you sure about that? String technology has been discussed throughout the noughties but courts have been continued to have been slowed down after benefits of new string technology became apparent, so it is a conscious decision by the authorities.
I don’t think it is a good idea to base an entire year of tennis on one match, which is what the authorities seemed to have done. Agassi won the US Open and there were some excellent matches at the Australian Open that year. The French Open between Berasetegui and Brugera was dire but for an entirely different reason.
As well, during this period, players who won Wimbledon tended to do very well in the other majors as well. At the same time, players who won the French tended not to win majors at the other slams and often were not even in contention, even on rebound ace which you would have thought would suit their style of play.
I think the authorities didn’t really need to slow down outdoor hardcourts to the same pace everywhere, they could have kept it like before where you had some quick hardcourts and some slow ones, some tournaments using heavy duty balls, some lighter, it would have been more diversified.
L
Laurie
Guest
Article here (ps the first link didn't work but this should)
http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/indoor-tennis-dilemma.html
Krajicek's comments
You are the Tournament Director of ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament, was the event always held on an indoor hardcourt?
“It was played on Supreme Court and now on wood painted with Plexipave ( similar to Hardcourt)”
What in your opinion is the difference between playing on indoor carpet and indoor hardcourt? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
“I only see advantages to Hardcourt. 1. you can control the speed of the court (you can make it a slow, medium or fast court).
The rallies are longer, but if you adjust the speed of the court, to the speed of the balls, it will be an honest surface to both attacking and defensive players)”
I spoke to an ATP spokesman and he believes introducing medium surfaces indoors has slowed tennis down and made for more rallies and more of a spectacle, I believe it has reduced the volley as a viable tactic. How do you view the situation and the demise of attacking tennis?
“I believe slowing down the courts has created more rallies, but I do not believe it has made players stay back because of it. It is just the way players play.
Even on grass everybody plays from the back. Mardy Fish is one of the few exceptions in the top 10.”
During your career, your game was based on fast court play, did you enjoy playing on indoor carpet surfaces and would you like to see carpet re-introduced to some events?
"The speed is good at most events. But the combination of ball and court is important. If you have a heavy ball and a slow court, then play might be slowed down too much.
And same if you have a very light ball and a quick court, then the rallies will be too short and that is no fun either."
Last edited by a moderator:
Kalin
Legend
I can't believe that anyone can say with a straight face that the current abomination called 'Wimbledon' compares in any way with the real Wimbledon as it used to be played years ago, let alone insist it is 'better'.
Modern-day Wimbledon is a poor cousin of Roland Garros with somewhat better headware from the grandstands- boring baseline tennis played on a green court rather than on a red one. Bleh ...
Modern-day Wimbledon is a poor cousin of Roland Garros with somewhat better headware from the grandstands- boring baseline tennis played on a green court rather than on a red one. Bleh ...
5555
Hall of Fame
The-Champ
Legend
Is that an opinion or a fact?
firepanda
Professional
Changed it for the better. Serving was ruining the game at that point. Ivanisevic was a joke, a left-handed Karlovic. Sampras wasn't a lot better. Given current racquet technology, we're lucky that idiots like Isner aren't dominating the game due to obscenely fast surfaces.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Ivanisevic was a lot better than Karlovic.
Kalin
Legend
Speechless...
firepanda
Professional
All right, overreaction. Still, people who yearn for faster-paced, more aggressive tennis are looking through Nostalgia Goggles™, and the sheer dominance of Federer's style of play 2004-2007 didn't help. Tennis was incredibly boring when big-servers faced off, with very few rallies and far too many aces.
That's my opinion, at least, hence why I support Djokovic.
That's my opinion, at least, hence why I support Djokovic.
Kalin
Legend
Panda, fair enough. I'm also not necessarily a big fan of two guys blasting each other off the court with unreturnable serves on a daily basis. However, it didn't really happen on a daily basis even in the 90's as one might think by only reading this thread. As a matter of fact it happened quite rarely and only on certain surfaces. Off the top of my head, major tournaments in that period that were won by huge servers (minus Sampras, who was simply the total package) include victories by Stich, Krajicek and Goran (in '01). Each of these players was an overall incredible player, not just a big server. Hardly a crushing dominance by the big bombers.
And then we had guys with monster serves like Max Mirnyi and Scud (Mark Philippoussis) who never won any Slams or even came close.
But at least they had a chance. Nowadays, it never happens. Unless you can run down every shot and have incredible stamina (ala Nadal or Djokovic) it is extremely hard to win tournaments. Even (arguably) the best player ever, Federer, finds it increasingly difficult to win on today's neutered surfaces.
It is very surreal watching the final of Wimbledon and seeing the pristine condition of the grass beyond the baseline because nobody dares to go forward the whole fortnight. It is not right.
The point we are making is, tennis will not be destroyed if there are a handful of tournaments where the big servers can dominate. It might actually make the sport more fun to watch... variety!
And then we had guys with monster serves like Max Mirnyi and Scud (Mark Philippoussis) who never won any Slams or even came close.
But at least they had a chance. Nowadays, it never happens. Unless you can run down every shot and have incredible stamina (ala Nadal or Djokovic) it is extremely hard to win tournaments. Even (arguably) the best player ever, Federer, finds it increasingly difficult to win on today's neutered surfaces.
It is very surreal watching the final of Wimbledon and seeing the pristine condition of the grass beyond the baseline because nobody dares to go forward the whole fortnight. It is not right.
The point we are making is, tennis will not be destroyed if there are a handful of tournaments where the big servers can dominate. It might actually make the sport more fun to watch... variety!
5555
Hall of Fame
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Hilarious. You need to recheck (or check if you haven't done so yet) the definitions of "FACT" and "OPINION"
L
Laurie
Guest
I agree with this. I also didn't like it at Wimbledon when two big servers played eachother. I enjoyed watching Sampras v Becker indoors because they both stayed back on 2nd serves and there were a lot of great rallies and displays of athleticism.
Perhaps things may have been different if:
1. Henman won Wimbledon during that period
2. Sampras played Agassi in more than 1 Wimbledon final
3. Rafter and Agassi were on the other side of the draw and met eachother in finals instead of semis.
These sorts of variations may have persuaded the Wimbledon committee not to mess too much but of course we can't turn back time.
The-Champ
Legend
The hubris of the defeated!! You need to visit that shrink again.
Relinquis
Hall of Fame
We should resist the McDonaldisation of tennis!
Tennis is becoming too standardised. Do we want NASCAR tennis? That's only fun for corporate sponsors and injury/crash watchers that don't really care about the subtleties of the sport.
If we make grass play like clay, by slowing the former or speeding up the latter we are missing the point! Might as well play badminton. We need more court/ball speed variety, not less. More distinctiveness.
I've played a lot on red clay this year, but have now gone back to fast hardcourts. It's amazing how much you have to adapt your game even at my amateur level; the tactics, timing, point construction, type of balls you face, mentality of opponent all change. It's fun and the variety has made me a better player, i think. Imagine how the pros would adapt their game and develop. It would make for more likelihood of interesting match-ups of players with contrasting styles and pros with a broader skill-set overall. I think a pure tennis would emerge from these faceoffs. Do you agree?
I think tennis has an opportunity to be more than just another standardised sport/business.
I'm going to try to convince my local tennis club to build some red clay courts and a grass one, instead of just having hardcourts. Might as well get the most out of our fees.
Wish me luck!
Tennis is becoming too standardised. Do we want NASCAR tennis? That's only fun for corporate sponsors and injury/crash watchers that don't really care about the subtleties of the sport.
If we make grass play like clay, by slowing the former or speeding up the latter we are missing the point! Might as well play badminton. We need more court/ball speed variety, not less. More distinctiveness.
I've played a lot on red clay this year, but have now gone back to fast hardcourts. It's amazing how much you have to adapt your game even at my amateur level; the tactics, timing, point construction, type of balls you face, mentality of opponent all change. It's fun and the variety has made me a better player, i think. Imagine how the pros would adapt their game and develop. It would make for more likelihood of interesting match-ups of players with contrasting styles and pros with a broader skill-set overall. I think a pure tennis would emerge from these faceoffs. Do you agree?
I think tennis has an opportunity to be more than just another standardised sport/business.
I'm going to try to convince my local tennis club to build some red clay courts and a grass one, instead of just having hardcourts. Might as well get the most out of our fees.
Wish me luck!
Kalin
Legend
Good luck then!!
I fully agree with all your points. As to your club, however, from what I know about courts a clay court is much more expensive to build than a hard court. I am afraid the same is valid for grass. You can ask them to use different paint, though, giving different speed.
I fully agree with all your points. As to your club, however, from what I know about courts a clay court is much more expensive to build than a hard court. I am afraid the same is valid for grass. You can ask them to use different paint, though, giving different speed.
hi guys I didn't watch many tennis matches in the last 6 years or so, didn't play much tennis in the last 6 years either. can you guys tell me what are some of the greatest matches in the last 6 years or so? so I can watch them on youtube. I am watching 2012 Australian open finals on youtube now!
ShoeShiner
Rookie
Good article, thank you.
Similar threads
