Nadal has a shockingly self-serving agenda

First topic message reminder :

He wanted two-year rankings.

He has recently opposed the 25 second rule, on very honest terms (I can't play like that).

Now he wants fewer hard court events, wrongly arguing they shorten careers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21436925

I don't know about others, but this really tarnishes his image in my opinion. No wonder he ended up off the Council. I accept he says he won't see it in his career, but that might not be his belief.
The facts go against him. As we know, there are more old players at the top of the game than at any time since the early 70's, I think, so where's this big need for fewer hard courts?

He can have his opinions, that's fine, but he'd come across more credibly if some of them were not in his interest.

Yeah right. So despite study evidence showing HCs cause more injuries than other surfaces, Nadal puts foot in mouth asking for fewer HCs...to reduce player injuries.

This is almost Sun-like...I can see the headline now... "Top player asks for fewer events on a surface thats known to cause more injuries shocker".

Absolutely spot on from Nadal.
We need more grass, more clay. Hard Courts have been proven to cause injuries, and Nadal is right to speak up.

According to my sources Nadal has also been privately complaining about the clay courts in Brazil, saying they are too slippery and could be dangerous for players. More to follow.

Not only is Nadal correct but he is brave! Calling for any sort of change will leave you open to criticism. Why risk criticism if you won't directly benefit from any changes. Far better to keep quiet and keep sweet smelling just like roses...

Also to clarify Nadal was protesting about hard courts because they are damaging not because of their speed. The surfaces he favors are grass that tends to be fast and clay that tends to be slow. He is not complaing about a specific speed of court or trying to promote a specific speed of court.

Even USTA, the overseer across so many HCs in the US, have this on their website in response to someone experiencing joint issues from playing HCs.

"Playing exclusively on hard courts forces your knees to take quite a beating. Either way your problem likely has to do with inflammation around the joint causing the stiffness you feel in the morning. You can stretch your quadriceps out regularly during the day (hold for at least 30 sec) as well as before and after you play. It is also beneficial to warm-up gradually before starting high level play. The USTA has developed a DVD of warm-up exercises that tennis players can perform to help get the body ready for tennis".

So is it really such a shock that USTA writing "hard courts forces your knees to take quite a beating" is linked to a pro player bemoaning risk of injury on them, and additionally given their preponderance? I think not.

lydian wrote:So is it really such a shock that USTA writing "hard courts forces your knees to take quite a beating" is linked to a pro player bemoaning risk of injury on them, and additionally given their preponderance? I think not.

No but it's a shock that Nadal would be seen scoring such a spectacular 'own goal'. Fact is comparing him on clay to hard courts is like comparing Messi with ... well not Messi.

Next we'll have Murray moaning about clay courts because the rallies last longer and you need greater endurance

Silly error from Rafa. He needs to get his head down. I mean nothing is going to change, so why even go there?

???
If clay courts were all changed to slow 'purple clay' (perhaps a new Tiriac idea?), which all caused injury to the body, and this surface was used throughout the ATP tour, wouldn't Murray be right to speak out against it?
As for your 'nothing is going to change, so why even go there?' line, that's not what Nelson Mandela thought did he.

It Must Be Love wrote:According to my sources Nadal has also been privately complaining about the clay courts in Brazil, saying they are too slippery and could be dangerous for players. More to follow.

Also, he won't be playing in Chile.

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nadal does seem to favor changes that would favor him. The three mentioned by the OP are things that he would like and that would be better for his career. But in fairness the hardcourt thing is pretty true. I think actually hardcout tennis is the fairest and funnest to watch, I don't like seeing points decided on odd bounces and all the styles can play well on a hardcourt based on its speed and conditions. Also it is the cheapest and easiest to maintain. But frankly, it is freaking killing me. My massage therapist is breaking a sweat squeezing knots out of my body. I have plantar fascitis and sometimes my feet swell to the size of balloons after too many days of hardcourt play, never happens on clay. But I just like playing on a hardcourt more and the clubs clay courts are bit dodgy. The pounding though on a hardcourt is noticeably more. Still I don't know if we can really change that many of the hardcourt tournaments if at all.

socal. And you are not a pro. If it's "killing" you imagine what it's doing to those that spend so much time working on such a surface.

The game we know as tennis used to be known as "lawn" tennis. The surface it was to be played on was included in the name. All other playing surfaces were introduced presumably to make the courts cheaper and the game more accessible. Hard courts score highly for being cheaper and more accessible but lowly in terms of how damaging they are to play on. Clay courts fall somewhere in between Hard and Grass in all categories. At what point does cost become more important than potential damage? Could a synthetic court be developed that is less damaging? Should this push come not just from pro players but from recreational players too. It would be a shame if socal could no longer play because of hard court damage.

Hawkeye I doubt it would be noticed if I stopped playing by anyone but me, it would depress the hell out of me. But I also refuse to play doubles and in fairness should lose 20 pounds to play the way that I play and at the level I would like to play. If my club's clay courts were in better shape an other players wanted to play I would play on dirt. Actually hawkeye hardcourts are being made with more cushion and can be played with. But the more cushioned or rubberized the hardcourt surface the more it plays slowly like clay. The company that makes plexicushion also makes hardcourts two or three levels slower than the surface used at the AO, also softer and more rubberized. So making a hardcourt safter would involve making it slower as well.

The rubberised ones are meant to be even worse for injuries due to increased stickability.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:According to my sources Nadal has also been privately complaining about the clay courts in Brazil, saying they are too slippery and could be dangerous for players. More to follow.

Also, he won't be playing in Chile.

I addressed this earlier?
My sources heard Nadal's knee was hurting so assumed Nadal would pull out of Chile.
Nadal then came out a few hours later saying his knees were hurting (I can show you the link), but he would play anyway.

For all those studies, there don't seem to be many players off with these injuries and players are playing longer.

Doesn't that sound odd if hc is such a disaster?

If Rafa had never tried for two year ranking, or moaned about the time rule, I'd be forgetting it. It's the pattern of behaviour that has me sceptical about his motives.

bogbrush wrote:For all those studies, there don't seem to be many players off with these injuries and players are playing longer.

Doesn't that sound odd if hc is such a disaster?

If Rafa had never tried for two year ranking, or moaned about the time rule, I'd be forgetting it. It's the pattern of behaviour that has me sceptical about his motives.

I think many players were not happy with the time rule, not just Nadal. Funnily enough in Chile Nadal did speed his play up so he didn't break it anyway.
As for the two year ranking... I don't see why saying this makes Nadal such a villain? In golf they have four year rankings, Nadal thought tennis should go that way and make it two years rotation, I personally don't agree, but it's his opinion. Everyone is enetitled to their opinion.

Have to say I thought Chile looked ridiculously quick for a clay court when I watched it on Sunday. Oddly enough Zeballs's only other ATP final was indoors at quick St.Petersburg. I looked for Tiriac and a bag of salt in the crowd but couldnt see any handlebar 'tache's knocking about.

You're making it into a pattern of behaviour BB.
There are loads of instances of players going over on their ankles in HC events as there is no sliding at the end of runs, you see it all the time. Plus we don't know how many players are chronically carrying knee injuries from one event to the next. I bet more legs are strapped up than ever before.

Whilst I don't condone rule breaking I can see where he's coming from re:25 secs.

So where do you stand on the point that the 25secs limit was created back in the days of faster courts, so pro-rats for speed now we should be looking at 30secs? After all, you're always so vociferous on how slow courts are causing so much ralley-based tennis right?

lydian wrote:The rubberised ones are meant to be even worse for injuries due to increased stickability.

I have never played on a rubber-ized hardcourt just a regular but from my understanding only extreme heat (ie like Australian summers ironically enough) do increase that stickability factor you are talking about. In a more moderate climate like Europe or North American a rubberized hardcourt on most days would be less damaging than a regular hardcourt. Frankly, I would support an expanding of both grass and regular clay tournaments at the expense of some hardcourt tournaments. But the schedule is hard to do drastic things like that. I know hardcourts and playing back to back, or 3 nights in a row on hardcourts makes my body howl a lot worse than doing the same thing on clay. I don't need a study to tell me that either it is just fact running on concrete is not fun or good for you in large doses.

But the game needs to have hardcourts all the same, it is the cost and accessibility factor, simple economics.

Makes me ache too.
At the end of the day we have the Dubai/IW/Miami swing....then Canada/Cincy/Washington/USO swing...then Tokyo/Thai/China swing...then onto indoor Euro HC swing finishing with WTF. That's 4 different hardcourt periods in a year. It has got crazy...and I have no idea why people cannot agree with that. Probably because it would make them seem at odds with attacking Nadal for making such comments. Yet they know there are too many HCs. These guys play up to 4-5 hrs on bone jarring cement...sometimes every day for a week. In what other sport does that happen?

This NY Times article followed the end of USO last year...

Consider the guard officially changed. Novak Djokovic will now carry the day for the next one or two years on these unforgiving pavements, along with occasional guest appearances by Andy Murray, Juan Martin Del Potro and Berdych. Nadal will win two or three more French Opens. Federer will be a threat at Wimbledon, nowhere else. Andy Roddick has missed his time slot again.
This is not to disparage the two most brilliant players in the history of the sport. But despite Federer’s resilience and Nadal’s persistence, this pair now requires organic surfaces and cooler temperatures.

“Put it this way,” Brad Gilbert said . “How many sports do you know that they play on cement?”

The answer is none, really, that don’t involve wheels. It’s just not natural. You want to compete on cement, find a NASCAR sponsor or learn to flip on a skateboard.

Or play the U.S. Open.

The Open wasn’t always played on cement, of course. It started out on grass in Forest Hills and then went to clay in 1975 before settling on hard court in 1978. This was the surface that most American kids knew best, and it certainly suited the games of flat, hard hitters like Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi. Neither of those stars seemed to notice that their bodies were aging. Then again, Connors hadn’t played that many tournaments on hard courts when he was younger.

“I think the days of players lasting as long as Jimmy did are over, just because there’s more tennis on hard courts,” Lindsay Davenport said.

Agreed lydian, but it is very hard to change the schedule as a matter of principal. Maybe move cincy up in the schedule put it right behind wimbeldon and make it a masters on grass in the states. That ancient tournament was once played on grass, and it could be like the US grass court championship. I would support shifting a couple of tournaments to grass and a couple more to clay. I don't know why the last indoor season isn't just played on clay. I mean wouldn't be nice as a player after logging 70 matches to be able o play on soft clay to finish the season?

Put australia back on grass as well that is an obvious move that they could do hypothetically as well. But they still need to keep a large number of major hardcourt events at the end of it, but they could reduce it by like 4-5 weeks a season and it would help the players and we would hardly miss those tournaments.

Agree with all that, I don't see why YE WTF has to always be on HC.
Grass season is woefully short and clay outside core EU season is only for the die-hard claycourters.
HC tennis is all about FHs and serves, it always has been. It limits natural movement..sure lets have HC events of course but not a tour dominated by 80% of them.

Point is, what Nadal says is pretty much stating the obvious yet he gets tongue-lashed for it.

If federer's best surface right now was clay and he said so I doubt we would be seeing such a backlash from posters. That being said I disagree with nadal on his 2 year no 1 idea or his time between points resistance, so it does seem like a lot of the things he supports do seem to be things that favor him. I agree with reducing the hard court centric nature of the tour is good for the game I also think nadal speaks out for his own interest. And my response is so, that is basic human nature and not really bad either.

socal1976 wrote:If federer's best surface right now was clay and he said so I doubt we would be seeing such a backlash from posters. That being said I disagree with nadal on his 2 year no 1 idea or his time between points resistance, so it does seem like a lot of the things he supports do seem to be things that favor him. I agree with reducing the hard court centric nature of the tour is good for the game I also think nadal speaks out for his own interest. And my response is so, that is basic human nature and not really bad either.

For once I completely agree with Socal

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If federer's best surface right now was clay and he said so I doubt we would be seeing such a backlash from posters. That being said I disagree with nadal on his 2 year no 1 idea or his time between points resistance, so it does seem like a lot of the things he supports do seem to be things that favor him. I agree with reducing the hard court centric nature of the tour is good for the game I also think nadal speaks out for his own interest. And my response is so, that is basic human nature and not really bad either.

For once I completely agree with Socal

Becareful IC you start agreeing with me and where is that going to lead? But really I don't see him talking up rule changes that might help him, so what really? Roger speaks out people take notice and are generally supportive. And the reduction of hardcourt events really is long overdue.

socal1976 wrote:If federer's best surface right now was clay and he said so I doubt we would be seeing such a backlash from posters. That being said I disagree with nadal on his 2 year no 1 idea or his time between points resistance, so it does seem like a lot of the things he supports do seem to be things that favor him. I agree with reducing the hard court centric nature of the tour is good for the game I also think nadal speaks out for his own interest. And my response is so, that is basic human nature and not really bad either.

Great, but he doesn't always say its for him. If you're saying he says this for self interest you're saying he's a liar, because he claims these things are for others benefit.

It's a strawman to make his a debate about the right to an opinion, or even to self interest. This was about Rafa dressing things up as being for supporters, or other players. You appear to think he's not being straight about that.

lydian wrote:You're making it into a pattern of behaviour BB.
There are loads of instances of players going over on their ankles in HC events as there is no sliding at the end of runs, you see it all the time. Plus we don't know how many players are chronically carrying knee injuries from one event to the next. I bet more legs are strapped up than ever before.

Whilst I don't condone rule breaking I can see where he's coming from re:25 secs.

So where do you stand on the point that the 25secs limit was created back in the days of faster courts, so pro-rats for speed now we should be looking at 30secs? After all, you're always so vociferous on how slow courts are causing so much ralley-based tennis right?

There's an argument there but it doesn't convince me, mainly because I'd like to watch tennis, not points intervals so long commentators have to fill it with idiocy.

Fix the problem, don't accommodate it. Perhaps Rafa should be asking for fast courts? Has he said that yet?

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If federer's best surface right now was clay and he said so I doubt we would be seeing such a backlash from posters. That being said I disagree with nadal on his 2 year no 1 idea or his time between points resistance, so it does seem like a lot of the things he supports do seem to be things that favor him. I agree with reducing the hard court centric nature of the tour is good for the game I also think nadal speaks out for his own interest. And my response is so, that is basic human nature and not really bad either.

For once I completely agree with Socal

Becareful IC you start agreeing with me and where is that going to lead?

I find it hard to get upset with Rafa over this. I do not have data but it strikes me as fairly reasonable to assume HCs are harder on the body (e.g., one of the reasons why Muster focused so much on clay was that because of his injury HCs were too rough on his body).

Also I do not quite see how this one is all that selfish from him. It seems pretty clear that even if anything were to change, it would be after his career is done, or at best at the very tail end of it. If his view coincides with his interests, I would say in this case it is more likely because we all simply tend to see things from our perspective; and he will not be an exception. But that is different from being selfish about things.

That all said, and noting that I would love to see lawn tennis played on more grass courts, I doubt it is very realistic to see fewer HC tourneys. As was pointed out already, HCs are cheapest to maintain, they are closest to what amateurs can relate to, so I do not really see their dominance diminishing in future.

summerblues wrote:I find it hard to get upset with Rafa over this. I do not have data but it strikes me as fairly reasonable to assume HCs are harder on the body (e.g., one of the reasons why Muster focused so much on clay was that because of his injury HCs were too rough on his body).

Also I do not quite see how this one is all that selfish from him. It seems pretty clear that even if anything were to change, it would be after his career is done, or at best at the very tail end of it. If his view coincides with his interests, I would say in this case it is more likely because we all simply tend to see things from our perspective; and he will not be an exception. But that is different from being selfish about things.

That all said, and noting that I would love to see lawn tennis played on more grass courts, I doubt it is very realistic to see fewer HC tourneys. As was pointed out already, HCs are cheapest to maintain, they are closest to what amateurs can relate to, so I do not really see their dominance diminishing in future.

I have to agree with you on this summerblues ..when the first wheelchair/disabled entrance was introduced into a store are you telling me that if it was due to a complaint(s) by a disabled person(s) that it was not done with self-serving interests .or was it that in the long term it was to the benefit of all disabled people. I cannot believe that Rafa´s complaint was purely for the benefit of himself. As you have said and I also that if this reduction in hcs should ever happen in will be too late for Rafa. The damage for him has been done. It will in the end be to the benefit of all players. Rafa is being the mouthpiece (unwisely obviously) but I would suggest that there are other players who would if not publicly agree with him

Firsrt of all he wants to take as long as he wants in between serves, then he wants more clay court tournaments which are BORING.

If he wants fewer HC tournaments I'm sure he can just play fewer himself. Or tell you what, why doesn't he just adapt his game to suit the predominant surface on the tour. I don't see any other people complaining about the surface, perhaps because the poor little mite is a Darren Anderton.

Grow up you big surly faced baby.

Git.

super_realist wrote:Firsrt of all he wants to take as long as he wants in between serves, then he wants more clay court tournaments which are BORING.

If he wants fewer HC tournaments I'm sure he can just play fewer himself. Or tell you what, why doesn't he just adapt his game to suit the predominant surface on the tour. I don't see any other people complaining about the surface, perhaps because the poor little mite is a Darren Anderton.

Grow up you big surly faced baby.

Git.

You really do have a problem dont you and it is not with the subject of hard courts is it SR .. its with Nadal.
Suggestion.. dont watch clay court tournaments if you find them boring
You have an opinion fine.. but it is not necessary to be insulting.

No more than the fact that if someone dares to criticise him you fly into a baseless , one eyed and sycophantic defence of him. My dislike of the man is no different from your unflinching and rather concerning worship of the man.

Simply two different sides of the coin HE. The tennis boards, or any other boards have plenty room for praise and criticism. Without them there wouldn't be a forum, just an appreciation society. Nadal has (hard) courted criticism here, like it or not.

I also haven't been insulting.

One Im not HE if this is addressed to me Im H-N
Secondly if you cant see a glaring insult i.e. Grow up you big surly faced baby.
Git.

then you have answered up to the criticism.
So my unflinching worship of the man ( ) is only outmatched by your quite obvious hatred.
So I think we have that established at least .

Now moving on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

super_realist wrote:Firsrt of all he wants to take as long as he wants in between serves, then he wants more clay court tournaments which are BORING.

If he wants fewer HC tournaments I'm sure he can just play fewer himself. Or tell you what, why doesn't he just adapt his game to suit the predominant surface on the tour. I don't see any other people complaining about the surface, perhaps because the poor little mite is a Darren Anderton.

Grow up you big surly faced baby.

Git.

You do realise Nadal's game works perfectly well on hard courts. Just check his trophy cabinet and (cough) scalp cabinet...

Other people do complain. It's just that complaints by multi slam winning all time greats sound a little louder.

IMO every time Rafa complains about the damaging effects of hard courts he should do so whilst holding his hard court slam trophies and also giving withering looks to anyone he has beaten on that surface. Maybe there would be a few eyes tearing up at the memory... If so they should be told to grow up and not behave like "big surly faced babies".

Ha ha! I quite enjoyed conjuring up that image.

What's wrong with saying that? He IS a big surly faced baby. He makes Nine Chins Woods like he's doing a Kriss Akabusi impersonation.

Your sycophancy is no different from my dislike. Yin/Yang, Black/White.

The title of this thread is a clue to the fact it might not be a trophy biting love in.

lydian wrote:Agree with all that, I don't see why YE WTF has to always be on HC.

I would guess a large part of this is that is held in November. If it's held in the northern hemisphere, the risk of inclement weather makes it sensible to be played indoors. If it's indoors, then realistically we are talking hard courts. It would be good if the surface could be varied but, logistically, it seems a tricky one.

To me, the surface problem is pretty clear.

There are 3 surfaces and 9 Masters 1000 tournaments. Of these, 3 are clay, 6 are hard court but none at all are on grass! The complete absence of grass is ridiculous. There should be at least two grass Masters tournaments. This would not only give court variety, it might force players to learn some grass court play.

I like the slams as they (theoretically) are: 1 grass, 1 clay, 1 slow HC, 1 fast HC.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:Agree with all that, I don't see why YE WTF has to always be on HC.

I would guess a large part of this is that is held in November. If it's held in the northern hemisphere, the risk of inclement weather makes it sensible to be played indoors. If it's indoors, then realistically we are talking hard courts. It would be good if the surface could be varied but, logistically, it seems a tricky one.

To me, the surface problem is pretty clear.

There are 3 surfaces and 9 Masters 1000 tournaments. Of these, 3 are clay, 6 are hard court but none at all are on grass! The complete absence of grass is ridiculous. There should be at least two grass Masters tournaments. This would not only give court variety, it might force players to learn some grass court play.

I like the slams as they (theoretically) are: 1 grass, 1 clay, 1 slow HC, 1 fast HC.

Agree re grass masters. If two HC changed to grass then there would be four HC, three clay and two grass. A much better balance overall. I also don't think the slams need changing.

Whilst I think Nadal tries to influence some aspects of tennis for very self-serving reasons in the short term in a way that would benefit him at the expense of others very directly here and now - i.e. time between points, the 2-year ranking system, reduced number of mandatory tournaments - he's got a genuine point about hard courts and his point is clearly much longer-term and not likely to benefit him during his playing career.

It's a major dilemma for tennis because HC is the cheapest and easiest surface to lay and maintain, it's the surface that works in the widest number of weather and temperature conditions as well as indoors, and it's probably the best leveller in terms of of the wide spectrum of different playing styles. HC surfaces are one way that sports centres can maximise the potential use of the same piece of ground. Undoubtely, however, it's very tough on the body because of hard impact onto the surface and the absence of yield in terms of being able to slide.

There is no easy answer because I do not really want to see a huge shift over towards clay tournaments - unscientifically I do not detect an appetite amongst the viewing public for a much higher percentage of clay-court tournaments either - and for all their merits grass courts work only in very specific climates and are horribly expensive to lay and maintain and need real expertise if they are going to be maintained to a standard suitable for the ATP Tour.

I suspect that for all the undoubted merits of the point that HC is tough on the body it is hear to stay.

One thing I remember from my youth is Hard Courts covered with a layer of fine grit so you could slide about. It is necessary to brush them regularly to avoid uneven bounces, but they do resolve one aspect of the unyielding nature of HC. I suspect you'd hear no end of whining from pro's about such a surface, and it probably can only be used for tennis.

In my opinion it is grass not clay that needs more tournaments. Only two weeks of competition before Wimbledon and one week in July, nothing above a 250 outside Wimbledon. If more HC tournaments (in good climates) became grass tournaments the balance would be fine.

carrieg4 wrote:In my opinion it is grass not clay that needs more tournaments. Only two weeks of competition before Wimbledon and one week in July, nothing above a 250 outside Wimbledon. If more HC tournaments (in good climates) became grass tournaments the balance would be fine.

Well nobody is going to disagree with you, but you need to think about realities and practicalities. The economics of grass courts and the limited latitudes at which they can sensibly be used (meaning that it's only really US/UK/Northern Europe Aus/NZ where there's a tradition of use and maintenance) mean that there is not going to be the necessary local support to build up and maintain many more grass court tournaments. Somebody somewhere needs to set up a grass-court centre, maintain it to the necessary standard, and put together the organisation and funding to take a tournament to the ATP. It would be an expensive labour of love.

The 'solutions' are going to have to come from one or more of:

a. More clay - but I don't think that players or followers are going to support a huge increase.
b. Changing HC surfaces or other equipment (strings/racquets?) to reduce the physicality of tennis on HC - there is always the age-old difficulty of balancing the power of serves and returns, nobody wants to go back to the 1990's
c. Trying to teach/prepare players better to enable them to cope with the strains involved.

I was talking to a physio the other day and he thought that one of the biggest problems for players was that the surfaces change too much for them so they can't prepare their muscles (and in particular the core strength ones) adequately to deal with the unique stresses of any particular surface. He thought that if tennis was all HC that it would be easier for players to build up the necessary core strength in the right muscles and let the muscles help take the strain in support of bones, tendons, and ligaments.

summerblues wrote:I find it hard to get upset with Rafa over this. I do not have data but it strikes me as fairly reasonable to assume HCs are harder on the body (e.g., one of the reasons why Muster focused so much on clay was that because of his injury HCs were too rough on his body).

I wonder if he was just maximising his winnings. He also almost never bothered to turn up at Wimbledon for easy on the body hard on the slow baseliners fast grass, seeming to develop a small injury every year about a week before the tournament started.

Quite mysterious how, from 1985 to 1999 inclusive he was absent from:

3 Australian Opens
1 French Open
11 Wimbledons
5 US Opens

Funny how the faster the surface, the more tournaments he missed. But I see no relation to injury inducing nature of the relative courts. Those hard courts and grass courts must have been brutal to give him an injury before the tournament even started!

An interesting statistic that Muster attained the no 1 ranking in his career, but never won a match at SW19. Hard to believe but one article below claims that Musta "skipped Wimbledon to better prepare for the San Marino Open".

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/muster-angry-over-wimbledon-seeding-1337717.html
http://www.unambitiousus.com/sports/wimbledons-worst/

Bit harsh to attack your little side point supporting your main point, but this kind of trivia just interests me.

barrystar wrote:Whilst I think Nadal tries to influence some aspects of tennis for very self-serving reasons in the short term in a way that would benefit him at the expense of others very directly here and now - i.e. time between points, the 2-year ranking system, reduced number of mandatory tournaments - he's got a genuine point about hard courts and his point is clearly much longer-term and not likely to benefit him during his playing career.

It's a major dilemma for tennis because HC is the cheapest and easiest surface to lay and maintain, it's the surface that works in the widest number of weather and temperature conditions as well as indoors, and it's probably the best leveller in terms of of the wide spectrum of different playing styles. HC surfaces are one way that sports centres can maximise the potential use of the same piece of ground. Undoubtely, however, it's very tough on the body because of hard impact onto the surface and the absence of yield in terms of being able to slide.

There is no easy answer because I do not really want to see a huge shift over towards clay tournaments - unscientifically I do not detect an appetite amongst the viewing public for a much higher percentage of clay-court tournaments either - and for all their merits grass courts work only in very specific climates and are horribly expensive to lay and maintain and need real expertise if they are going to be maintained to a standard suitable for the ATP Tour.

I suspect that for all the undoubted merits of the point that HC is tough on the body it is hear to stay.

One thing I remember from my youth is Hard Courts covered with a layer of fine grit so you could slide about. It is necessary to brush them regularly to avoid uneven bounces, but they do resolve one aspect of the unyielding nature of HC. I suspect you'd hear no end of whining from pro's about such a surface, and it probably can only be used for tennis.

Great post. One bit I wonder about is the expense of maintaining grass. Surely if my local club can manage 3 grass courts in season then a masters series event with millions of dollars to spend on stadia and prize money could afford to have 10 grass courts and maintain them a week a year? I bet they have no problem maintaining the grass on the golf courses at Indian Wells, despite the lack of rain there.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:Agree with all that, I don't see why YE WTF has to always be on HC.

I would guess a large part of this is that is held in November. If it's held in the northern hemisphere, the risk of inclement weather makes it sensible to be played indoors. If it's indoors, then realistically we are talking hard courts. It would be good if the surface could be varied but, logistically, it seems a tricky one.

To me, the surface problem is pretty clear.

There are 3 surfaces and 9 Masters 1000 tournaments. Of these, 3 are clay, 6 are hard court but none at all are on grass! The complete absence of grass is ridiculous. There should be at least two grass Masters tournaments. This would not only give court variety, it might force players to learn some grass court play.

I like the slams as they (theoretically) are: 1 grass, 1 clay, 1 slow HC, 1 fast HC.

Agree murdoch, I think they should move cincy after wimbeldon and make it a grass court, it used to be played on grass for most of its history anyway. But I disagree, there is really no problem with playing clay indoors. It doesn't need sunlight like grass. The players do play DC time to time indoors.

HB, there would be no problem maintaining grass courts at IW, all of southern california is green and the closest real river is 250 miles away.

On the hardcourt issue Nadal is right, and I think a lot of players would agree with him. You don't need any studies, play 3 days in a row on hardcourt and 3 days in a row on clay and your body will tell you all you need to know.

But on the issue of time between points and the 2 year no 1 ranking he is most certainly being self interested and looking to put forward ideas that would be good for him. I don't have a problem with that I mean are people now not allowed to speak up for their own self interest? Is Nadal the only player to complain about a rule or an aspect of the schedule they don't like?

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If federer's best surface right now was clay and he said so I doubt we would be seeing such a backlash from posters. That being said I disagree with nadal on his 2 year no 1 idea or his time between points resistance, so it does seem like a lot of the things he supports do seem to be things that favor him. I agree with reducing the hard court centric nature of the tour is good for the game I also think nadal speaks out for his own interest. And my response is so, that is basic human nature and not really bad either.

Great, but he doesn't always say its for him. If you're saying he says this for self interest you're saying he's a liar, because he claims these things are for others benefit.

It's a strawman to make his a debate about the right to an opinion, or even to self interest. This was about Rafa dressing things up as being for supporters, or other players. You appear to think he's not being straight about that.

Well the hardcourt issue is for other players, Nadal is probably more than half way through his career and probably the damage is done at this stage. I think he is being self interested and on the hardcourt issue he is right. I think most people who like an idea often think that idea is a great idea if first and foremost that idea benefits them as well. Rarely do you see a businessman suggest an idea for policy that is bad for his business, Nadal is no different. And everyone who benefits from an idea will often couch it as beneficial to the group as a whole. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong and their idea are just self interest, but in the case of hardcourts it is pretty clear that what he says is true that hardcourts pound your body.

socal1976 wrote: But I disagree, there is really no problem with playing clay indoors. It doesn't need sunlight like grass. The players do play DC time to time indoors.

True but indoor clay is a very unusual scenario (is there even a scheduled indoor clay tournament?).

Would they want the big season finale to be on a surface that the players might not have played on that year?

Then again, maybe that would make it more interesting!

well said socal. I believe fundementally that many new innovations that eventually land up being to the benefit of people at large originally started out as something to the benefit of the person who discovered it.. primarily because of their own inspiration and experience.

HM Murdoch wrote:..................(is there even a scheduled indoor clay tournament?).
.................................

There is indeed, and it's being contested right now.

Have you guessed what it is yet....... ???

Thanks Haddie. Speaking up for your interests is not a bad thing at all. And maybe he believes that healthier stars playing longer will help the fans enjoy their favorite players and missing less time due to injury.

Oh no emancipator and spuranik will have more evidence in their file for exposing me as a Nadal fan!