Why is the tennis season so lopsided?

[shawn1122]

I think it's well accepted at this point that Nadal's best surface is clay and Federer's best surface is grass. How would history look differently on these players if the grass season was as long as clay's and vice versa. Currently, the clay season is made up of 3 masters series, two 500 tournaments (Mexico and Barcelona) and a bunch of 250's. In contrast the grass season is made up of two 250 tournaments (that happen at the same time) and Wimbledon.

As a fan of the fast paced nature of grass court tennis I have to say its amazing that the schedule has not become more balanced after all this time. Federer would have easily have a few more Masters series a year under his belt, at least during his prime. It's by virtue of the fact that he also excels on hard and indoor that he has as many as he does now.

Also, wouldn't Nadal's legacy be completely different? I feel like it's impossible to have a "king of grass" in our sport since the grass season is literally three weeks. If the clay season were just as short then the title "king of clay" would likely have much less meaning. In some ways he is at least a little lucky the season is laid out the way it is.

 

[Goosehead]

THERE Was a lot more clay in the 1970s..

go on Wikipedia and look at the calander for 1977 for instance..clay all through the year.

 

[m2nk2]

Yeah, well we do need more grass tournaments.

February/Mars/April/May/June - Clay
June/July/August/September - Grass
September/October/November/January/February - Hard

But make USO grass while you're at it.

 

[phishbiscuits]

Cost/upkeep

I wrote something similar to a poster who wanted to install a clay court at his home.

Maintenance is near-constant... That means money. Tournaments seek to make money.

Clay is cheap compared to keeping a grass court tournament-level ready.

Look at the Wimbeldon courts after they had back-to-back tournaments because of the Olympics. Like a redneck's front yard.

Plus, a lot of players absolutely loathe the surface.

 

[Mainad]

In contrast the grass season is made up of two 250 tournaments (that happen at the same time) and Wimbledon.

There are actually 6 grasscourt tournaments on the ATP tour:

1.Grand Slam: Wimbledon

5. ATP250s: Aegon Championships (Queens Club, London), Aegon International (Eastbourne), Gerry Weber Open (Halle), Topshelf Open (formerly Unicef Open, s' Hertogenbosch), Hall of Fame Championships (Newport).

 

[ollinger]

More grass simply isn't happening. The players on tour don't want it having not grown up on it for the most part, the casual fan doesn't care for points that are over too quickly, most recreational players don't relate to it as they never play on it themselves. It's an anachronism rendered unnecessary by the industial revolution.

 

[Goosehead]

More grass simply isn't happening. The players on tour don't want it having not grown up on it for the most part, the casual fan doesn't care for points that are over too quickly, most recreational players don't relate to it as they never play on it themselves. It's an anachronism rendered unnecessary by the industial revolution.

more grass simply IS happening you mean...

in 2015 a post Wimbledon clay tourney is changing to grass..n Holland or Germany or somewhere over there.

 

[aldeayeah]

Really? Which one?

 

[m2nk2]

14 min game in Hewitt match lol.

*Wrong thread lol.

 

[kragster]

I think it's well accepted at this point that Nadal's best surface is clay and Federer's best surface is grass. How would history look differently on these players if the grass season was as long as clay's and vice versa. Currently, the clay season is made up of 3 masters series, two 500 tournaments (Mexico and Barcelona) and a bunch of 250's. In contrast the grass season is made up of two 250 tournaments (that happen at the same time) and Wimbledon.

As a fan of the fast paced nature of grass court tennis I have to say its amazing that the schedule has not become more balanced after all this time. Federer would have easily have a few more Masters series a year under his belt, at least during his prime. It's by virtue of the fact that he also excels on hard and indoor that he has as many as he does now.

Also, wouldn't Nadal's legacy be completely different? I feel like it's impossible to have a "king of grass" in our sport since the grass season is literally three weeks. If the clay season were just as short then the title "king of clay" would likely have much less meaning. In some ways he is at least a little lucky the season is laid out the way it is.

This argument is highly flawed. Players design/should design their games based on the surfaces with the most occurrence. If there was only 1 carpet event in a year but a player built his whole game to be carpet focused, then that is his fault. What if there were 2 clay slams and only 1 HC slam?

It is not 'accidental' that Hard courts are the best surface for most of today's players while grass was the best surface for players 30-40 years ago. It is only logical to train the most on the surface that has the most representation. For example if in today's world a youngster were doing the majority of his training on grass, then it would be an illogical move and that person is doomed to not maximize his potential.Now it would be a valid argument if there was a drastic step change in surface distribution over a year. So if for example today's youngsters train on hard courts majority of the time and suddenly in 2015, they make everything grass, then you can say that the youngster who is training as a grass specialist would be "lucky" to have the surface distribution change significantly in their favor.

I would say the only thing unlucky for Fed from a surface distribution is the removal of carpet from the tour because carpet was a reasonable presence when Fed was young but totally removed later.

Also it is important to recognize by the same "training for surface distribution" logic that players would evolve differently if surfaces were different. Today's youngster get "less bang for the buck" doing S&V training vs baseline. That same youngster may have evolved differently in the 60s or 70s.

 

[jg153040]

This argument is highly flawed. Players design/should design their games based on the surfaces with the most occurrence. If there was only 1 carpet event in a year but a player built his whole game to be carpet focused, then that is his fault. What if there were 2 clay slams and only 1 HC slam?

It is not 'accidental' that Hard courts are the best surface for most of today's players while grass was the best surface for players 30-40 years ago.


Now it would be a valid argument if there was a drastic step change in surface distribution over a year. So if for example today's youngsters train on hard courts majority of the time and suddenly in 2015, they make everything grass, then you can say that any youngster who is training as a grass specialist would be "lucky" to have the surface distribution change significantly in their favor.

I would say the only thing unlucky for Fed from a surface distribution is the removal of carpet from the tour.

Fed was also unlucky because courts slowed down.