Why is Wimbledon the only Slam without obnoxious giant sponsor billboards on the main court?

metsman said:
yeah sure besides, you know, making grass court tennis as we knew it extinct. Besides the true purpose of the tournament going completely down the tube the last 10 years, yeah it's the best and hasn't sold its soul! The late stages of Wimbledon have predominantly featured baseline-heavy players since 2005. 2004 was the last year we saw any kind of variety with Fed playing all court, Ancic serving and volleying, Grosjean mixing in some net play, Roddick doing his thing. Since then it's mostly been pathetic.
Click to expand...

And what exactly does your idiotic rant have to do with advertising hoardings?
 
Newballs said:
One of (if not the first) to do so.
No one even looks at you if 100 million dollars isn't accidentally falling out of your a**.
Click to expand...

That's your fault for being someone who seeks attention, but doesn't have $100m. I'd recommend you attend Wimbledon armed with sterling rather than dollars anyway.
 
MarcusInKensington said:
And what exactly does your idiotic rant have to do with advertising hoardings?
Click to expand...
Your moronic statement that "it's the best and hasn't sold its soul" because of some advertising nonsense that doesn't even matter in the big picture because the tournament is making money no matter what, when the core of what the tournament was about, varied and unique tennis from the rest of the year, is no more. Even as a Federer fan, I cringe when people call Wimbledon the "best" grand slam. First of all, it's not 1980 anymore, all the grand slams are equal, but anyways, even then growing up as a kid Wimbledon was my favorite tournament or narrowly behind the USO, and now, Wimbledon is just another baseline ballbashing pitstop on the baseline ballbashing tour.
 
MarcusInKensington said:
And what exactly does your idiotic rant have to do with advertising hoardings?
Click to expand...
What's the pristine look worth if it isn't really grass court tennis anymore? People saying wimby never sold out. Huh, they were the first of the slams to slow it down to kill serve and volley. USO kept playing fast for a bit longer (until it went blue). It will be beyond ironic if Centre Court plays slower than Rod Laver Arena (which could happen this year).
 
metsman said:
Your moronic statement that "it's the best and hasn't sold its soul" because of some advertising nonsense that doesn't even matter in the big picture because the tournament is making money no matter what, when the core of what the tournament was about, varied and unique tennis from the rest of the year, is no more. Even as a Federer fan, I cringe when people call Wimbledon the "best" grand slam. First of all, it's not 1980 anymore, all the grand slams are equal, but anyways, even then growing up as a kid Wimbledon was my favorite tournament or narrowly behind the USO, and now, Wimbledon is just another baseline ballbashing pitstop on the baseline ballbashing tour.
Click to expand...
Ah, you're a Federer fan. That explains it.
 
MarcusInKensington said:
Ah, you're a Federer fan. That explains it.
Click to expand...
You realise that the change happened before Fed had won any of his Wimbledons? Not one of his Wimbledons came on old grass. By and by, players stopped serving and volleying out of habit. By 2005, Fed was passing Roddick from almost parallel to the linesmen. The ball just wouldn't shoot through low anymore.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
What's the pristine look worth if it isn't really grass court tennis anymore? People saying wimby never sold out. Huh, they were the first of the slams to slow it down to kill serve and volley. USO kept playing fast for a bit longer (until it went blue). It will be beyond ironic if Centre Court plays slower than Rod Laver Arena (which could happen this year).
Click to expand...
Exactly, Wimbledon (and the London WTF) are the primary culprits of the slowcourt ball bashing era. AO/FO mostly are what they have been, some changes but nothing major. USO is still slower, but at least the general playstyles have not changed much, aggressive baselining is rewarded. That leaves Wimbledon, where there is no more hint of serve/volley or all court play in later rounds aside from Federer occasionally doing it the past couple years. And WTF, where they have replaced a fast indoor court that was basically the USO without wind or conditions which allowed attacking tennis at its finest and now have turned it into another mosh pit.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
You realise that the change happened before Fed had won any of his Wimbledons? Not one of his Wimbledons came on old grass. By and by, players stopped serving and volleying out of habit. By 2005, Fed was passing Roddick from almost parallel to the linesmen. The ball just wouldn't shoot through low anymore.
Click to expand...
Yup, while I understand the reasons for the initial slowdown because poly strings would have made playing on grass that fast pretty tough, what they have done since 2005 and on is atrocious. Would be far more enjoyable even at 2003-2004 speeds when a great mix of styles had success there.

But as for the comment you were replying to, Marky was just tossing in his two cents of salt because he couldn't handle that someone dared to question the awesomeness of his favowite two weeks of the year in his favowite city. His sig says it all anyways.
 
metsman said:
Exactly, Wimbledon (and the London WTF) are the primary culprits of the slowcourt ball bashing era. AO/FO mostly are what they have been, some changes but nothing major. USO is still slower, but at least the general playstyles have not changed much, aggressive baselining is rewarded. That leaves Wimbledon, where there is no more hint of serve/volley or all court play in later rounds aside from Federer occasionally doing it the past couple years. And WTF, where they have replaced a fast indoor court that was basically the USO without wind or conditions which allowed attacking tennis at its finest and now have turned it into another mosh pit.
Click to expand...
We did get the 2012 and 2013 grinding finals at USO but again USO has had those kind of matches with long, grinding rallies (Wilander-Lendl). So it's not as out of character as Wimbledon.
 
metsman said:
Yup, while I understand the reasons for the initial slowdown because poly strings would have made playing on grass that fast pretty tough, what they have done since 2005 and on is atrocious. Would be far more enjoyable even at 2003-2004 speeds when a great mix of styles had success there.

But as for the comment you were replying to, Marky was just tossing in his two cents of salt because he couldn't handle that someone dared to question the awesomeness of his favowite two weeks of the year in his favowite city. His sig says it all anyways.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it was just the surface or players gradually adapting to the new rules because we had the 2002 horror show before that. Anyway, from a spectator's point of view, 2004 was the last grass court-like year at Wimbledon. Surprisingly, the women's tour produced a classic final in 2006 but it was just an outlier. Venus too did some net rushing against Bartoli in 2007 IIRC. Bizarre contrast with the long rallies Fedal were playing. Brilliant tennis of the highest level for sure but Wimbledon's unique flavour was gone.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
Brilliant tennis of the highest level for sure but Wimbledon's unique flavour was gone.
Click to expand...
But what was the unique flavor? Serve-and-volley after every first and second serve? Really, Wimbledon wasn’t enjoyable in the 90s. And I even say that as a Sampras fan back then. The finals against Ivanisevic were an insult to Sampras and his tennis skills because it was just only serving and occasionally finishing with an easy volley.

Then I was too young anyway, but if tennis today would be the same I wouldn’t pay money for watching it in the stadium.

In general I’m against surface homogenisation, but the change at Wimbledon was necessary. The serve should be an advantage, but not the only important shot in the rally! Also brainless net-rushing shouldn’t win you every point. Remember all these bad bounces on the old grass which made all-court-tennis impossible.

If everything would have stayed the same, then maybe Federer would still have his chances, but many late round matches would be against the likes of Raonic, Isner and Karlovic.

Even a Djokovic-Murray final would be more interesting than that from the perspective of a neutral tennis fan.
 
ChrisRF said:
But what was the unique flavor? Serve-and-volley after every first and second serve? Really, Wimbledon wasn’t enjoyable in the 90s. And I even say that as a Sampras fan back then. The finals against Ivanisevic were an insult to Sampras and his tennis skills because it was just only serving and occasionally finishing with an easy volley.

Then I was too young anyway, but if tennis today would be the same I wouldn’t pay money for watching it in the stadium.

In general I’m against surface homogenisation, but the change at Wimbledon was necessary. The serve should be an advantage, but not the only important shot in the rally! Also brainless net-rushing shouldn’t win you every point. Remember all these bad bounces on the old grass which made all-court-tennis impossible.

If everything would have stayed the same, then maybe Federer would still have his chances, but many late round matches would be against the likes of Raonic, Isner and Karlovic.

Even a Djokovic-Murray final would be more interesting than that from the perspective of a neutral tennis fan.
Click to expand...
Raonic is still getting through to the later stages, though. I agree that the idea was to kill big serve tennis but it's only killed serve and volley. At least players like Henman or Rafter could do well on the old grass. That side of tennis has been lost now. Maybe it would have happened anyway but the young serve volleyers of the early noughties like Ancic were affected by the slowing down of the game. I would prefer Djoko Murray to Fed Raonic too but Djoko/Fed Ancic would have been a much more interesting dynamic than either.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
Raonic is still getting through to the later stages, though. I agree that the idea was to kill big serve tennis but it's only killed serve and volley. At least players like Henman or Rafter could do well on the old grass. That side of tennis has been lost now.
Click to expand...
That’s right, but I think the new rackets and strings are a bigger factor in that process than the surfaces. It was difficult to pass with the old rackets because it was impossible to create pace and spin while not hitting the ball perfectly. Today a player like Nadal just needs to somheow get his racket at the ball and he still creates a spin even a good net player can’t handle with a volley.

His spin is taken away by the bounce on the grass court, but unplayble at the net. Power and spin are everything now, and tactical players like Henman (who was also one of my favourites back then) wouldn’t have a chance.

By the way, I don’t think players like Rafter, Edberg etc. had better volleys than Federer (like many people believe). That just didn’t have do deal with today’s banana shots.
 
ChrisRF said:
But what was the unique flavor? Serve-and-volley after every first and second serve? Really, Wimbledon wasn’t enjoyable in the 90s. And I even say that as a Sampras fan back then. The finals against Ivanisevic were an insult to Sampras and his tennis skills because it was just only serving and occasionally finishing with an easy volley.

Then I was too young anyway, but if tennis today would be the same I wouldn’t pay money for watching it in the stadium.

In general I’m against surface homogenisation, but the change at Wimbledon was necessary. The serve should be an advantage, but not the only important shot in the rally! Also brainless net-rushing shouldn’t win you every point. Remember all these bad bounces on the old grass which made all-court-tennis impossible.

If everything would have stayed the same, then maybe Federer would still have his chances, but many late round matches would be against the likes of Raonic, Isner and Karlovic.

Even a Djokovic-Murray final would be more interesting than that from the perspective of a neutral tennis fan.
Click to expand...

So, how many Wimbledons did Ivanisevic win?

:cool:
 
ChrisRF said:
That’s right, but I think the new rackets and strings are a bigger factor in that process than the surfaces. It was difficult to pass with the old rackets because it was impossible to create pace and spin while not hitting the ball perfectly. Today a player like Nadal just needs to somheow get his racket at the ball and he still creates a spin even a good net player can’t handle with a volley.

His spin is taken away by the bounce on the grass court, but unplayble at the net. Power and spin are everything now, and tactical players like Henman (who was also one of my favourites back then) wouldn’t have a chance.

By the way, I don’t think players like Rafter, Edberg etc. had better volleys than Federer (like many people believe). That just didn’t have do deal with today’s banana shots.
Click to expand...
It's because of the changes in racquet and string tech that I believe nothing needed to be changed at Wimbledon. The balls had already been changed and bounced higher than before. Slowing down the surface tilted the equation even more in favour of baseliners. Wimbledon solved a problem that didn't exist with the advancement of equipment.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
So, how many Wimbledons did Ivanisevic win?

:cool:
Click to expand...

Considering what could have been a role model in playing style for the future of tennis: One too many.

Considering the person he was (and the role model for fighting spirit): Too few.

I’m able to differentiate here: When he finally won I almost cried for joy because I like him very much. But I’m also happy that the gambling style “ace or double fault” is not the normal way tennis is played at Wimbledon anymore.
 
clayqueen said:
Because Wimbledon is funded by Debenture Holders not by commercial enterprises. They also keep all the fees from TV rights etc. because the prize money is small compared to what they get in.
Click to expand...
Prize money is the second highest of all 4 Slams

In 2006 (winner / current XE) -

US Open - $3 500 000
Aus Open - $2 569 142
French Open - $2 253 340
Wimbledon - $2 581 200
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
It's because of the changes in racquet and string tech that I believe nothing needed to be changed at Wimbledon. The balls had already been changed and bounced higher than before. Slowing down the surface tilted the equation even more in favour of baseliners. Wimbledon solved a problem that didn't exist with the advancement of equipment.
Click to expand...
The serve as a standalone shot would have been too mighty with modern rackets and old surfaces combined. It would lead to even more aces (and double faults, because it is easier to take higher risks at 2nd serves with less dangerous situations in service games).

Another problem was the impossibility of baseline tennis on the old grass because of the bad bounces. The newer grass is more reliable until the second week.
 
ChrisRF said:
Considering what could have been a role model in playing style for the future of tennis: One too many.

Considering the person he was (and the role model for fighting spirit): Too few.

I’m able to differentiate here: When he finally won I almost cried for joy because I like him very much. But I’m also happy that the gambling style “ace or double fault” is not the normal way tennis is played at Wimbledon anymore.
Click to expand...

Really, the answer of that question gives you the answer of who was going to rule the grass in the future.

It is not like such players were dominating the tournament and saying that he shouldn't have won it at all because of the way his game was is already bordering on Tio Toni level of argumentation.

Also, as other have mentioned there were ways to counter the new racquet and string technology.

And it is not like Guga was regularly making finals at Wimbledon either.

Wimbledon decided to please the clay court specialists and at the same time solve what they thought was a problem with the bounce.

They made a mistake.

That is all.

:cool:
 
ChrisRF said:
The serve as a standalone shot would have been too mighty with modern rackets and old surfaces combined. It would lead to even more aces (and double faults, because it is easier to take higher risks at 2nd serves with less dangerous situations in service games).

Another problem was the impossibility of baseline tennis on the old grass because of the bad bounces. The newer grass is more reliable until the second week.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent with the first point (though in any case the likes of Karlovic were exaggerated as a threat with their poor return game). The Armageddon Wimbledon feared never materialized. As for the second aspect, bad bounce was the reason older players also mentioned as the incentive to serve and volley. But the skills to do so without getting burnt by returns/passing shots was already getting elusive by the early noughties. Wimbledon feared that top tennis players would not fare well going forward at their tournament and decided to accommodate them (as well as spectators and viewers, more importantly) by slowing down the conditions. I understand why they had to do what they did; but for those reasons I disagree when people say Wimbledon never sold out. They caved in to commercial imperatives. Had to if they wanted to offer prize money that would attract the best tennis talent in the field.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
I wonder if it was just the surface or players gradually adapting to the new rules because we had the 2002 horror show before that. Anyway, from a spectator's point of view, 2004 was the last grass court-like year at Wimbledon. Surprisingly, the women's tour produced a classic final in 2006 but it was just an outlier. Venus too did some net rushing against Bartoli in 2007 IIRC. Bizarre contrast with the long rallies Fedal were playing. Brilliant tennis of the highest level for sure but Wimbledon's unique flavour was gone.
Click to expand...
surface definitely slowed from 03/04 (which was sped up in response to 2002). Several players commented on it around the 05-10 period I think.

In general sure maybe 90's Wimbledon was a little too serve dominated but you still had to bring other skills to win. Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Sampras, Krajiceck won all the Wimbledons in the 90's. All those guys had to bring skills other than the serve to win. Guys like Henman/Rafter were rewarded for airtight serve and volley play without big serves. Those guys would get massacred today. Goran got his servebotting but it was one year and that Wimbledon is still the best in recent memory so I don't think anyone should be complaining. 1998 final was the only low point, but that's one match and like I said Wimbledon has to be different from the rest of the year. So we got one servebot final, big deal. Rather watch that than a grindfest which is equally as boring and takes two more hours. And anyways, even if they had slowed it down from the 90's and kept it at 03-04 speed no one would be complaining. This is far too much.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
I agree to some extent with the first point (though in any case the likes of Karlovic were exaggerated as a threat with their poor return game). The Armageddon Wimbledon feared never materialized. As for the second aspect, bad bounce was the reason older players also mentioned as the incentive to serve and volley. But the skills to do so without getting burnt by returns/passing shots was already getting elusive by the early noughties. Wimbledon feared that top tennis players would not fare well going forward at their tournament and decided to accommodate them (as well as spectators and viewers, more importantly) by slowing down the conditions. I understand why they had to do what they did; but for those reasons I disagree when people say Wimbledon never sold out. They caved in to commercial imperatives. Had to if they wanted to offer prize money that would attract the best tennis talent in the field.
Click to expand...
I get the reason for the initial slowdown. But then they made another one to help every Tom Dick and Harry baseliner. It's unrecognizable today compared to even Federer's first 2 runs, much less before that.
 
Wimbledon is the epitome of class and grace.

It does not need to besmirch its fine courts with hideous advertising logos.

That is one of the reasons why it remains revered as the cathedral and pinnacle of tennis.

So be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Is Wimbledon the only remaining major that plays (weather issues aside) 5 sets men's doubles?
 
metsman said:
Exactly, Wimbledon (and the London WTF) are the primary culprits of the slowcourt ball bashing era. AO/FO mostly are what they have been, some changes but nothing major. USO is still slower, but at least the general playstyles have not changed much, aggressive baselining is rewarded. That leaves Wimbledon, where there is no more hint of serve/volley or all court play in later rounds aside from Federer occasionally doing it the past couple years. And WTF, where they have replaced a fast indoor court that was basically the USO without wind or conditions which allowed attacking tennis at its finest and now have turned it into another mosh pit.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

03/04 levels seemed a little faster. From 05 is when they slowed it down further.
 
skip1969 said:
It's way more obnoxious these days, but back in the day the RG backdrop was more monochromatic.

150603145657-steffi-graf-french-open-super-169.jpg


304_CHRIS_EVERT_A_ROLAND_GARROS_EN_1986_BLOC_NOTES_20_%C2%A9_GERARD_VANDYSTADT_2013_AGENCE_REGARDS_DU_SPORT_TENNIS_DES_PHOTOGRAPHES_REF_8EME_PARTIE_8_14_ILLUSTRATIONS_584_585.jpg
Click to expand...
Man, you can't beat those Ellesse outfits from the 80's.
 
They also have a shop where they sell things. Not a very classy thing to do. And I hear the strawberries and cream are overpriced.
 
Jackuar said:
@OP.. Your own post answers your question. Just look at that picture... Sheer beauty and serenity! Who in their right minds would want to spoil that... And the brits here certainly are right minded.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you.

A lot of beautiful cities in Europe prefer not to have huge McDo or KFC humongous billboards. They are usually small logos and hardly noticeable so that they don't spoil the beautiful architecture of the cities/towns.
 
Because Wimbledon has class. The BBC has class. its not all about profit.

The polar opposite is the USOpen and US tv in general - its all crass commercialism, dumbing everything down and catering to the lowest denominator.

Can you imagine tennis without Wimbledon, or any sort of serious news/documentaries without BBC. The channels which are supposed to be about that in the US (Discovery, Hostory, Science) are an utter joke full of garbage reality shows and dumb nonsense.
 
Wasn't the slowing down of the courts due to the deterioration of the surface at the end of the tournament? The consequence of which was not foreseen.
 
Zoolander said:
If only the FO used all that BNP advertising revenue to put a goddam roof over their centre court, so that when it rained or the wind blows like last night the court doesnt become a windswept dust blown hell hole!
Click to expand...
Somehow don't like the roof over GS events. Just my thing. For the amount of money given out they should play with the elements unless it can hurt them physically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top