Murray Says Fast Courts Suit Federer

This is what Murray said after losing to Federer in the Dubai final on Saturday.

"If there was more tournaments on these courts, I think he could definitely be No. 1 in the world for the next few years," Murray told reporters. "It really suits his game well. Just so many of the courts are so slow now. It’s nice for us to get a change-up like here. Some of the tournaments are so slow it's tough against so many guys that are moving well and serving big. It’s become tougher and tougher to stay at the top of the game longer."

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16761&zoneid=25

I can imagine that many will see this comment and see it as Murray giving respect to Federer. Maybe some will even say he's giving too much respect to Federer. I can imagine a few using it as some sort of evidence to prove that the slowing down of the courts has somehow cheated Federer out of his rightful place at the top of the rankings.

I don't see it that way at all. To me it sounds like Murray is being his usual arrogant self and with this back handed compliment to Federer is "explaining" why he didn't win on Saturday. Also he's implying that Federer won't be so good later in the year. Huh! There is no love lost between these two.

Was Murray's comment a complement or a criticism of Federer?

Hard to say, but you have it bang on the money in saying some of us will use it to vindicate what we've been saying about the slowing down of courts (socal take note: Andy murray is telling you that the courts are slower). I don't say "cheated", because that's unsustainable, but I do agree with Murray that had the courts not been slowed down Federer would still be #1.

It also doesn't hurt Andy to note that he lost to the guy who, on that type of surface, is the #1.

But Murray may also believe that were more courts that fast he coudl be number 2 in front of Djoko.

Tenez

No! I don't think Murray was trying to say if only the courts were faster he could be number 2. I think he thinks he's too good for that.

I think he's saying what any other remotely sophisticated tennis analyst might say, which is not only fair enough but has the side benefit of enabling him to portray the Dubai result as a one-off politely.

He did not say that Fed "would" be No. 1, but that Fed "could" be. Nor did he discount the possibility of Fed returning briefly to No. 1 in the future on existing surfaces, he was talking about how speeding up surfaces could help Fed to be the dominant player again. I think we'd all agree with that possibility.

Are we going to look back at this tournament soon as the defining moment in recent tennis history where more and more people started demanding faster courts? Why this had to occur now is unclear, but then tipping points are rarely predictable. Perhaps because of the contrast this tournament presented with the tedium of the Australian Open from the semifinal onwards where players had to hit two or three winners to win a point. In any case, it is refreshing to see everyone- fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost- all talking about the fast surface and how it changed the game and made for a wonderful tournament. One even dares to hope that clay will be slowed down and we will be once again treated to the spectacle that the contrast between FO and Wimbledon represented, where winning the two back to back was the holy grail of tennis rather than a matter of routine.

Again...clay was not that slow in the 80s, 90s. Noah won SVing, McEnroe and Edberg should have won it and many attacking baseliners did win : Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Gomez, even Guga.

The string technology made clay slower than it was. in 2011 it played roughly like it played back then...a bit more balanced for all.

One feels bad for the modern players like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who never had or might never have the chance to do a "genuine" FO- Wimbledon double for no fault of their own. Nowadays we have the red clay- green clay double which two of these players have achieved and the third might soon. But how unfavourably does it compare with Borg's gigantic achievement, the envy of every tennis player till recently and perhaps the most amazing feat since Laver's grand slam(s)!

Tennisanorak wrote:Are we going to look back at this tournament soon as the defining moment in recent tennis history where more and more people started demanding faster courts? Why this had to occur now is unclear, but then tipping points are rarely predictable. Perhaps because of the contrast this tournament presented with the tedium of the Australian Open from the semifinal onwards where players had to hit two or three winners to win a point. In any case, it is refreshing to see everyone- fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost- all talking about the fast surface and how it changed the game and made for a wonderful tournament. One even dares to hope that clay will be slowed down and we will be once again treated to the spectacle that the contrast between FO and Wimbledon represented, where winning the two back to back was the holy grail of tennis rather than a matter of routine.

I thought something along these lines as well , because the thing that bugs me is the actual timing of "fast courts gate". Novak won Dubai for the last three years, beating Fed easily in the last year's final, on the same court, and nobody moaned about fast courts.

Why now?

My only explanation is the 6 hour AO final. Still, a bit odd.

Tennisanorak wrote:One feels bad for the modern players like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who never had or might never have the chance to do a "genuine" FO- Wimbledon double for no fault of their own. Nowadays we have the red clay- green clay double which two of these players have achieved and the third might soon. But how unfavourably does it compare with Borg's gigantic achievement, the envy of every tennis player till recently and perhaps the most amazing feat since Laver's grand slam(s)!

You might know though that what made clay and grass play so differently is the larger graphite racquet....which came after Borg and Laver's time.

Winning the FO/Wimby double was not so special back then as wooden racquets did not emphasise the difference of those surfaces like larger frames did. Only when graphite racquets came in that players really specialised in grass (SV) and moonballing (Wilander/Berasategui, Bruguera, etc...).

Tennisanorak wrote:Are we going to look back at this tournament soon as the defining moment in recent tennis history where more and more people started demanding faster courts? Why this had to occur now is unclear, but then tipping points are rarely predictable. Perhaps because of the contrast this tournament presented with the tedium of the Australian Open from the semifinal onwards where players had to hit two or three winners to win a point. In any case, it is refreshing to see everyone- fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost- all talking about the fast surface and how it changed the game and made for a wonderful tournament. One even dares to hope that clay will be slowed down and we will be once again treated to the spectacle that the contrast between FO and Wimbledon represented, where winning the two back to back was the holy grail of tennis rather than a matter of routine.

Not everyone is saying that it was a great improvement - socal on this site for a start. I also think that the balance on this site is not pro Nadal or his style of play.

Most importantly, I suspect that the ATP don't want to tax Nadal's 9.9m facebook friends and his 1.6m twitter followers with the sight of a bemused and shattered hero chasing bullets folornly as per USO 2006-2009 and Cincinnati annually. They want him in the Finals and SF of as many tournaments as possible grinding it out with Djokovic and/or Federer.

If there were to be a change it will happen as a somewhat delayed reaction to a bored reaction by fans fed up with 5-6hr marathons. I don't think that Dubai will change much - let's face it the tournament was the focus of the tennis world for 1 week when there was not much else to write about. I'll bet it will soon be forgotten by the mainstream (and all those facebook/twitter characters) next week.

Tennisanorak - very good point ref the 'lost' contrast between FO and Wimbledon.

I think it's now often under-estimated (and in fairness many of today's fans weren't actually around to witness it) just how much of a skill was required for Bjorn Borg to be able to move so repeatedly, quickly and seamlessly from one to the other. And of course Borg did not (IIRC...?) even play a warm-up tourney before Wimbledon but just practised on a grass court in private. It really was seen as something remarkable at the time, as many will no doubt remember. The vast majority - though admittedly not all - of players who performed really well on clay either went out in R1 at SW19 or fancied their chances there so little that they didn't even bother showing up .......

Tenez wrote:
You might know though that what made clay and grass play so differently is the larger graphite racquet....which came after Borg and Laver's time.

Winning the FO/Wimby double was not so special back then as wooden racquets did not emphasise the difference of those surfaces like larger frames did. Only when graphite racquets came in that players really specialised in grass (SV) and moonballing (Wilander/Berasategui, Bruguera, etc...).

I agree - you might add that it was a combination of the larger graphite racquet and a generation of young players who learned their game playing with such racquets.

McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Courier, and Agassi all played in finals at both Wimbledon and RG. Connors' flat hitting never really suited RG, but he won the USO on har-tru clay. Don't get me wrong, it's always been a very big achievement, and the USO/Wimbledon double has been done much more frequently, but the huge contrast that we tend to associate with the achievement of the Wimbledon/RG double began to establish itself in the mid-late 1980's and was at its widest when the likes of Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Sampras were dominating at Wimbledon with huge S&V games during the 1990's and, as you say, players like Muster, Bruguera, and Guga were winning at RG.

If Roscoe Tanner had played in the late 1980's to mid 1990's he might have picked up a Wimbledon or two on the back of his serve. As it was the serve was not enough when he played.

SO you know the FO/Wimby double was won 14 times from 1924 to 1980. Take teh fact that for 6 years (war) they did not play, It makes the double a chance of happening of twice every 7 years up to 1980. That's certainly nothing special in terms of achievements. BUt more importantly many more won the FO one year and not WImby and vice versa the other year which means the surface did play little role in the winner then.

However from 1981 to 2008...no one had done the doube. And more significantly players were either winning at FO or at Wimbledon...but not both. Some got close, and only Agassi actually won both. so that 0 out of 27 years! That's when the FO/WImby got really special.

But like buses...you wait for ages and with teh slowing down of the surfaces....you had 3 buses (FO/Wimby doubles) following each other (2008,2009, 2010).

Yes Barry, learning a game with one technology can make a huge difference. It is clearly what is shortening the players career at the top. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Terrific points, Tenez. Maybe we can have another thread only on the French Open- Wimbledon double!

Tenez, here's another (possibly off-thread) point.

Noah served and volleyed his way past Lendl and Wilander on his way to the RG title in 1983 and was an excellent doubles player. His tournament wins were pretty much all clay or indoor hard/carpet - i.e. fast surfaces. On paper then he would appear to have had the tools to do well on grass - but we see a measly 15-18 grass court record on the ATP site and he never got past the 3rd round at Wimbledon - why do you think that is?

I am not an expert on the finer details of how to stop the rot of where the game is going right now, and even if I were one, the problem is a bit more complex than just speeding the courts, since the speed of the courts is not the only thing that has changed since wooden reacquet era.

Something definitely needs to be done, mainly because of injuries due to physicality tennis has ended up with.

Fitness is almost on the same level as skill these days; players are possibly neglecting the technical side of their game, wasting time and money on improving their fitness in order to be able to last long enough in rallies.

Nowadays, players need a "team": doctors, physios, expensive preparation programmes, psychologists, what have you...

Due to pushing their bodies (and in some cases minds) to the limit, players are now biting the hand that feeds them and demand fewer tournaments.

That must have seriously sent some alarms bells last year: the word "strike" was used during USO.

Even more ridiculous: two year ranking system.
It has got so rotten, I'm sure somebody must have had enough and sent the buzz words "fast" courts through the media.

Personally, I never liked courts to be too fast. For me, the one in O2 plays perfectly.

The thing that may cut long rallies short faster than speeding the courts and thus introducing the serve-fest era back, would be to enforce the 20 second rule (between the points) by putting clocks/timers on courts.

ATP's new management may have started to feel the "market" , and if that is the case, I'm glad because something does need to be done for the sake of players' health as well as the beautiful game itself.

Tennisanorak wrote:Are we going to look back at this tournament soon as the defining moment in recent tennis history where more and more people started demanding faster courts? Why this had to occur now is unclear, but then tipping points are rarely predictable. Perhaps because of the contrast this tournament presented with the tedium of the Australian Open from the semifinal onwards where players had to hit two or three winners to win a point. In any case, it is refreshing to see everyone- fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost- all talking about the fast surface and how it changed the game and made for a wonderful tournament. One even dares to hope that clay will be slowed down and we will be once again treated to the spectacle that the contrast between FO and Wimbledon represented, where winning the two back to back was the holy grail of tennis rather than a matter of routine.

Are "fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost" all wanting faster courts? Really? I'm not even sure that's what the player who lost was saying...

Hawkeye, Murray talks about how he adjusted to the speed of the courts though it was tough in the beginning. he also talks about how good Federer is in these conditions. These certainly sound like positive comments to me, of someone who enjoyed the experience of playing on these courts. Bear in mind that they might have helped him beat Djokovic and will definitely help him if he plays Nadal. So Murray would have no problems if the courts were made quicker. As for the fans, there are enough of them who found this tournament very entertaining. And yes, many analysts, including Bodo, have taken note of how the courts were noticeably quicker and how this helped those playing a varied game, like Federer.

NITB, I really hope you're proven right!

barrystar wrote:Tenez, here's another (possibly off-thread) point.

Noah served and volleyed his way past Lendl and Wilander on his way to the RG title in 1983 and was an excellent doubles player. His tournament wins were pretty much all clay or indoor hard/carpet - i.e. fast surfaces. On paper then he would appear to have had the tools to do well on grass - but we see a measly 15-18 grass court record on the ATP site and he never got past the 3rd round at Wimbledon - why do you think that is?

Yes. Good point. I cannot explain why he did well on carpet and not on grass. However Noah was an amazing athlete but he did not have quick hands. What I mean by quick hands is being able to pull winners (or hurting his opponent) on fast conditions. Grass was really the fastest surface back then....even faster than carpet (certainly than most). On clay he was able to use his athletism and had more time to hit his shots, which helped....whereas on grass his atheltism was not that useful and he certainly was not a clean striker of the ball like McEnroe or Becker so I am not surprised grass was not his forte.

Why did he do well on carpet? Not sure but regardless he did not win tons...and even clay...that was a close one.

My first tennis match live was Noah Lendl in 83 when Noah won. I was for Lendl....sadly.

In his interview in Dubai (before teh final I believe), he blames partly the players for slowing down the courts. He hints to teh fact they are happy with those conds and woudl not want them faster.

Who those players are? I don't know but I can guess. Certainly no Llodra and Stepanek!

NITB...all good points you make.

noleisthebest

Tennis has not got "rotton". It has not died. Most of the things that you mention upset you because you have such a strong dislike for one player.

This dislike is not shared by the majority of tennis fans as he is an all time great, a huge draw to any tournament and probably one of the most popular players ever. Obviously this is not the view of many that post here on 606v2 but anyone that thinks that Nadal is not highly valued for what he has brought and continues to bring to the game is deluded.

It gets quite tedious when every discussion turns into an excuse for various posters to list all the things they dislike about one player. It makes this site into an "anti fan" club. I hate Rafa because... bla bla bla...

I see 5 rough categories. In a perfect world I'd like to see a clear difference between (i) Aus Open IW/Miami (ii) the Clay Court tournaments (iii) Wimbledon and the grass season (iv) Canada/Cincinnati/USO and (v) the basic thrust of the Indoor Tournaments.

I doubt the ATP would want that because it will tend to create a more disparate crowd of winners who can't be sold outside the sport as huge stars to drag in the non-hardcore tennis fans.

Perhaps the best way to achieve a step towards what I'd like to see would be use of slightly smaller and less fluffy balls at the US Open and Wimbledon.

The only thing that I tend to agree with the slow court theorists is the wear and tear on the body aspect. Although frankly, I don't think I have seen a case being made that we have seen a real shortening of careers or an increase in injuries.

Yesterday I said that tennis and snooker could not be compared. However Snooker can easily help explain how faster conds in tennis favour teh sharpest players.


Over the recent years, snooker organisers thought that by wideining the pockets, we woudl have bigger breaks, centuries and maximums even and that woudl please to the crowd at large and make the game more entertaining.

I think that was a mistake. Having tighter pockets allows to sort the players better. Those with the sharpest eye woudl typically do better and teh run of the ball woudl have less of an impact (Imagine with large pockets, the first with an opportunity would most likely win the frame). But more importantly, the tighter pockets create stress and allow not only the sharpest players to win but also the one with more nerves...more mettle as Lydian says. And for the spectacle, it's much more fun to have tension moments and in a frame having players changing hand. It makes it more dramatic.

Well That is exactly what happens on reasonable faster conditions at tennis. The smashing of a 55g ball and its handling becomes a difficult and risky business. Those with sharper eye/hand coordination can shorten the rallies to save energy. At least they can be tempted to do so. Real momentum can actually shift from one player to another. And that is the big difference with slow conds as we know irremediably that the fitter will win regardless how many topsy turvy the match is. We know for sure that Nadal and Djoko are more likely to win v MUrray and Federer and that Djoko will win even more convincingly versus Nadal in the final.

That's why they narrowed the pockets again in snooker and that is why they need to speed much more courts up!

If tennis is 'dead' then it must be a shame that the leader of the current brand is Nole.

If it is as simple that fitness is the major requirement, then why on earth do we only have 4 players capable of winning the Masters 1000 and Slam events?

Yes I would like to see courts sped up as it balance the field somewhat, but also be less punishing on the players bodies.

There is nothing wrong with Murray praising Federer. He clearly respects Roger and the fast courts suit him down to a tee.

noleisthebest wrote:I am not an expert on the finer details of how to stop the rot of where the game is going right now, and even if I were one, the problem is a bit more complex than just speeding the courts, since the speed of the courts is not the only thing that has changed since wooden reacquet era.

Something definitely needs to be done, mainly because of injuries due to physicality tennis has ended up with.

Fitness is almost on the same level as skill these days; players are possibly neglecting the technical side of their game, wasting time and money on improving their fitness in order to be able to last long enough in rallies.

Nowadays, players need a "team": doctors, physios, expensive preparation programmes, psychologists, what have you...

Due to pushing their bodies (and in some cases minds) to the limit, players are now biting the hand that feeds them and demand fewer tournaments.

That must have seriously sent some alarms bells last year: the word "strike" was used during USO.

Even more ridiculous: two year ranking system.
It has got so rotten, I'm sure somebody must have had enough and sent the buzz words "fast" courts through the media.

Personally, I never liked courts to be too fast. For me, the one in O2 plays perfectly.

The thing that may cut long rallies short faster than speeding the courts and thus introducing the serve-fest era back, would be to enforce the 20 second rule (between the points) by putting clocks/timers on courts.

ATP's new management may have started to feel the "market" , and if that is the case, I'm glad because something does need to be done for the sake of players' health as well as the beautiful game itself.

I think this is a really fab post NITB.

I worry about the short termism of having every tournament (well major) at a similar speed. I think on another post someone was talking about enjoying the difference of play between Borg/Connors and McEnroe and of course the variety in conditions meant that we could enjoy watching the great Borg triumph at RG and W (how brilliant was that) but fall to the wonderful artistry of Mac at US. Connors was an entertaining street fighter, but he was so watchable because he was different.

With slow conditions basically encouraging street fighting in all tournaments - okay it is appealing if that is your bag atm with a charismatic gunslinger like Rafa at the helm and a wonderful versatile No 1 like Novak sharing a pretty brutal rivalry - but without them in a few years, if all the tour become a pale imitation because that is what the conditions demand then I think we will soon find the mens' game as unappealing as the women's tour has been.

socal1976 wrote:The only thing that I tend to agree with the slow court theorists is the wear and tear on the body aspect. Although frankly, I don't think I have seen a case being made that we have seen a real shortening of careers or an increase in injuries.

There is a case being made that we are seeing an increase in injuries by many of the leading players - and the level of injuries at this year's USO is unprecedented.

What we don't see is unanimity about the cause. Many leading players say it's because they have to play too many tournaments, other people suggest that it's because the surfaces overal are too slow.

The most unforgiving surface is hard because there's no 'give' between shoe and surface. All the give has to be in the limbs and hard is increasingly dominant on tour. The worst bit of the absence of 'give' is in the twisting and the instant deceleration - the squeaking you hear almost makes me feel ill for their knees and hips. To my mind it is crazy to have so many slow hard surfaces - 5 hour marathons on clay are no doubt knackering, but on hard they must be incredibly damaging too.

I know people talk about green clay at Wimbledon, but for me the most important thing for the ATP to do to cut down on injury (and in my view to increase entertainment) is to speed up more hardcourt tournaments and I'd do it with the USO swing first of all.

It would seem sensible for the tennis authorities to consider allowing the US hardcourt swing to revert to a faster speed rather than bow to players' demands to shorten the tour.

legendkillar wrote:If tennis is 'dead' then it must be a shame that the leader of the current brand is Nole.

If it is as simple that fitness is the major requirement, then why on earth do we only have 4 players capable of winning the Masters 1000 and Slam events?

Yes I would like to see courts sped up as it balance the field somewhat, but also be less punishing on the players bodies.

There is nothing wrong with Murray praising Federer. He clearly respects Roger and the fast courts suit him down to a tee.

Exactly. Fitness is relatively easy to aquire. If thats all you need to get to the top in tennis why don't players train their way to the top? Easy peasy!

As far as slow courts being punishing on the body. It's not the slowness of the court but the hardness of the surface. More natural surfaces would be a good idea. More clay and grass. The problem with natural surfaces is the expense. The problem with the argument for more natural surfaces here on 606v2 would be that its been put forward by a certain player.

Seriously I don't know about Nadal being the death of tennis. However I'm beginning to think 606v2 is fast becoming the death of any sort of fun discussion about tennis without certain posters listing all the things they hate about Nadal... bla bla bla...

hawkeye wrote:Exactly. Fitness is relatively easy to aquire. If thats all you need to get to the top in tennis why don't players train their way to the top? Easy peasy!

Are you serious?

Well there might be an easy way....but is it legal?

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Exactly. Fitness is relatively easy to aquire. If thats all you need to get to the top in tennis why don't players train their way to the top? Easy peasy!

Are you serious?

Well there might be an easy way....but is it legal?

I agree with the O.P
Looks more like an excuse as to why he didn't win

As for the other theory,I don't think slowing the courts down has cheated Roger at all,he is still very successful which in my opinion proves his versatility and ability to adapt to different conditions

hawkeye wrote:This is what Murray said after losing to Federer in the Dubai final on Saturday.

"...."

I can imagine that many will see this comment and see it as ...

To me it sounds like Murray is being his usual ...

I know you believe what you think the reporter wrote about what he thought Murray said, but I’m not sure that what you read is what the reporter really meant about what he thought Murray said ...

... and if the reporter did write what he really meant about what he thought Murray said, it's possible that what he wrote was not what Murray really meant to say.

Tennisanorak wrote:Are we going to look back at this tournament soon as the defining moment in recent tennis history where more and more people started demanding faster courts? Why this had to occur now is unclear, but then tipping points are rarely predictable. Perhaps because of the contrast this tournament presented with the tedium of the Australian Open from the semifinal onwards where players had to hit two or three winners to win a point. In any case, it is refreshing to see everyone- fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost- all talking about the fast surface and how it changed the game and made for a wonderful tournament. One even dares to hope that clay will be slowed down and we will be once again treated to the spectacle that the contrast between FO and Wimbledon represented, where winning the two back to back was the holy grail of tennis rather than a matter of routine.

The tedium of the AO, come on tennisanorak. Put the AO semi or final in front of any viewer and then the semi and finals of the dubai tournament and then ask them which is tedium. I don't hear this outcry from fans, players, and the media for faster conditions contrary to the portrait that you and other posters on this site are posting. In fact, after watching this dullfest at Dubai and contrasting it with the AO, I would say dump a truck load or two more sand for every single hardcourt. The defining point of this tournament is Roger hitting a serve and watching his opponents return go long or into the net. The sheer excitement of watching a couple of hundred points like this over the course of the tournament I am sure will not create this outcry for faster conditions.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Exactly. Fitness is relatively easy to aquire. If thats all you need to get to the top in tennis why don't players train their way to the top? Easy peasy!

Are you serious?

Well there might be an easy way....but is it legal?

There is 7 billion people on the planet. Surely there must be more people out there capable of beating the top 10.

Legally too!

Excellent post Barry, the cause if any of injuries I think has a lot to do with the large number of hardcourt events. I would wholeheartedly support some changes that would favor faster tennis. For example change one of the hardcourt masters to grass, that is a long time overdue and would certainly help the wear and tear on the body. I play both on clay and hardcourt. I prefer hardcourt because I like to go for winners and like the firm footing. But my body feels like I was in a fight if I play a long hard week of tennis on the hardcourt. While after a clay match there isn't any pain due to the impact of moving on the surface.

I would favor emphasizing grass and clay courts as opposed to the hardcourts that may impact both variety on the court and impact injuries. But again I view incremental steps like a grass court masters more in line with what we have to look at in terms of changes.

socal1976 wrote:The defining point of this tournament is Roger hitting a serve and watching his opponents return go long or into the net. The sheer excitement of watching a couple of hundred points like this over the course of the tournament I am sure will not create this outcry for faster conditions.

May I suggest starting at 0:52+ (5-5 first set)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hP5q1ZbdaQ&list=UU_ifbAaYR1Saz-D6y3CLn1Q&index=2&feature=plcp

Let me know what you think of point construction?

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The defining point of this tournament is Roger hitting a serve and watching his opponents return go long or into the net. The sheer excitement of watching a couple of hundred points like this over the course of the tournament I am sure will not create this outcry for faster conditions.

May I suggest starting at 0:52+ (5-5 first set)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hP5q1ZbdaQ&list=UU_ifbAaYR1Saz-D6y3CLn1Q&index=2&feature=plcp

Let me know what you think of point construction?

Won't really help LF. Someone who is hell-bent or proving that the tournament was boring won't accept saying "that's just a couple of points" etc.

The thing is, just watching the highlights package of a few matches would tell you that the tournament was anything but boring. I don't understand how seeing 3-4 "winners" coming back and that too for 6 hours of the match with point ending in an UE in the end can be exciting but not this.

socal1976 wrote:

Tennisanorak wrote:Are we going to look back at this tournament soon as the defining moment in recent tennis history where more and more people started demanding faster courts? Why this had to occur now is unclear, but then tipping points are rarely predictable. Perhaps because of the contrast this tournament presented with the tedium of the Australian Open from the semifinal onwards where players had to hit two or three winners to win a point. In any case, it is refreshing to see everyone- fans, analysts, players who won, players who lost- all talking about the fast surface and how it changed the game and made for a wonderful tournament. One even dares to hope that clay will be slowed down and we will be once again treated to the spectacle that the contrast between FO and Wimbledon represented, where winning the two back to back was the holy grail of tennis rather than a matter of routine.

The tedium of the AO, come on tennisanorak. Put the AO semi or final in front of any viewer and then the semi and finals of the dubai tournament and then ask them which is tedium. I don't hear this outcry from fans, players, and the media for faster conditions contrary to the portrait that you and other posters on this site are posting. In fact, after watching this dullfest at Dubai and contrasting it with the AO, I would say dump a truck load or two more sand for every single hardcourt. The defining point of this tournament is Roger hitting a serve and watching his opponents return go long or into the net. The sheer excitement of watching a couple of hundred points like this over the course of the tournament I am sure will not create this outcry for faster conditions.

Only time will tell, but I think you're swimming against the flow. My bet is that within a year the game will be well on the way to being speeded up. In the end 5 hour epics stop being novel and start getting in the way of what everyone does in a day.

barrystar wrote:I doubt the ATP would want that because it will tend to create a more disparate crowd of winners who can't be sold outside the sport as huge stars to drag in the non-hardcore tennis fans.

1970s (Slam winners - 16 distinct winners)

8 Borg
5 Newcombe, Connors
4 Vilas
3 Rosewall, Kodes
2 Smith, Năstase, Ashe
1 Edmondson, Gerulaitis, Gimeno, McEnroe, Orantes, Panatta, Tanner


1980s (Slam winners - 12 distinct winners)

7 Lendl, Wilander
6 McEnroe
4 Becker
3 Borg, Connors, Edberg
2 Kriek
1 Cash, Chang, Noah, Teacher


1990s (Slam winners - 16 distinct winners)

12 Sampras
5 Agassi
4 Courier
3 Edberg
2 Becker, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter
1 Gómez, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Lendl, Moyá, Muster, Stich


2000s (Slam winners - 15 distinct winners)

15 Federer
6 Nadal
3 Agassi
2 Hewitt, Safin, Sampras, Kuerten
1 Costa, Djokovic, Ferrero, Gaudio, Ivanišević, Johansson, del Potro, Roddick

2010s (Slam winners - 3 distinct winners, so far)

4 Djokovic, Nadal
1 Federer


For the last four decades, the number of distinct winners has been roughly 12-16 winners.

In the last two decades, there have been highly 'visible' players with dominating performances. ITF/ATP/WTA is captialising on this for marketing purposes.

I should try and find viewership numbers to correlate these, but my assumption is that such numbers have increased (not decreased) due to the availability of broadcasting media and the Internet.

Yes LF but what really made tennis popular was Borg....then Borg and McEnroe. The crowd needs to concentrate on few champions. The day Dolgo Delpo Djoko and Murray take over, the popularity will drop, especially if they share the cake.

spuranik wrote:
Won't really help LF. Someone who is hell-bent or proving that the tournament was boring won't accept saying "that's just a couple of points" etc.

The thing is, just watching the highlights package of a few matches would tell you that the tournament was anything but boring. I don't understand how seeing 3-4 "winners" coming back and that too for 6 hours of the match with point ending in an UE in the end can be exciting but not this.

SoCal switched to Luxilon/Natural Gut (like Federer, IIRC among others), perhaps, he is willing to at least look. He is a smart cookie.

Tenez wrote:Yes LF but what really made tennis popular was Borg....then Borg and McEnroe. The crowd needs to concentrate on few champions.

Public does need a face to associate with a sport. Fans of different styles make choices. Even 606v2 does represent a diverse view of players followed. Occasional spectators are probably closer to what you are indicating.

Tenez wrote:The day Dolgo Delpo Djoko and Murray take over, the popularity will drop, especially if they share the cake.

There may be a younger generation which will perhaps choose these players. Hard to predict the direction it will go.

"Dolgo Delpo Djoko and Murray" are playing now. When Djokovic and Murray played in the AO final in 2011 the number of television viewers plummeted. These players do not attract the attention of Nadal and Federer.

You only have to look at womens tennis to see how the interest in tennis is dictated by personality, charisma, style, the storyline of rivalries and of course quality play. Womens tennis is lacking in a few of these factors at the moment and interest has dropped.

Without any obvious younger successors to Federer and Nadal sadly I see a similar thing happening to mens tennis when they retire. I am just keeping my fingers crossed that Federer will be able to continue to play until he is 35 or 36 as he has said he hopes to.

bogbrush wrote:
.............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
Only time will tell, but I think you're swimming against the flow. My bet is that within a year the game will be well on the way to being speeded up. In the end 5 hour epics stop being novel and start getting in the way of what everyone does in a day.

I was amused by Rafa's reaction when asked at the AO post-final press conference if he intended watching a tape of the match. There was a very determined shake of the head ......

"Too long" he said. "Highlights only"

He can be quite funny when the mood takes him

hawkeye wrote:When Djokovic and Murray played in the AO final in 2011 the number of television viewers plummeted.

Source?

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The defining point of this tournament is Roger hitting a serve and watching his opponents return go long or into the net. The sheer excitement of watching a couple of hundred points like this over the course of the tournament I am sure will not create this outcry for faster conditions.

May I suggest starting at 0:52+ (5-5 first set)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hP5q1ZbdaQ&list=UU_ifbAaYR1Saz-D6y3CLn1Q&index=2&feature=plcp

Let me know what you think of point construction?

I watched the first game and half, nothing really all that impressive. And a lot of short points not a real good flow from the baseline for either player.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The defining point of this tournament is Roger hitting a serve and watching his opponents return go long or into the net. The sheer excitement of watching a couple of hundred points like this over the course of the tournament I am sure will not create this outcry for faster conditions.

May I suggest starting at 0:52+ (5-5 first set)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hP5q1ZbdaQ&list=UU_ifbAaYR1Saz-D6y3CLn1Q&index=2&feature=plcp

Let me know what you think of point construction?

I watched the first game and half, nothing really all that impressive. And a lot of short points not a real good flow from the baseline for either player.

Can you watch the 11th game as I suggested?

Now, on the same fast court watch this - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2012/02/Dubai/Dubai-2012-ATP-Friday-Highlights.aspx