First off, not trolling. I won't get into details to avoid spoilers, but I have the utmost respect for the slow-court oriented/defensive/counterpuncher type players in the top 10, and all of them deserve their success.
That said,
1) the game started on grass and there is a single slam and no masters events on the surface today.
2) there are too many hard court events. The strain on the joints is too great for modern play, and no one wants to see shortened careers because of somewhat arbitrary surface choices by management.
3) The surfaces are unbalanced. arguments about the speed of current hard courts aside, you have 3 clay masters and 6 hard courts which is hardly reasonable.
-Aussie open, Miami, Indian wells - as is, keep them slow-ish hard courts
-Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome, Roland Garros - clay, lovely
-Wimbledon, Hamburg, Rogers - switch the latter two to grass, make Hamburg a 1k event, speed up the wimby grass
-Cincinnati, Us Open, Paris - 2 fastish hard courts, indoor hard court
-Shanghai - switch to carpet.
slams - slow hard court, clay, grass, fast hard court
masters - 2 slow hard court, 3 clay, 2 grass, 3 fast hard court/carpet
Seems more fair to me.
I'm not sure how bad the logistics would be of changing surfaces on 3 events, but if there's enough impetus from the players it'll get done.(even nadal has complained about there being too many hard courts, and I personally will not look forward to the day when Fed retires. could you imagine a semi's with Ferrer, Rafa, Murray, and Nole?, it would take a week...)
This would make the calendar slam/channel slam more difficult, and would hopefully lead to more variety. (think 90's, where Ivanisevic and Chang were both successful, Agassi and Sampras, etc.,.)
That said,
1) the game started on grass and there is a single slam and no masters events on the surface today.
2) there are too many hard court events. The strain on the joints is too great for modern play, and no one wants to see shortened careers because of somewhat arbitrary surface choices by management.
3) The surfaces are unbalanced. arguments about the speed of current hard courts aside, you have 3 clay masters and 6 hard courts which is hardly reasonable.
-Aussie open, Miami, Indian wells - as is, keep them slow-ish hard courts
-Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome, Roland Garros - clay, lovely
-Wimbledon, Hamburg, Rogers - switch the latter two to grass, make Hamburg a 1k event, speed up the wimby grass
-Cincinnati, Us Open, Paris - 2 fastish hard courts, indoor hard court
-Shanghai - switch to carpet.
slams - slow hard court, clay, grass, fast hard court
masters - 2 slow hard court, 3 clay, 2 grass, 3 fast hard court/carpet
Seems more fair to me.
I'm not sure how bad the logistics would be of changing surfaces on 3 events, but if there's enough impetus from the players it'll get done.(even nadal has complained about there being too many hard courts, and I personally will not look forward to the day when Fed retires. could you imagine a semi's with Ferrer, Rafa, Murray, and Nole?, it would take a week...)
This would make the calendar slam/channel slam more difficult, and would hopefully lead to more variety. (think 90's, where Ivanisevic and Chang were both successful, Agassi and Sampras, etc.,.)
Last edited:
