Why did they make the USO so very slow?

I think they slowed it down to help the American women (who actually have a chance of winning the tournament which is not the case for the men). The better ones -- Venus, Coco and Madison Keys -- are all average to below-average movers so even though they are aggressive baseliners whose offense benefits from a fast surface, their defense suffers even more if the surface is too fast. So they slowed it down a bit. They are also all tall so a higher bouncing surface helps them versus some of the faster but shorter finesse oriented players.
 
Shaolin said:
My theory: USO officials wanted a Fedal final or SF.

They know Fed can win on any sh*t court they lay down but knew they had to put something slow and gritty down for Nadal to get through.

Who knows, their plan may work.
Click to expand...

When was the last time Federer arrived to a French Open semi-final? 2012. Nope. He can't "win on any sh*t court they lay down". Those days are gone.
 
After watching the first week (and of course only a poll of the players can tell us for certain) . . . the surface does seem pretty slow. Though why they've done it is beyond me. We've had years of super long matches. You'd think they'd be trying to swing the pendulum in the other direction.
 
skip1969 said:
After watching the first week (and of course only a poll of the players can tell us for certain) . . . the surface does seem pretty slow. Though why they've done it is beyond me. We've had years of super long matches. You'd think they'd be trying to swing the pendulum in the other direction.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Of course when the players say this I wonder if it's 2%, 4% - they live on tennis courts and can tell even w/o looking at the grittiness.

Of course long matches = more TV ads. And we know the USTA loves the cash.... Winder if we'll be paying $50 next year?
 
West Coast Ace said:
Yes.

Of course when the players say this I wonder if it's 2%, 4% - they live on tennis courts and can tell even w/o looking at the grittiness.

Of course long matches = more TV ads. And we know the USTA loves the cash.... Winder if we'll be paying $50 next year?
Click to expand...
It's such a paradox in a way. I mean, of course all the USTA wants is more more money. So long matches suit them just fine.

Then why the pretext with the shot clocks and the shorter warmups before matches and all the other b*llshit rules and ideas they trot out. As if those little tweaks are going to significantly speed up the game. Because, you know, the slow pace of the game is such a problem.

If it were such a problem, wouldn't the simplest, most significant solution be adjusting the surface speed?

That's why I dislike the USTA. I dislike anyone or anything that is so disingenuous. I mean, be motivated by money and self-interest. Cool. But don't play me for a fool with your 'shot clock.'
 
It's a giant government conspiracy that goes all the way to the top. Or maybe circumstances just went that way this year in the same way that Australia, and Wimbledon both seemed to be a lot different than usual too.
 
Sport said:
When was the last time Federer arrived to a French Open semi-final? 2012. Nope. He can't "win on any sh*t court they lay down". Those days are gone.
Click to expand...

fish-fishing-lure-vector-illustration-2077286.jpg
 
skip1969 said:
Then why the pretext with the shot clocks and the shorter warmups before matches and all the other b*llshit rules and ideas they trot out. As if those little tweaks are going to significantly speed up the game. Because, you know, the slow pace of the game is such a problem.

If it were such a problem, wouldn't the simplest, most significant solution be adjusting the surface speed?

That's why I dislike the USTA. I dislike anyone or anything that is so disingenuous. I mean, be motivated by money and self-interest. Cool. But don't play me for a fool with your 'shot clock.'
Click to expand...
I'm with you. It's the old 'don't tell me it's raining' story.... I'm fortunate enough to go to 4 events a yr (2 full weeklong, a few days of the other 2). So unless their changes are going to squeeze in 1 more match on the main court (and we know they aren't) it's a waste of time and could lead to lower quality matches.
 
Interesting idea. But all three probably do better on faster courts, because everyone finds defense hard on them, whereas good movers can get anything back on slow ones. I would think these courts help someone like Stephens, who also could make the semis.

By the way, Querrey could make the final, and if Federer's back gives out, he might even win. He beat Nadal in Acapulco.

wangs78 said:
I think they slowed it down to help the American women (who actually have a chance of winning the tournament which is not the case for the men). The better ones -- Venus, Coco and Madison Keys -- are all average to below-average movers so even though they are aggressive baseliners whose offense benefits from a fast surface, their defense suffers even more if the surface is too fast. So they slowed it down a bit. They are also all tall so a higher bouncing surface helps them versus some of the faster but shorter finesse oriented players.
Click to expand...
 
B
helterskelter said:
Interesting idea. But all three probably do better on faster courts, because everyone finds defense hard on them, whereas good movers can get anything back on slow ones. I would think these courts help someone like Stephens, who also could make the semis.

By the way, Querrey could make the final, and if Federer's back gives out, he might even win. He beat Nadal in Acapulco.
Click to expand...

Beating Nadal in small tourney best of 3 vs Slam best of 5 are completely different things, almost a different sport.

The slow courts favor Rafa the most, he relies on defense, and he can get blown off the court by a hard hitter, which is how he's lost in USO/Wimby before. But that is almost impossible with the clay speeds now.

Next they favor Djok/Murray types who are also relying on fitness/outlasting people and their speed to stay in the point.

The slow courts punish attacking players like Fed who have to hit 10x the balls and run 10x more.

Its a total joke.
 
FiReFTW said:
USO has been known to be quite a faster slam than AO.
Also faster playing conditions suit american players best.
So I see absolutely zero reason why they would slow down the USO so much this year.
Was it a fluke? Did they mess something up?
Why would they handicap their own players, makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
The court seems to playing fast. I have watched a few matches and the ball is flying out there!!!
 
Shaolin said:
My theory: USO officials wanted a Fedal final or SF.

They know Fed can win on any sh*t court they lay down but knew they had to put something slow and gritty down for Nadal to get through.

Who knows, their plan may work.
Click to expand...
If it's like clay fed would have just skipped it.....
 
Defcon said:
B


Beating Nadal in small tourney best of 3 vs Slam best of 5 are completely different things, almost a different sport.

The slow courts favor Rafa the most, he relies on defense, and he can get blown off the court by a hard hitter, which is how he's lost in USO/Wimby before. But that is almost impossible with the clay speeds now.

Next they favor Djok/Murray types who are also relying on fitness/outlasting people and their speed to stay in the point.

The slow courts punish attacking players like Fed who have to hit 10x the balls and run 10x more.

Its a total joke.
Click to expand...
wrong. especially the last line. stats tell us the opposite is true. also nadal has not won a hc title for ages. so its hardly in his favour whatever the hc are like.
 
wangs78 said:
I think they slowed it down to help the American women (who actually have a chance of winning the tournament which is not the case for the men). The better ones -- Venus, Coco and Madison Keys -- are all average to below-average movers so even though they are aggressive baseliners whose offense benefits from a fast surface, their defense suffers even more if the surface is too fast. So they slowed it down a bit. They are also all tall so a higher bouncing surface helps them versus some of the faster but shorter finesse oriented players.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous since Venus is actually an above average mover who had her best results this year on the sped up AO, and at Wimbledon. She's never played well on slow surfaces, and always performed better on fast. They're not going to slow the court down to "help her". More to the point, Coco and Madison being below average movers would be an even bigger disadvantage on a slower court since they depend on power offense to win matches. A slow court takes away all of their weapons and therefore any chance they'd have to win. Same thing with Venus.
 
Shaolin said:
My theory: USO officials wanted a Fedal final or SF.

They know Fed can win on any sh*t court they lay down but knew they had to put something slow and gritty down for Nadal to get through.

Who knows, their plan may work.
Click to expand...

You may be on to something. Also look at the draw they gave Nadal. No seeded player till the semifinal :)
 
Defcon said:
Its all a plan to help Nadal, they know the money comes from ad revenue and he is a big name. It also helps the endless million ball Murrovic rallies.
Click to expand...

Having Federer get #20 (and probably his last GS) and retire out of joy right at the USO may have been a bigger and better story so they should've sped up the courts and swapped Nadal and Federer's draws. The USTA is clearly stupid.
 
It is surely to help Nadal. He is the big star of the US Open and they will do all they can to make him win another non clay major title and end the year at #1 over Federer. The US Open always favoured Nadal over other players.

There, I support the views of nervous Federer fans. We all see the conspiracy.

:D:D
 
this week on how Big Tennis is Effing my favorite player in the butt. Sounds like Alex Jones took up tennis in these boards
 
GOATzilla said:
Federer fans whined a lot about court speed during Wimbledon.

Then Nadal lost.

Then they stopped whining, and the court speed was never mentioned again.

LMOA
Click to expand...

Did people complain about the court speed at Wimbledon ? No recollection of that, but I may not have been here much during the time.
 
GOATzilla said:
Federer fans whined a lot about court speed during Wimbledon.

Then Nadal lost.

Then they stopped whining, and the court speed was never mentioned again.

LMOA
Click to expand...
Bloody obviously they didn't complain when he won. Why would they?

If you were going for a big job interview and they made it a ridiculous time but you still got the job would you be complaining any more? No you wouldn't. Although given your views you are a very negative person so maybe you are the anomaly.
 
Since I joined the forum, every single Slam is slower than the previous year with the sole exception of AO 17. By this time you would expect the ball to stop travel at all..
 
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Nope. Europeans rule tennis and they grew up w clay
Click to expand...
Some Europeans. The previous crop. Claycourt tennis used to be huge but is clearly on the decline.
More and more players have HC as their best surface because that makes sense for them.

HC is vastly more reliable and cheaper to maintain. It's only a matter of time.
 
Firstservingman said:
Some Europeans. The previous crop. Claycourt tennis used to be huge but is clearly on the decline.
More and more players have HC as their best surface because that makes sense for them.

HC is vastly more reliable and cheaper to maintain. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...
I dont agree at all. Many young players play a lot on clay. Its a very much used surface here
 
GOATzilla said:
Federer fans whined a lot about court speed during Wimbledon.

Then Nadal lost.

Then they stopped whining, and the court speed was never mentioned again.

LMOA
Click to expand...

Just one question: What is this "LMOA" thing you speak of? Unless I'm mistaken (and I very well might be) what you're trying to say is LMAO which is short for laugh my ass off. I only ask because I've seen you do this a couple of times now.
 
Firstservingman said:
Some Europeans. The previous crop. Claycourt tennis used to be huge but is clearly on the decline.
More and more players have HC as their best surface because that makes sense for them.

HC is vastly more reliable and cheaper to maintain. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

Well, HC is where the money is, since there are more of them. Having a game better suited for HC means you have better chances to get deeper into more tournaments, and ultimately make more money. At the end of the day, it is their way of putting food on the table. More slams, more masters, indoors since no one will be playing clay during the winter months in Europe, it is where the game mainly is and that will not change. Hence why the depth is greater on HC than grass or clay, players need to earn a living and adjust their games to what will help them the most.
 
Steve0904 said:
Just one question: What is this "LMOA" thing you speak of? Unless I'm mistaken (and I very well might be) what you're trying to say is LMAO which is short for laugh my ass off. I only ask because I've seen you do this a couple of times now.
Click to expand...
Laughing my ovary ass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NickH87
Why are the women so slow?
Replies
13
Views
1K
beernutz
beernutz
D
Is Novak as good on fast courts?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Chanwan
Chanwan
UnderratedSlam
Why did RF and Nadal never play each other at USO?
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
victorcruz
victorcruz
F
The US Open is indirectly responsible for slow grass courts at Wimbledon
Replies
19
Views
3K
FalconX
F
M
Top 10 slow HC players
Replies
29
Views
3K
The-Champ
The-Champ
Back
Top