It's time to speed things up, it really is

First topic message reminder :

David Ferrer, the ironman of tennis who cycles 90 miles per day through winter as training gets cramp today after lung bursting ralleys where neither man could hit winners due to retrieval and ralleying qualities in a 2.5 hr match that was just 3 sets.

During the match, Roddick, Karlovic, Darren Cahill and others tweeted:

ARod: I've seen everything now.... David ferrer cramping. I thought they would find Hoffa first
ARod: Conditions too slow...Guys dying playing 3 sets. So slow. Makes it impossible to hit winners which results in messed up winners/errors ratio

Karlovic: Men and women play with different balls. Men much slower balls...
Karlovic: Court and balls in Miami are too slow to play entertaining tennis. There is no winners, just unforced errors.
Karlovic: Playing on clay this week. Finally some faster courts..

Cahill: I take that 5 set final idea back. 3 sets of that style of tennis on these slow hard-courts is plenty. Well done to Muzza

Gilbert: Great effort from the Muzzard to get it done Winning Ugly
Gilbert: I have never seen Little beast Ferrerrr cramp in a 3 set match

Sergiy Stakhovsky : Ferrer & Murray both 0 aces in 3 sets..does that says something about the speed of the court & balls???

How many more pros does it take to complain about low quality and grind-fests before something is done! What do you think? Its been often cited that the 90's Wimbledon matches between Ivanisevic and Sampras, particularly the 94 Final, jump started this whole process of slowing down conditions towards surface homogenization. ATP have sat back seeing racquets get bigger, strings stiffer, balls larger and surfaces slower...and done nothing whilst ralleys have got longer and longer. All they have done is to reign in the 25s rule when conditions ate getting interminable. It smacks of rearranging deck chairs on the proverbial...

Do low quality, grind-fest matches like Murray-Ferrer (and even Djokovic-Murray, Nadal-Djokovic) prove that the ITF/ATP/WTA need to seriously consider speeding up some of the ridiculously slow conditions on tour such as AO, IW, Miami, etc, to bring back some much needed surface variety and hence balance? If not we're just going to get even more counterpunch ping-pong grind-fest finals on slow-as-treacle hardcourts - on clay ok, it's a surface that is challenging for movement and point building, but not on hard court where sliding movement is restricted and conditions even slower and high bouncing. What gives...

I wish I could say what I think... sigh.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Basically, banbro, it sound like you will agree with any ex-pro, as long as they say something that matches your existing opinion, otherwise they're biased, talentless and stupid, and should be ignored. OK, we get it.

No. Wrong again.

First because I have no great issue with the faster condtions argument - I just have the nerve to think it's getting a little too shrill (how dare I ) i.e are we really doomed if things don't change.

Secondly - I'll agree with an ex-pro who doesn't have a bias one way or another due to their limitations. I'm very cynical about ex-players, particualrly those with celebrity status - who suddenly have criticisms to make. How come Roddick said very little from

Last time I looked Willander, Courier and Agassi all won majors on fast and slow courts - hence have a more neutral and balanced view

Going the other way, I'm also suspicous of Rafa's comments which appeared to coincide remarkably with his need to really just play on clay

I think Nadal enjoys faster conditions to, as long as they bounce agreeably. After all, he made the third round of Wimbledon at seventeen, and Pushed Hewitt to five sets on the old rebound-ace at 18.

Actually a very good article Lyd, indeed a very brave article inspite of knowing the backlash expected in this forum

I did't see the match coz I know what would be the state of the match, but damn surprised to know that Ferrer cramped in the end and thats clearly tells something is wrong with the tournament, no wonder both Fed and Rafa skipped it .

Hardcourts should remain hardcourts and it should be fast, slow hard courts are meaningless, if Miami cannot speed up the courts then better it be converted to clay, atleast we will have some meaningful master before FO.

Seriously there is no point in having such a slow hard court before a clay slam.

Murray himself says neither of them played their best and he scrapped in the end however, if neither of them able to produce their best tennis in a masters final it shows the conditions and criteria associated with the final weren't the best and hence the best tennis not offered to the public.

I think Roger Federer is right and Andy Murray was hinting at the same in one of his post-match interviews in Miami. More speedy courts would be good (in moderation) but as Andy said it is a tough balancing act getting court speeds spot on and socal taps into it as well.

I would like to see at least one tournament come up with a lightening quick surface and see what comes from it. However, socal makes a very pertinent point in that if you do it wide scale with racquets in use today we will be back to the terrible serve dominated matches we had in the 1990's. Raonic becoming a multi-slam champion beating the next best server in the finals 22-20 or more in the final set with two shot rallies at best. No thanks.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Murray himself says neither of them played their best and he scrapped in the end however, if neither of them able to produce their best tennis in a masters final it shows the conditions and criteria associated with the final weren't the best and hence the best tennis not offered to the public.

To which the only solution would is to move it to the middle of the Sahara where there is no (or little wind) and no humidity

Or just accept that we had a 'perfect storm' to explain the turgid nature of the match, slow condtions created by the weather and two of the best returners in the game - meaning the serve could never take hold and hence neither player ever be confident

Different balls would help - but if then it ever becomes dry and hot (rarely I appreciate) you've suddenly gone back to the conditons Karlovic would like

CaledonianCraig wrote:Raonic becoming a multi-slam champion beating the next best server in the finals 22-20 or more in the final set with two shot rallies at best. No thanks.

Ditto

But Lyon was lightning fast, CC, guess what happened there? Changed surfaces.

But I think people underestimate the impact of ball pressure.
Also, determining court speed takes guess work, even with the best technology around.

kingraf wrote:If anything, Lydian, homogenous conditions have done the opposite Re: skill set.

Of the top 10, only Ferrer has a serve which prohibits him from coasting a match.
Of the top 10, name me one player who doesnt have a wing that could stand up to any player in history.
The movement these guys are in possession of is purely on another level, including RFed.
But of course, they cant volley as well, thus they are worse tennis artisans. *yawn*.

Exactly, people forget how often you had players in the serve and volley era who hid weak backhands and and weak forehands. Could you imagine a coach teaching Mcenroe or Connors forehand to anyone today and yet retaining his job. The fast conditions proponents forget that the vallhala they describe existed on tour in the lat 90s and fans started to leave the sport, the business people involved realized that power serving and quick point tennis was killing the popularity of the game. Wimbeldon frankly was nearly unwatchable. They slowed the conditions down for a reason to make the game more watchable for the fans, and outside of ex-606 world you don't here fans complaining and you see more and more money coming into the sport at the highest levels.

And who said anything about the USO slowing down, according to the USO people they slowed the courts down in 2003 and have maintained the same speed ever since. But there seems to be this idea that courts just keep getting slower and slower, the conditions and technology has been pretty stable now for years. Now after a major change a decade ago that has seen the game regain popularity and has seen a decade of great matches, some of the greatest of all time, what should we do. Speed up the conditions and ban technology, if you produced the same conditions of the late 90s today with the bigger stronger players of today you will see the most unwatchable Isneresque tennis in the history of mankind. I don't oppose minor tweeks at a few tournaments but anything major and we will ruin what we have.

Personally, I think there is a window of opportunity for the upcoming new grass court tournament at Stuttgart in a year or two's time. Hopefully, they go for a faster surface than Wimbledon but have my doubts as I have read that they will be getting help with the courts from Wimbledon groundsmen/officials.

Actually Socal has a point - the reason for the slow conditions has been the appalling weather of the last 5 years

Go to New York in July and it becomes the fastest slam

This is the issue - we can do as much as we want to speed up /slow down conditions - but the weather has a very big voice

Remember, the match started at 11.30am Miami time. Extremely unusual for a final to start at that time. I'm led to believe the start time was due to it being a big Basketball day in the US and tv companies dictated it.

In the semis, the Gasquet match was played in the evening with less humidity and the conditions were faster and there were winners galore!

I fully agree that a few more fast tournaments would improve the game. But I think the reason the final played out like it did was poor scheduling as much as anything.

Those were the days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jur1hp7Xng

You can produce beautiful tennis on a slow court.

But whatever the court speed natural surfaces are best

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Raonic becoming a multi-slam champion beating the next best server in the finals 22-20 or more in the final set with two shot rallies at best. No thanks.

Ditto

Well thats what called variety, one super fast surface, 1 super slow surface and some medium surface, ATP get the blame if they try to give the variety like this and they get the blame if they homogenize the surface for a game like what we saw yesterday, really ATP would be wondering what they could do right.

Paris is no longer fast, it may have been circa 2009-2010.

2009 - Hard, Gerflor - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2009/352/mds.pdf
2010 - Hard, Greenset on Boards - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2010/352/mds.pdf
2011 - Hard, Acrylic on Wood - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2011/352/mds.pdf
2012 - Hard, Acrylic on Wood - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2012/352/mds.pdf

Dubai, Cinci, Queens, Halle, Den Bosch, Newport are probably the remaining 'fastish' courts. I do not know about Eastbourne, but assume it is fastish as well.

Basel perhaps. Rotterdam changed it's surface from 2009, IIRC.

There should be a balance.

Danny_1982 wrote:Remember, the match started at 11.30am Miami time. Extremely unusual for a final to start at that time. I'm led to believe the start time was due to it being a big Basketball day in the US and tv companies dictated it.

In the semis, the Gasquet match was played in the evening with less humidity and the conditions were faster and there were winners galore!

I fully agree that a few more fast tournaments would improve the game. But I think the reason the final played out like it did was poor scheduling as much as anything.

US media has given a shiit to Tennis matches in spite of Tennis being a core sport in its tradition.

The best solution might be to keep the masters in rotation as well, so the poorest masters by TV ratings and fan turn up lose its status to 500 and the best 500 gets elevated to masters, bit like an EPL round robin and kick off style

This time of year the whole country gets into college basketball, tennis is a minority sport that draws reasonably well but is hurt in the US by the fact that no American male stars challenge for big honors. Frankly I was surprised that with no Nadal, no fed, and no US player that they even put this match on CBS which is one of the three major broadcast networks. If anything that is a sign of respect as usually masters events don't get much broadcast TV coverage at all. And no way any tennis event will outdraw March Madness and the NCAA tourament.

Maybe they should get a buzzer and when enough fans press the buzzer because of boredom the match ends and they lose all prize money? That would teach them to play faster... sorry I mean more entertainingly.

Personally, if they tweeked a few of the balls and courts at a couple of events I don't really care that much. And I would support having some more grass tournaments and a proper grass court season. But major changes like those we saw a decade ago would completely ruin the game as players are getting stronger and taller. You think Murray v. Ferrer is bad, I'd love to see Raonic v. Isner at a new speedy wimbeldon. I hope you enjoy 40-0 service holds.

A question that has to be asked as well is who would benefit from universally speeded up courts?

I am sure the answers you would get would be the likes of Milos Raonic and John Isner. But if you were to do a straw poll of who were the most talented players around at the moment then I am certain these two wouldn't even make the top ten. That being the case would universally speeded up courts give us slam winners who have the most tennis talent? I would say not.

Socal - I agree with you. A few faster tournies would be good, and certainly more grass tournies... But it only needs tweaking because the game is in good shape in my opinion.

I find it interesting that in general fans of tennis are always after change. I'm sure a lot of it is due in some part to trying to find conditions to suit their own favourite player. But there seems to be an appetite for continuous overhaul.

I find it quite fascinating. Some want thing more like the old days, some want new rules invented, some claim tennis is on the verge of dying if there isn't an overhaul. Everyone is entitled to those opinions by the way.... But I do find it fascinating that this is a sport so many are clearly in love with, and yet in some ways so unhappy with its current structure.

kingraf wrote:My *yawn* is actually directed at fans who believe the volleying is the Holy Grail of tennis skills. I mean if it is so difficult then why could Novak and Rafa improve theirs so much? And yet Llodra still cant get a groundstroke that allows him to consistently compete, despite the notion that all you need to do to improve your groundstrokes now is clock some miles and get fitter.

From a financial point tennis is at an all-time high. I understand why people want some change, but the game wont fall on its sword if it doesnt happen.

You're not serious are you?

Watch some Henman or Edberg if you want o see proper lol eying. There's nobody around today plays it at that level, and what a surprise given even the names you mention are wary of going there repeatedly.

I think llodra is a fantastic volleyer BB and arguably it is harder today which makes it all the more impressive that he got as high as 21 in the world.

On the flipside you could say they would have done better than that but who knows.

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Raonic becoming a multi-slam champion beating the next best server in the finals 22-20 or more in the final set with two shot rallies at best. No thanks.

Ditto

We all ditto a strawman argument.

It really isn't the only option you know. You should by now, you try this one just about every time this is debated.

BB, Roger himself is not calling for a wide scale going back to all-fast courts. Murray as well has said more fast courts would be nice but again it is not that they want things back a la the 1990's (god forbid). I think posters have all been unaminous on this thread that it would be nice to have a few quicker courts but I don't think anyone wants a full transformation.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A question that has to be asked as well is who would benefit from universally speeded up courts?

I am sure the answers you would get would be the likes of Milos Raonic and John Isner. But if you were to do a straw poll of who were the most talented players around at the moment then I am certain these two wouldn't even make the top ten. That being the case would universally speeded up courts give us slam winners who have the most tennis talent? I would say not.

Perhaps the OP is thinking about future players, not just the current crop?

And there you go with your universally speeded courts again. Can't you recognise there's a place between two extremes?
If as you say nobody is calling or this, why do you insist on using it as the only alternative to the ridiculous current position?

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A question that has to be asked as well is who would benefit from universally speeded up courts?

I am sure the answers you would get would be the likes of Milos Raonic and John Isner. But if you were to do a straw poll of who were the most talented players around at the moment then I am certain these two wouldn't even make the top ten. That being the case would universally speeded up courts give us slam winners who have the most tennis talent? I would say not.

Perhaps the OP is thinking about future players, not just the current crop?

And there you go with your universally speeded courts again. Can't you recognise there's a place between two extremes?
If as you say nobody is calling or this, why do you insist on using it as the later native to the ridiculous current position?

Yes of course there is and I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. Well if you can find me pros at the moment screaming for 1990's style court speeds then please lets see them or any pundits calling for the same? Would you like an en-mass return to 1990's court speeds?

What?

Truly, I give up.

I don't see what you are amazed about. Posters on here are all unaminously in favour of faster courts but not universally I would certainly say. Federer himself has said the same as has Murray earlier this week. Now it is purely up to the powers that be to decide the next course of action and the players have to make the best of it.

If people want a mass return to speeds circa the 1990's then they will be disappointed. As socal says the new racquets would make super fast courts nothing more than a pure serve game a la those tedious serve-fests of the 1990's at Wimbledon. Please god - no thank you.

Danny_1982 wrote:Socal - I agree with you. A few faster tournies would be good, and certainly more grass tournies... But it only needs tweaking because the game is in good shape in my opinion.

I find it interesting that in general fans of tennis are always after change. I'm sure a lot of it is due in some part to trying to find conditions to suit their own favourite player. But there seems to be an appetite for continuous overhaul.

I find it quite fascinating. Some want thing more like the old days, some want new rules invented, some claim tennis is on the verge of dying if there isn't an overhaul. Everyone is entitled to those opinions by the way.... But I do find it fascinating that this is a sport so many are clearly in love with, and yet in some ways so unhappy with its current structure.

Good post Danny, that is what always confuses me, a lot of the people who complain about how awful tennis today is are the same ones posting religiously and watching religiously and this has been going on for years. Personally, I would like a few more grass court events of value and maybe quicken up the balls and courts at some other events. I don't think you will see better tennis at those events, ie the Dubai borefest that we witness all the time where fast weather conditions and quick courts produce pretty dull tennis year in and year out or cincy where I think we see the dullest of all masters events on average year in and year out. But I would support the change if for no other reason because we might get less complaining from the purest. But if we try to recreate the conditions of the 90s with today's athletes we would see the worst and most unwatchable tennis in history. As Born Slippy showed players are holding at a higher rate than in the past and they are more ripped and taller by modest amounts, if you try to recreate 90s conditions today it will be a snoozefest of 40-0 service games as far as the eye can see.

bogbrush wrote:What?

Truly, I give up.

I sometimes wonder if you're just getting deliberately cantankerous in your older age

Myself, Socal and CC have all agreed that a few more faster courts / conditions are needed. CC stated this about four comments ago

I get the impression that you agree?

So I don't understand your issue

Banbro and Craig, the changes proposed by Lydian and BB do not bring more variety. They support banning racquets that help the returners more, banning strings that help baseliners more, and speeding up all the courts through technology changes to morph conditions back to 90s and worse. I have had this discussion with them, they say they want more variety but banning technology across the board gives the servers and attackers an edge at EVERY TOURNAMENT OVER what we have now.

BB has always been cantankerous in my years of talking to him, but maybe that is just a reaction to my winning charm and diplomatic approach?

Well I posed a question earlier so will put this to Lydian:-

Which current players would benefit from speeding up courts and outlawing modern racquets? Who would become slam contenders?

Danny/socal/CC/banbrotam - so things are just perfect right now? is it such a crime to request changes that are so obviously needed? Re: changes, I don't get this polarity thing. Where is anyone suggesting we carpet the whole ATP tour into glasslike surfaces? Besides which if you believed Socal we're almost at 100% holds anyway. Socal, another wonderful strawman you built there about ALL changes made together. Edward Woodward would be proud of the size of a whickerman you could build.

Almost every article you can find on the topic, every pro or ex-pro interview talks about stopping the current uniformity, not speeding EVERYTHING up. Banbrotam mentions that he would listen more if rallying greats such as Wilander, Agassi and Courier spoke up about it. Actually they have been outspoken.

Courier in 2011:
The game has become more physical, the athletes are more physical, they are taller, stronger and faster; the game is elevated, partially because the equipment has made it easier for the athletes to play at a quicker rhythm......The only thing missing is some variety of court speeds so that we could see more of a variety of play, like the serve and volley. Those guys could be more successful if the courts were faster.

Wilander in 2010
WIMBLEDON's slowing grass courts are hastening the end of serve-volley in tennis, according to former world No.1 Mats Wilander. "I'm personally very disappointed (at) the way they are making Wimbledon these days. We're slowly losing the style of playing tennis which is the serve and volley." Wilander, Sweden's non-playing captain for this weekend's Davis Cup World Group playoff tie with India in New Delhi, said ideally players should mix serve and volley with a solid baseline game. "But we are slowly losing that because the grass courts in Wimbledon are getting slower and slower," said the 41-year-old, winner of seven grand slam titles in the 1980s.

Ok Mats is talking about grass but the point about slowing remains and he'd like a mix of S&V and baseline play there...and if at Wimb then the point stands for USO too. Courier is much clearer on the need to mx it up more.

Why do people keep bringing up the strawman 90s acefest argument? If you turn up the speed dial a couple of clicks you don't immediately go from 30+ shot ralleys to 30+ aces. It's a very lame and lazy counter argument.

Re:Cincy, the humidity there in summer is truly awful, oppressive and just as bad as Miami. I don't buy there's much difference. A faster surface is a faster surface. We've seen that IW is much slower this year already...does it take a neurosurgeon to work out that Miami might have gone down a similar path also?

For the future of the game and to stop degeneration into WTA tennis something needs to be done to restore a mix of styles on tour. But it's more than that, we need a catalyst for coaches to start teaching a wider range of skills before the tour loses a whole generation of guys who were highly adept upfront.

I love it when Sampras was asked about his style of play still cutting it today:
"I would play the same, I would get in (into net), chip and charge, put pressure on these guys, its just the only way I know how to play, I'm just all about coming in...My game would hold up in any generation I feel, like when I was at my best I felt unbeatable, technology's changed, its helped guys return a little bit but it would also help me out so it sort of evens out, MAN I LOVE GUYS STAYING BACK I JUST LICK MY CHOPS"

You have to love the predatory nature of those bolded words. The game is poorer without the ultra-aggressive guys like Sampras around. A bit more variety won't do any harm because I do not want to see many more ralleyfest dual counterpunch Murray-Ferrer finals. The future of our game needs something restoring...we can't change racquets that much, the cat is out the bag (although strings I have an issue with) but we can speed some conditions at some events to encourage the guys to get off that baseline!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Which current players would benefit from speeding up courts and outlawing modern racquets? Who would become slam contenders?

Can't answer that as have neither suggested that but hey please continue the hyperbole.

lydian wrote:Danny/socal/CC/banbrotam - so things are just perfect right now? is it such a crime to request changes that are so obviously needed? Re: changes, I don't get this polarity thing. Where is anyone suggesting we carpet the whole ATP tour into glasslike surfaces? Besides which if you believed Socal we're almost at 100% holds anyway. Socal, another wonderful strawman you built there about ALL changes made together. Edward Woodward would be proud of the size of a whickerman you could build.

Almost every article you can find on the topic, every pro or ex-pro interview talks about stopping the current uniformity, not speeding EVERYTHING up. Banbrotam mentions that he would listen more if rallying greats such as Wilander, Agassi and Courier spoke up about it. Actually they have been outspoken.

Courier in 2011:
The game has become more physical, the athletes are more physical, they are taller, stronger and faster; the game is elevated, partially because the equipment has made it easier for the athletes to play at a quicker rhythm......The only thing missing is some variety of court speeds so that we could see more of a variety of play, like the serve and volley. Those guys could be more successful if the courts were faster.

Wilander in 2010
WIMBLEDON's slowing grass courts are hastening the end of serve-volley in tennis, according to former world No.1 Mats Wilander. "I'm personally very disappointed (at) the way they are making Wimbledon these days. We're slowly losing the style of playing tennis which is the serve and volley." Wilander, Sweden's non-playing captain for this weekend's Davis Cup World Group playoff tie with India in New Delhi, said ideally players should mix serve and volley with a solid baseline game. "But we are slowly losing that because the grass courts in Wimbledon are getting slower and slower," said the 41-year-old, winner of seven grand slam titles in the 1980s.

Ok Mats is talking about grass but the point about slowing remains and he'd like a mix of S&V and baseline play there...and if at Wimb then the point stands for USO too. Courier is much clearer on the need to mx it up more.

Why do people keep bringing up the strawman 90s acefest argument? If you turn up the speed dial a couple of clicks you don't immediately go from 30+ shot ralleys to 30+ aces. It's a very lame and lazy counter argument.

Re:Cincy, the humidity there in summer is truly awful, oppressive and just as bad as Miami. I don't buy there's much difference. A faster surface is a faster surface. We've seen that IW is much slower this year already...does it take a neurosurgeon to work out that Miami might have gone down a similar path also?

For the future of the game and to stop degeneration into WTA tennis something needs to be done to restore a mix of styles on tour. But it's more than that, we need a catalyst for coaches to start teaching a wider range of skills before the tour loses a whole generation of guys who were highly adept upfront.

I love it when Sampras was asked about his style of play still cutting it today:
"I would play the same, I would get in (into net), chip and charge, put pressure on these guys, its just the only way I know how to play, I'm just all about coming in...My game would hold up in any generation I feel, like when I was at my best I felt unbeatable, technology's changed, its helped guys return a little bit but it would also help me out so it sort of evens out, MAN I LOVE GUYS STAYING BACK I JUST LICK MY CHOPS"

You have to love the predatory nature of those bolded words. The game is poorer without the ultra-aggressive guys like Sampras around. A bit more variety won't do any harm because I do not want to see many more ralleyfest dual counterpunch Murray-Ferrer finals. The future of our game needs something restoring...we can't change racquets that much, the cat is out the bag (although strings I have an issue with) but we can speed some conditions at some events to encourage the guys to get off that baseline!

Lydian, read the posts on this thread. Myself, banbro, socal and others have all said more fast courts would be fine so can't see what else you are objecting to that we have said. Like I said it is up to the powers that be who decide court speeds.

CC, this is my thread, I've read the posts.
Its the other way round, perhaps had you not misread my position and jumped to strawman conclusions about universal court changes a number of posts would have been saved.
Balls need to be made lighter in general, most HC surfaces (but not all) need less sand in the paint, grass needs to speed up 20%, yes - strings should be controlled - hybrids only and tensions above 50 lbs. I'm not too fussed about racquets.

Yes it's up to the powers but how are they going to change unless others complain at current conditions?

Fair enough but again it comes down to the powers that be. What was the reasons that you feel caused the changes in early to mid-2000's? Was that because of people complaining or was it generally seen by the powers that be that tennis was just not entertaining enough and so decided off their own bat? If it is the latter then they will seemingly only change things if they think we are at a similar stage now.

I would love a few more fast surfaces with variety so can't see I am that far away from what you are asking for. My terror is returning to a time when tennis was all about serve - no crime in that is there?

lydian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Which current players would benefit from speeding up courts and outlawing modern racquets? Who would become slam contenders?

Can't answer that as have neither suggested that but hey please continue the hyperbole.

CC, all I can say is Lyd is never a fan of Fed, so don't expect an answer for this question to be Fed, and Lyd's point of view is not in support to his favorite player its about general growing concern about monotonous tour.

If it comes across to the ATP that it is a monotonous tour then changes will be made as they were in the early to mid-2000's. If not then perhaps they don't see it as monotonous?

CaledonianCraig wrote:If it comes across to the ATP that it is a monotonous tour then changes will be made as they were in the early to mid-2000's. If not then perhaps they don't see it as monotonous?

The problem is people oppose variety , like for instance you said you can't see Raonic winning a slam 22-20 in the final set by more aces than his opponent, well if some surface happens to be lighting fast then this could easily be the result, so ATP gets the blame whether they bring the variety or keep it monotonous , they might bring in variety in the future but that won't cease people from complaining. I don't think so ATP can do something to make everybody satisfied.

Oh I know ic. I think a starting point is to make Stuttgart (the new grass court tournament) fastest grass court in the world and see how that goes down.

Thanks IC, I am giving balanced views, as a Nadal fan you might think I'd prefer slower conditions but my passion for tennis bigger than any one player. Besides, Nadal likes it a bit quicker anyway contrary to popular belief. But that's not the point. It's about variety...and that's all guys like Roddick are asking for before people jump down his throat about what a crap player he was.

In terms of who would benefit - everyone! More mixing up means that tennis skills evolve more, you get more contrasts, players dont grind themselves into the earth, TDs get shorter matches so less scheduling headaches and the tennis is more interesting.

CC, I think we'll be getting to the point soon where ATP starts to act, the opinions being voiced are getting more frequent and from a broader set of players. But we won't go back to 90s conditions...changes to racquets and strings alone make returning much easier even if we went back to the same speeds, which we won't. However, people need to realise just how far the speed index has slipped, it's huge.

Must admit I didn't enjoy the suffering Ferrer and Murray went through and would blame the court speed/conditions for that. Yes Murray won but it was uncomfortable viewing for me. It may be the court speed coupled with Murray's rank serving I don't know.

Yes, I really believe people will look back on this period as the 90's serve fests are; something just went way too far.

Stuttgart is good but its not perfect.
We lose a clay event and gain grass.
I'd rather we lost a HC to gain grass, too much slow cement abounds.

Yep IW and Miami are likely to be tipping points I suspect.

lydian wrote:CC, this is my thread, I've read the posts.
Its the other way round, perhaps had you not misread my position and jumped to strawman conclusions about universal court changes a number of posts would have been saved.
Balls need to be made lighter in general, most HC surfaces (but not all) need less sand in the paint, grass needs to speed up 20%, yes - strings should be controlled - hybrids only and tensions above 50 lbs. I'm not too fussed about racquets.

Yes it's up to the powers but how are they going to change unless others complain at current conditions?

I would support all the changes you want to make short of any changes to the strings, racquets, and tension. This provides a structural speeding up at all tournaments and in my opinion would result in a worse situation than the 90s not just as bad. That is why I have said, incremental changes to the courts and the balls are fine. No where did I create a strawman, the changes you want to make to technology WOULD APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD, therefore they would not support variety but would just be giving an edge to the attacker at all tournaments whether they would be clay, grass, or hardcourt. And in conjunction with the other changes in question would make it worse than the 90s. Now where is the strawman argument? I just went line by line and went off what you posted. You want to make the balls lighter, speed up the courts, and impose technology changes that favor the attacker ACROSS THE BOARD AT ALL EVENTS. The last part is the only place I have a dispute. Also I would make these changes slowly and incrementally. I don't know why you are getting so accusatory in your last long post.

lydian wrote:Stuttgart is good but its not perfect.
We lose a clay event and gain grass.
I'd rather we lost a HC to gain grass, too much slow cement abounds.

Well it is the only one changing its surface so it does have a chance to be extra adventurous and make the grass courts the quickest in the world. Somehow I don't think it will happen though as reports suggest the Stuttgart officials will take tips on the surface from Wimbledon officials and groundsmen.

Everyone seems to agree that some faster HC tournies and some faster grass tournies would be good for the game.

It seems where people disagree is where tennis is right now. Some people think the game is in trouble and desperately needs this change. Others - like me - think tennis is in a pretty good place and these changes would be improving an already good product.

Apart from that difference if opinion, we all seem to be agreeing (although you'd think we were arguing) what changes we'd like made. The only problem is.... I don't think there will be that much change. I think tournaments will be too worried that their tournament will be the fast one that goes by without any drama and without long dramatic rallies.