Are the media getting it?

First topic message reminder :

There's much more talk about the scarcity of fast court tennis, and Petchey now talking in derogatory terms of the "roughest courts" and "big fluffy balls " (pardon?) we can expect in Indian Wells.

Is the tide beginning to turn in the understanding of the modern game?

Also, from AO 2012

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html

19 aces in 369 points. ~6% in ~6 hour match.

I do not see this 'serve fest' allegation in Dubai.

If I withdraw the third line, will you answer the fourth and fifth?

If you think this is mediocre, what must you have thought of the USO final, I wonder?

Tenez wrote:I bet Wimbledon will get faster this year.

No. It will be slow and Nole will win it again.

I thought it was great to see attacking, risky play being rewarded. Volleys, and not the kind payed after a half out drive.

Still, endless retrieval in 30 stroke rallies excites some people.

Its not the court speed, its not the lack of close matches. Whats missing from Dubai is Nadal. Despite a quality field, three of the top four players in the semi's, no retirements or injuries, no problems with weather or schedules... Nadal is the missing link. Without him love him or hate him its no fun without him.

It's only Nadal fans that are whining about this event though.

Tennis fans seem to be alright with this tournament.

Dress up this porker anyway you like it but a totally anticlimactic followup to AO. And it isn't Nadal that is the missing link, the missing link is that we had no close matches, Hawkeye. Look I like great shots like the rest of you but in the context of competition. I watched Roddick up close blast serves by himself and it basically loses its thrill after four or five shots. Great shots and so forth happen more so probably with slower conditions because the players are made to come up with multiple high quality shots. One and two shot rallies as a dominant format for a match is yawn inspiring however you cut it. And ofcourse half or more of the fun is the competition. This week the competitive level of the tournament stank.

socal1976 wrote:Dress up this porker anyway you like it but a totally anticlimactic followup to AO. And it isn't Nadal that is the missing link, the missing link is that we had no close matches, Hawkeye. Look I like great shots like the rest of you but in the context of competition. I watched Roddick up close blast serves by himself and it basically loses its thrill after four or five shots. Great shots and so forth happen more so probably with slower conditions because the players are made to come up with multiple high quality shots. One and two shot rallies as a dominant format for a match is yawn inspiring however you cut it. And ofcourse half or more of the fun is the competition. This week the competitive level of the tournament stank.

Do you think the same matches would've been better in O2? I think they would. I really like tennis played in O2.

I thought Federer looked great but the only thing that would really motivate him in a 500 tournament that he has won 3 times would be to see Nadal across the net.

laverfan wrote:There is the 'Golden Swing' in South America, with lots of Clay matches in 75% humidity.

Give me a good medium paced hardcourt, I prefer something like Miami or IW in the next two events. But my point Laverfan is not so much about changing Dubai, I would not change dubai. And I wouldn't change cincy or Paris the other faster events. Again I am not the one on these sites advocating change. To me this tournament was dull, I like the field better than Alcapulco but in mexico they had some tight matches and some good play. Dubai has the better field by a million miles and lays an egg, and when I think about it I can't remember a very good match last year either. Lets remember in all this talk about speeding up the conditions what exactly is the brand of tennis that will be favored. If change is going to result in more herky jerky 2 shot tennis then I am not for it. Here is a tournament with fast conditions why have the matches been dull? Are we going to see more tourneys like this if we start tinkering with other events? Is this the kind of tennis you guys enjoy 2 minute holds? These pertinent questions to be asked of those advocating changes.

social1976

I take your point about slower conditions and I agree. As I said before I prefer them. I see no point in ace after ace. The biggest tournament snooze fest is Cinci.... Zzzzz.

Saying that although I didn't really watch much of Dubai I did see a couple of Federers matches and I did enjoy them because he is such fun to watch. It must be difficult for a player such as him to stay motivated. But if Nadal was at the other side of the net he would be... and so would Nadal. That is why having Nadal in Dubai would have added big interest. Not as much as if they had met elsewhere but still big interest...

socal1976 wrote:This week the competitive level of the tournament stank.

Weak era perhaps?

I can accept that you like retrieving skills, really long rallies, the physical battle etc. I like it myself, but not all the time. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that other people like other aspects such as S&V, risky shots being rewarded, faster and shorter rallies, conditions that require better timing etc, but which may lead to more UEs etc.
The brand of tennis you like isn't the only brand of tennis - why not let other people enjoy allthat tennis can offer, not just a subset of it, instead of so readily dismissing it as rubbish?

hawkeye wrote:I thought Federer looked great but the only thing that would really motivate him in a 500 tournament that he has won 3 times would be to see Nadal across the net.

HE - I seem to think he has in fact won Dubai four times (although admittedly it can be difficult to keep track of all Federer's titles around the world ... )

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:This week the competitive level of the tournament stank.

Weak era perhaps?

I can accept that you like retrieving skills, really long rallies, the physical battle etc. I like it myself, but not all the time. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that other people like other aspects such as S&V, risky shots being rewarded, faster and shorter rallies, conditions that require better timing etc, but which may lead to more UEs etc.
The brand of tennis you like isn't the only brand of tennis - why not let other people enjoy allthat tennis can offer, not just a subset of it, instead of so readily dismissing it as rubbish?

Spot on, it's the incentive to attack and the premium on great timing that I appreciate, rather than the endless safety first stuff we watched in Australia. I realise that newer fans are impressed by 6 hour exhausathons but fast tennis Is the real thing.

The great thing is that this opinion is beginning to emerge into the commentary, and once this is in the open it'll gain traction.

socal1976 wrote:Fast Dubai conditions leading to a rather dull and ho hum tournament. Just like the late 90s. Back to players who can serve and very little else determining who wins. Poor tournament, few close matches, has Fed even faced a break point? Fast courts killing the game again like they almost did in the late 90s.

come on socal, slow marathons kill the game too, people fall a sleep in the mid game with boring tactics, the best is an ideal mix of fast and slow courts, slow courts should remain slow and fast courts should remain fast, so more variety of players will come up, homogenization only kills the game.

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Dress up this porker anyway you like it but a totally anticlimactic followup to AO. And it isn't Nadal that is the missing link, the missing link is that we had no close matches, Hawkeye. Look I like great shots like the rest of you but in the context of competition. I watched Roddick up close blast serves by himself and it basically loses its thrill after four or five shots. Great shots and so forth happen more so probably with slower conditions because the players are made to come up with multiple high quality shots. One and two shot rallies as a dominant format for a match is yawn inspiring however you cut it. And ofcourse half or more of the fun is the competition. This week the competitive level of the tournament stank.

Do you think the same matches would've been better in O2? I think they would. I really like tennis played in O2.

I don't know but, Dubai hasn't really produced many memorable three set matches in large numbers that i can remember in the last couple of years and attracts a field that is better than some masters events. Yet, the quality of the play in this tournament has been pretty poor. Rarely did you see two guys playing well at the same time or see a match where the outcome was in doubt till the very end.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fast Dubai conditions leading to a rather dull and ho hum tournament. Just like the late 90s. Back to players who can serve and very little else determining who wins. Poor tournament, few close matches, has Fed even faced a break point? Fast courts killing the game again like they almost did in the late 90s.

come on socal, slow marathons kill the game too, people fall a sleep in the mid game with boring tactics, the best is an ideal mix of fast and slow courts, slow courts should remain slow and fast courts should remain fast, so more variety of players will come up, homogenization only kills the game.

I would take the slowed AO semis and finals over the snooze feast of short choppy points we have seen in this tournament. Uncomeptitive matches, a lot of two shot rallies and unreturned serves.

Julius, I don't want to impose my tastes on anyone. Again I am not the one advocating wholesale changes to the game and the schedule its the slow court theorists that do that. I don't think the tour is broken or the games dull and boring. I doubt any of the fans who stayed up till early in the morning in AO watching on TV or live felt like they were going to fall asleep during the Murray and Nadal matches. The media reviews were good, the ticket sales were good, and the TV ratings were up. Outside of a few online posters the rebellion is not widespread. And if their changes are going to maximize the type of tennis I have seen this week well then just wake me up when its over.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
The brand of tennis you like isn't the only brand of tennis - why not let other people enjoy allthat tennis can offer, not just a subset of it, instead of so readily dismissing it as rubbish?

Oh dear.
You immediately come in to attack social when he states his dislike for the court conditions, but yet all the federer fans are arguing the same point in reverse while doing it continously and relentlessly, and yet I have never seen you even say something remotely similar to them.

'The brand of tennis you like isn't the only brand of tennis - why not let other people enjoy allthat tennis can offer, not just a subset of it, instead of so readily dismissing it as rubbish?' There's no chance you'll say that to Tenez/ Bb when they launch another campaign about how 'disgraceful the surfaces are and how this therefore means federer's losses shouldn't count.'

Personally I prefer interesing rallies conpared to loads of aces and ultra-quick service games.

Anyway Looking forward to the final tomorrow!

I hate to think what'll some of you guys will be like when Nadal retires (or has to take a 2 year sabbatical, yeah I know, not going to happen) if this is how you spit your dummies out when he misses one 500 level tournament.

Maybe he'll do a few more Shakira videos for you to watch on repeat instead.

Spit dummies out?
I'm looking forward to what should be a great final tomorrow!
I'm just bemused at the mods picking and choosing who to attack and who to defend.

socal1976 wrote:
See I get a bit annoyed with comments like your third line. As if because I don't like this particular style of play I don't truely watch tennis for the quality.

You watch tennis for the drama it can produce. If it was about quality, Dubai had some real good quality matches.
Dlogo vs Delpo was a decent match, amazing shots by both players ( Dlogo is a unsettled talent and makes too errors but is entertaining to watch. Fed-Llodra was a good one for the great S&V that Llodra can produce and how Fed tackled those. Djo vs Tipsy second set was good till Tipsy double faulted on the set point. Murray played great with amazing serving. Fed Delpo was a real good one, great serving and play on all the BPs that delpo had to save.

socal1976 wrote:I understand the finer points of tennis.

If you did then you would have seen that tennis is not all about the drama it can produce. You would have valued the skill of great serving and brilliant net play. You would have valued the various skill in tennis and would have liked to see them flourish. If you did, you would not be favoring the further slowing down of surfaces ( as you quoted ) that essentially kills so many skills of the game.

There are only a very few fast courts remained now, and if you did understand the finer points of tennis, you would not be propagating to remove them as well. If you did, you would know that a quality match can be possible even if it didn't have any drama. Conversely matches that produce drama ( like AO 12 semis Djo-Murray, AO 12final, USO 11finals ) may still be of poor quality.

In short, you would not be doing a lot of things which you do now. And they all essentially come down to you not being able to understand the finer point of tennis and the game. You like to see drama, sweat, power... go watch some movies. Or maybe you don't distinguish between them, lots of people don't.

socal1976 wrote:Del Po tanked away the second set tiebreak as beautiful a picture as you want to paint, and Novak seemed hardly bothered.

Do you know what is the meaning of tanking in tennis terms? Novak seems hardly bothered because he lost to brilliant play by Murray. I agree his forehand was off, made many errors. But Murray played brilliant and hence won. Djo had very poor volleys in the match and Murray exposed it. You are on sour grapes, socal.

socal1976 wrote: Beyond that I also watch for the competition, and the match play has been poor.

Are you not going to tell us that how poor your girl, your father, your dog and all the people you spoke too felt about the matches. I mean this is what you were doing after Djo's AO win right.

Amritia, you must have a guilty conscience because I didn't actually address my post to you, did I? It was for a few others who are getting a little bit upset about the lack of Nadal in the event (and perhaps the fact that the courts weren't set up in a way that suited him.)

As for the mods, they're allowed their own opinions. Just because it says 'moderator' by the name, doesn't mean they have to agree with everyone. As long as everyone is behaving, they can join in the conversation as they see fit. In this case, to tell socal he's talking nonsense.

The main benefit about having different, contrasting surfaces is that it forces player having a more complete game which in turns benefit our spectacle.

In the past we had the SVer and clay specialists....but the best players coudl do well on both. Federer, Nalbandian, Gonzo, Ljubicic (even), Edberg, McEnroe, Davydenko, could play well on both surfaces. Once they slowed everything down, only a style (retrievers essentially) became successful and it completely killed any chance to have a SHBH in the Finals (bar the one-in-a-century genius of course). But worse is teh fact that they are trying to convince us that a 1D player is a complete player cause he wins on 4 slams with the same, one trick poney game. In the past Nadal would have been a claycourter and just that.....now we have him as a great grass player. It's a joke!

Some things though don't add up here. I mean it is debatable when the courts were being slowed down by. Now Tenez feels at Wimbledon it began in 2006 or 2007. Well since that point in time Federer has still won Wimbledon twice so court speeds are not the sole reason for Federer's lack of slams.

Also I think we are all in agreement that Dubai is playing quicker than Melbourne did. Well something is not adding up then as Federer squashed Del Potro like an insignificant insect on the slower courts in straight sets dropping three or four games was it? Now yesterday on the quicker surface more to Federer's liking he was taken to two tie-breaks by the same player he squashed like an insect weeks earlier on those awful courts we hear so much of that hinders his game.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Some things though don't add up here. I mean it is debatable when the courts were being slowed down by. Now Tenez feels at Wimbledon it began in 2006 or 2007. Well since that point in time Federer has still won Wimbledon twice so court speeds are not the sole reason for Federer's lack of slams.

1 Never said that Wimbledon slowed down in 2006/7. So if you want to argue, argue honestly.
2 What's your logic? I purposedly mention that complete players can play well on slow and fast surfaces! You need to properly wake up before posting.
3 It's doesn't matter whether it's the sole reason or not. Faster conds woudl give some other players a better chance. End of story.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also I think we are all in agreement that Dubai is playing quicker than Melbourne did. Well something is not adding up then as Federer squashed Del Potro like an insignificant insect on the slower courts in straight sets dropping three or four games was it? Now yesterday on the quicker surface more to Federer's liking he was taken to two tie-breaks by the same player he squashed like an insect weeks earlier on those awful courts we hear so much of that hinders his game.

What do yuo make of the form of the day? Can't it influence the a match...let alone a score? Delpo is always going to be dangerous on teh day...regardless the surface.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tenez lets clarify when you think court conditions began being slowed down?

Effectively when tournaments wanted to have their share of the Fedal rivalry. It varies from slam to slam.

Wimbledon was the first to heavily slow the courts to allow a clay courter (actually a few clay courters) to go deep in theor tournaments. So Wimbledon really slowed in 2006.

You have already said on another thread Wimbledon had really slowed down by 2006. So I suggest you argue honestly Instead.

My logic is that we have people who point to court conditions being a massive factor in Federer's slam drought when obviously it isn't. Yes I agree faster conditions would give other players a better chance and vice versa. No doubting that but Federer hasn't exactly fallen apart on these slower courts and some could argue that he has faired better on them than on courts when they were faster ie circa 2001/2002.

As for form of the day. Fair enough but this court speed is deemed to be much more to Roger's liking is it not? Also lets remember Del Potro has had a packed calendar in the last two weeks so surely he could be a little fatigued yet he stretched Federer to tie-breaks on a surface that the GOAT should be in his element on.

What part of Federer would be even more successful without slowed down courts don't you get?

It's the striking thing about the guy that he's effectively performed in three eras, with differing conditions, and remains competitive as he approaches his 32nd year.

bogbrush wrote:What part of Federer would be even more successful without slowed down courts don't you get?

It's the striking thing about the guy that he's effectively performed in three eras, with differing conditions, and remains competitive as he approaches his 32nd year.

Yes and that is why he is regarded as the GOAT. However, unlike some I prefer to doff my cap to the likes of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic for the massive strides they have taken in the sport and credit their play for being able to deny Roger Federer. In other words credit where credit is due.

Don't let's bring it back to the fan-based level. I'm on about the game, not the players.

When they changed F1 to get overtaking in it wasn't to promote Vettel, it was to bring something back to the game that was lost. I give those guys their due credit but I note they've one it by excelling in retrieval and endurance, not by playing low margin of safety, attacking, all-court tennis.

bogbrush it all depends on what sort of tennis floats your boat. You believe the ultimate tennis skills are those displayed by Federer whereas other tennis fans marvel at retrieval skills and the ability to return the unreturnable. It is whatever floats your boat but remember not every man, woman and child on this planet is a Federer die-hard fan. There are other fans of other players out there who marvel at other players skills that are above those of Federer's ie retrieving. It is all about taste.

I like retrieval. I applaud it.

I just want to see reward for all aspects, and ultimately there's not a sport in the World that will thrive if it rewards defence over attack.

And I'd say tennis is thriving at the moment and very popular with the paying public so no danger on that front.

[quote="CaledonianCraig"]

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tenez lets clarify when you think court conditions began being slowed down?

Effectively when tournaments wanted to have their share of the Fedal rivalry. It varies from slam to slam.

Wimbledon was the first to heavily slow the courts to allow a clay courter (actually a few clay courters) to go deep in theor tournaments. So Wimbledon really slowed in 2006.

Yes but I do not mention 2006/2007. They slowed it down dramatically in 2002....then sped them up again slightly to finally simply kill any chance for big servers to win.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And I'd say tennis is thriving at the moment and very popular with the paying public so no danger on that front.

Just wait until Federer retires. Seriously, aside from desperate Brits, people the penny will drop.

CaledonianCraig wrote:bogbrush it all depends on what sort of tennis floats your boat.

No because tennis has always been about physique and skills. Now it's clear;y about phsique only and that is what all top players talk about.

If Nadal isn't slam fit he gets to lose 60 63 v Fed, if fit he beats Fed in 4 with one set to spare and we don;t see a chance to see talent and skills do something in slams. I took the example of Nadal's fitness but I may have talked about court conds which awoudl allow Fed to win points more easily.

[quote="Tenez"]

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tenez lets clarify when you think court conditions began being slowed down?

Effectively when tournaments wanted to have their share of the Fedal rivalry. It varies from slam to slam.

Wimbledon was the first to heavily slow the courts to allow a clay courter (actually a few clay courters) to go deep in theor tournaments. So Wimbledon really slowed in 2006.

Yes but I do not mention 2006/2007. They slowed it down dramatically in 2002....then sped them up again slightly to finally simply kill any chance for big servers to win.

My post I said 2006 or 2007 (couldn't remember which you said) but turned out you originally said 2006. Now you are saying they slowed it dramatically down in 2002 only to speed them up again when? Would that be around Federer's winning streak from 2003 to 2007?

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:And I'd say tennis is thriving at the moment and very popular with the paying public so no danger on that front.

Just wait until Federer retires. Seriously, aside from desperate Brits, people the penny will drop.

Don't even talk about such things...

Much talk again fromCowan now about the demands of slow courts.

My own preference; more fast courts, and get clay back slower.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
My post I said 2006 or 2007 (couldn't remember which you said) but turned out you originally said 2006. Now you are saying they slowed it dramatically down in 2002 only to speed them up again when? Would that be around Federer's winning streak from 2003 to 2007?

I do not know precisely when and what they did. The only thing I know is that Wimbleodn gradually increase the clay % in the soil over the years and that in 2002 they introduced bigger balls which really slowed it down dramatically. After that it is a bit of unknown. I am suggesting that they sped it up after 2002 cause they did not want another Hewitt Nalby damp squibb. Some results in 2003 like Karlo ousting Hewitt in teh first round make be believe that tehy sped it up a bit again. From 2003 to 2008 we can also see a slowing down...aparently supported by HE.

BUt my point is that I do not fix a year for a slow down. It's most likely a gradual process!...and maybe not going in the same direction.

The fact is from 2006 claycourters feel more at ease on grass for sure.

Interestingly, Laverfan produced a great link on another thread where a USO official stated flat out that we slowed the courts in 2002 and have had the same composition since 2003. Therefore, Tenez at least at the USO they are maintaining that yes we slowed down the courts a decade ago but that conditions have been stable since.

bogbrush wrote:My own preference; more fast courts, and get clay back slower.

The strings and players' fitness has made clay already slower than what it was. In 2004, a SHBHer coudl win it. Nowadays it would be impossible. This is why I liked it last year cause it was proper clay like we have known it before the introduction of those strings and amazing fitness. Remember Noah won it Sving, McEnroe and Edberg were very close to do it too and in general it favoured attacking baseliners (Lendl, Medvedev, Agassi, Courrier, GOmez).

Since those new strings and Nadal fitness it went back to when Borg and Wilander coudl win it by outlasting everybody.

socal1976 wrote:Interestingly, Laverfan produced a great link on another thread where a USO official stated flat out that we slowed the courts in 2002 and have had the same composition since 2003. Therefore, Tenez at least at the USO they are maintaining that yes we slowed down the courts a decade ago but that conditions have been stable since.

Courst are one thing...balls are another. And teh 2010 balls are clearly bigger than before.

But I also remember one of the USO organiser saying in 2009 or 2010 that they play around with the proportion of sand in the paint to alter pace. And everybody agreed at last year's USO that it had even slowed down compared to 2010.