Murray Says Fast Courts Suit Federer

First topic message reminder :

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?

What I liked about this Dubai win from Federer is that some (including Lydian) were saying that Fed was now better on slow surfaces cause his age woudl mean a slow down in his footwork and reflexes.

Well I never thought so and am glad I was right....once again!

You cant beat self-magnanimity can you. Fancy believing that age is linked to reflexes and footwork...the scandal of it!

Yes but I have always maintained that at 30 you don't have a drop in reflexes and footwork. Certainly not visible with a naked eye as some have been saying here. And in any case Fed had still the best eye/hand coordination out there at 30 which should advantage him on fast surfaces.

Tenez wrote:Yes but I have always maintained that at 30 you don't have a drop in reflexes and footwork. Certainly not visible with a naked eye as some have been saying here. And in any case Fed had still the best eye/hand coordination out there at 30 which should advantage him on fast surfaces.

Agreed. The only thing that's changed about him is his motivation.

Tenez,
how would you compare Fed's to Serena's hand to eye ?

noleisthebest wrote:
Agreed. The only thing that's changed about him is his motivation.

I would say not even that. It's simply a combination of slowing conds and much more physical players which makes him spread his dedication more carefully all year round than when he could win right and left effortlessly.

They are all playing tougher than in 2007 but especially Nadal Murray and Djoko. Had Fed not progressed with them, he woudl have never been been able to compete with them like he does now.

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
how would you compare Fed's to Serena's hand to eye ?

I am not sure I understand, do you think Serena has a particularly good eye/hand coordination?

@Raider, frankly your belief is that I am making extreme comments I disagree Raider. My real question is that as a default surface does slower conditions or lightening fast conditions yield more engaging matches. This was the debate that a decade ago was won in the minds of number of tournament directors by slower conditions. Lets looks at wimbeldon take 3 successive wimby finals 07,08,09 each and everyone of those finals were better than anything wimbeldon had produced in nearly 30 years well since borg and Mac in 80. Two of which Roger Federer won, and in the 09 final he set a record of 51 aces in the match, (till Isner v. Mahut).

Now contrast what we have seen in Dubai, not a single engrossing match with all the best players in the world minus Nadal entering. The signature point of the tournament was federer serving and his opponent hitting out on the return, that was about 200 points worth of action at this tournament. Is this high brow tennis entertainment that only online tennis afficianados can appreciate? I think it is mind numbingly dull, 2 minute service games and 100 netted or long returns a match.

Fast court tennis, especially with a big server does not lend itself to many up and down and back and forth contests. The guy with the better serve usually wins, and if he gets a break early in the set well then go get a sandwhich and come back at the start of the next set. At wimbeldon if sampras broke during the first service game of a set to go up 0-1 the remaining 8 or nine games of the set was basically meaningless.

Now of course you can get great matches and dull matches in both fast and slow conditions. But as a baseline, the slower conditions produce more engaging and closer matches. And also more engaging points as well.

Tenez wrote:I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

Have to agree with Tenez here, Djoko has won pretty much all the faster events on tour. He is generally a little more aggressive with murray in court positioning and on the forehand so I think he can dictate more naturally and effectively on the faster surface. Murray can play and play well on fast conditions and the margin between him and the world #1 is not that big as the AO semi and Dubai semi have shown, yet I think it is a bridge too far to say that he is a superior fast court player than Novak. Novak has won this tournament 3 times in a row. Murray has gotten to one final.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

Have to agree with Tenez here, Djoko has won pretty much all the faster events on tour. He is generally a little more aggressive with murray in court positioning and on the forehand so I think he can dictate more naturally and effectively on the faster surface. Murray can play and play well on fast conditions and the margin between him and the world #1 is not that big as the AO semi and Dubai semi have shown, yet I think it is a bridge too far to say that he is a superior fast court player than Novak. Novak has won this tournament 3 times in a row. Murray has gotten to one final.

well said Socal.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
how would you compare Fed's to Serena's hand to eye ?

I am not sure I understand, do you think Serena has a particularly good eye/hand coordination?

I haven't seen enough of her to be able to make my mind up, thought you might've. Trying to support my latest pet theory

socal1976 wrote:Lets looks at wimbeldon take 3 successive wimby finals 07,08,09 each and everyone of those finals were better than anything wimbeldon had produced in nearly 30 years .

What, who rather, is the common denominator?

Without Federer take a Nadal v Berdych final and you actually have the worse final in Wimbledon history. The second orse being Hewitt Nalbandian which was extremely slow.

No-one I think argues that something needed to be done in the late 90s. but actually nothing needed to be done to change the conds cause the new strings were going to make it much harder already for the SVer. Now, with a firmer ground (high bounce), fluffy balls, amazing retrievers' fitness and string technology SVers simply have an impossible task and the game can quickly turn boring.

Nadal and Djoko have been playing the same tennis on all slams finals...certainly all surfaces regardless. And that is wrong.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
how would you compare Fed's to Serena's hand to eye ?

I am not sure I understand, do you think Serena has a particularly good eye/hand coordination?

I haven't seen enough of her to be able to make my mind up, thought you might've. Trying to support my latest pet theory

I don't think there is anything particular in the eye/hand skills of Serena.

I would say Laender Paes is another phenomenon in that department.

Tenez, I think I can agree with you to the extent that maybe playing with quicker balls at a fewer of the faster events to see what happens with the level of play. If we get good matches with an incremental change maybe we push for further changes at the traditional fast court events. But I would oppose wholesale and radical changes without adequate time to gauge the impact they are having on the game. I had no problem with the quick balls used at the FO last year, it certainly didn't change the outcome Nadal won. But banning technology and tinker with the surfaces of a bunch of tournaments right off the bat is not in my opinion wise or fair.

By the way Tenez, if the conditions were faster at wimby do you think they would have resulted in more competitive finals in 07 and 08? I don't I think the slower conditions made those finals more competitive by giving Nadal a better chance. Now as a fed fan 08 is a bitter pill, but lets say we had lightening fast conditions in 07 and 08, would those matches have been 5 set classics, I think, and I think you think as well that both those finals would have been more routine for Fed. And not as enjoyable for fans at large. You have to admit the slower conditions do create more up and down matches and sets in terms of the scoreline.

The courts dimension and net high etc...are desiged to make an interesting game. That has always been the case.


Now with the strings and players fitness....but essentially the strings the courts dimension are not rewarding the risk taker.

It's not at all the same to play with luxilon and natural gut. to reproduce the kind of set up we had before teh string technology, we woudl need to have narrower width than now at the net and wider than now at the baseline. In other word seen from above, 2 trapezes stuck by their net side.

A kind of a bow tie seen from above.

I know it woudl be weird but this game is very weird compared to the way it was played just 10 years ago.

socal1976 wrote:.... And not as enjoyable for fans at large. You have to admit the slower conditions do create more up and down matches and sets in terms of the scoreline.

There you go. I woudl have preferred Federer to compete this final versus a Nalbandian or someone who coudl have given him a challenge on fast surfaces. We just had the FO final with those two, we wanted to see who could beat Fed on grass...and not make grass clay so that we coudl have another fedal final.

I am not going to shorten a marathon cause I want to see Bolt win it.

For many of us, Fed was a joy to watch even if it was in 3 sets. Watching him going for suicidal shots one after the other until a shank while Nadal was just standing 3m behind teh baseline waiting for an UE and Fed to tire was extremely frustrating. I cannot see teh spectacle in that. Sure it pushed Federer beyond his comfort zone and allowed drama and half the audience to be delighted by a win from teh claycourter. But personally I felt it was a robbery to have it slowed down as much. I also felt it was a disgrace Nadal took so much time between points and forced the game to finish so late in so dark conditions where again the player giving himself more margins was at a key advantage.

But of course the crowd at large did not care about the details. They want drama and sometimes a different winner.

And would you like to see Djoko v Nadal have to play a different game on slam finals instead of those endless marathon?

Yes but Nalbandian couldn't challenge Fed consistently on fast courts, hell david had difficulty playing an entire season on tour. I think the conditions in 07 and 08 contributed to the classic level of tennis we saw. I remember watching wimbeldon in the 90s and basically it produced nothing of that quality. Who knows in faster conditions maybe Roddick wins 09 he was that close. And Roger has no one to blame for the losses certainly not the conditions considering that he blew nearly a years worth of break points against Nadal in both the 07 and 08 finals. And the matches in 07 and 08 wimby did not look like the FO finals in anything other than participants. Both guys played differently and more aggressive in the wimby finals as the conditions dictated.

And would I like to see Djoko and Nadal play a different game? I actually enjoy their baseline slug fests. And since Novak is getting the better of them, I don't mind the current trend, no. I thought Miami last year was about as good a Master's final between the two guys as any we have seen since they turned the masters final into a three set format. When the two guys play Novak does come to the net quite a bit, but he works his way up there and therefore it isn't traditional S and V, but he is looking to dictate.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
how would you compare Fed's to Serena's hand to eye ?

I am not sure I understand, do you think Serena has a particularly good eye/hand coordination?

I haven't seen enough of her to be able to make my mind up, thought you might've. Trying to support my latest pet theory

Venus, Henin and Stosur have better hand/eye coordination, imvho.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
how would you compare Fed's to Serena's hand to eye ?

I am not sure I understand, do you think Serena has a particularly good eye/hand coordination?

I haven't seen enough of her to be able to make my mind up, thought you might've. Trying to support my latest pet theory

Venus, Henin and Stosur have better hand/eye coordination, imvho.

So far only Federer, Serena, Davydenko (maybe Peas, haven't seen enough, only judging from photos) fit my theory, will have to spend some time on other players.

Actually, just had a bit more look, Serena isn't in the top group. Only Fed and Davy so far.


Justine, Stosur and Henin all seem to be very similar in my theory.

What is your theory? I m intrigued now.

Tenez wrote:What is your theory? I m intrigued now.

I'll send you a PM once I summon courage

Plus, I want to make some more observation during IW.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:What is your theory? I m intrigued now.

I'll send you a PM once I summon courage

Plus, I want to make some more observation during IW.

It's just a hunch bet I bet your theory has something to do with "christmas presents"... You two are so predictable.

hawkeye wrote:

It's just a hunch bet I bet your theory has something to do with "christmas presents"... You two are so predictable.

For Socal....


"That next point might turn out unforgettable, although you'll have to ask 10 years from now. For a 29-shot rally, this 30 year old stood in with a 23 year old for a whole bunch of searing magnificence.

From corner to corner and baseline to baseline they went, Del Potro producing about five shots that seemed ample bids for the point, Federer replying until Del Potro did err."

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/sport-comment/federer-reminds-dubai-of-his-brilliance

I am sure socal probably had nodded off laver He seems to have snoozed through an awful lot.

socal1976 wrote:@Raider, frankly your belief is that I am making extreme comments I disagree Raider. My real question is that as a default surface does slower conditions or lightening fast conditions yield more engaging matches. This was the debate that a decade ago was won in the minds of number of tournament directors by slower conditions. Lets looks at wimbeldon take 3 successive wimby finals 07,08,09 each and everyone of those finals were better than anything wimbeldon had produced in nearly 30 years well since borg and Mac in 80. Two of which Roger Federer won, and in the 09 final he set a record of 51 aces in the match, (till Isner v. Mahut).

Now contrast what we have seen in Dubai, not a single engrossing match with all the best players in the world minus Nadal entering. The signature point of the tournament was federer serving and his opponent hitting out on the return, that was about 200 points worth of action at this tournament. Is this high brow tennis entertainment that only online tennis afficianados can appreciate? I think it is mind numbingly dull, 2 minute service games and 100 netted or long returns a match.

Fast court tennis, especially with a big server does not lend itself to many up and down and back and forth contests. The guy with the better serve usually wins, and if he gets a break early in the set well then go get a sandwhich and come back at the start of the next set. At wimbeldon if sampras broke during the first service game of a set to go up 0-1 the remaining 8 or nine games of the set was basically meaningless.

Now of course you can get great matches and dull matches in both fast and slow conditions. But as a baseline, the slower conditions produce more engaging and closer matches. And also more engaging points as well.

This is getting tiring for me socal. I now just have to say that you live in a different world to that of mine. You think differently, you act differently, you have different taste you, enjoy different things. You can never get the point that me and 1000s of posters have been making. You are just too blind to anything else than what you believe. You want to see drama, swings tides, slug-fest brutal last man standing kind of entertainment. Tennis as times gives those, thats why you watch tennis and you enjoy only those. If its no drama, you call it bore-fest. I agree there are far more people like you who love the modern days slow slug-fest tennis. Thats what all tournaments are looking to cash in. You like million other people, don't care for the game. You will ( may ) disagree with this, but this is what it is. So enjoy the drama, there are plenty these days.

I and some others want to see different skills in tennis. I want to see players with different skills have a chance to win. I want to see players with ability to adapt to various surfaces. I want to see a young player with talent pull out some upsets. I want to see top players face more challenge from the chasing pack. I would love to see some talented players who have a game so great that they can win despite all the surface variation and playing conditions due to their ability adapt... There are 1000s of things I want to see. I enjoyed those when they were in old days, and now I miss those. I care about the game of tennis.

Yes raiders and others want to see what socal enjoys. It is called opinion and personal choice and there is no right or wrong opinion here although some will have you believe that. Now the majority on this forum would be in your defence raiders as it is awash with almost entirely Federer fans with the Nadal element having been eradicated so if we had a higher number of Nadal fans here there would be a much higher numer in support of socals views. What I am saying is because the majority here want faster courts just remember the majority here are Federer fans.

PS I have said I wouldn't mind seeing a few more faster courts like we have just seen in Dubai.

CaledonianCraig wrote:What I am saying is because the majority here want faster courts just remember the majority here are Federer fans.

CC your assumption is wrong here. You are just assuming that others also think like you do i.e. be a fan of a player first then pick on surface/technology/game/balls that favors that player's winning. I am a tennis fan first and foremost and have been watching tennis much before Federer appeared on the scene. In fact I supported Big Phil to win the wimby 2003 after seeing how well he played to beat Agassi.

I don't want to see more tennis played on fast courts because it suites Federer's style of play. I want to see more fast courts ( or rather differences in surfaces ) because it produces great and varied skills of tennis. It allows all skills of tennis and different players with different skill and styles of play to have a chance to win. How many times this has to be told. Unlike socal and a lot of people, I want to see great tennis, not great drama. This has nothing to do with nadal or djo or federer or anyone. If you or anyone think its impossible for any tennis fan to think beyond the spectacle of drama or the love for a particular player, you are mistaken. Players will come and go. Tennis will live. But if tennis is dying, I will most certainly not like it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:PS I have said I wouldn't mind seeing a few more faster courts like we have just seen in Dubai.

Yes but there are also 'extremists' like socal who want to see whatever variety that is left in tennis, get killed for his 'drama'.

Maybe, just maybe the majority here are tennis fans and a sizeable portion of those on the site (at the moment) seem to cite Federer as their favourite of the current crop. There are Rafa fans, and most of the posters here admire Rafa's talent. I think Lydian's point that a lot of us do surround TMF'sgame with a glow because of a sadness that when he retires we may be seeing the last of the great attacking players (for some time at least) is a very good one, and I think that a lot of sentiment for Rafa will grow as he begins to near retirement age - I've seen that happen in tennis crowds for quite a few generations.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote:@Raider, frankly your belief is that I am making extreme comments I disagree Raider. My real question is that as a default surface does slower conditions or lightening fast conditions yield more engaging matches. This was the debate that a decade ago was won in the minds of number of tournament directors by slower conditions. Lets looks at wimbeldon take 3 successive wimby finals 07,08,09 each and everyone of those finals were better than anything wimbeldon had produced in nearly 30 years well since borg and Mac in 80. Two of which Roger Federer won, and in the 09 final he set a record of 51 aces in the match, (till Isner v. Mahut).

Now contrast what we have seen in Dubai, not a single engrossing match with all the best players in the world minus Nadal entering. The signature point of the tournament was federer serving and his opponent hitting out on the return, that was about 200 points worth of action at this tournament. Is this high brow tennis entertainment that only online tennis afficianados can appreciate? I think it is mind numbingly dull, 2 minute service games and 100 netted or long returns a match.

Fast court tennis, especially with a big server does not lend itself to many up and down and back and forth contests. The guy with the better serve usually wins, and if he gets a break early in the set well then go get a sandwhich and come back at the start of the next set. At wimbeldon if sampras broke during the first service game of a set to go up 0-1 the remaining 8 or nine games of the set was basically meaningless.

Now of course you can get great matches and dull matches in both fast and slow conditions. But as a baseline, the slower conditions produce more engaging and closer matches. And also more engaging points as well.

This is getting tiring for me socal. I now just have to say that you live in a different world to that of mine. You think differently, you act differently, you have different taste you, enjoy different things. You can never get the point that me and 1000s of posters have been making. You are just too blind to anything else than what you believe. You want to see drama, swings tides, slug-fest brutal last man standing kind of entertainment. Tennis as times gives those, thats why you watch tennis and you enjoy only those. If its no drama, you call it bore-fest. I agree there are far more people like you who love the modern days slow slug-fest tennis. Thats what all tournaments are looking to cash in. You like million other people, don't care for the game. You will ( may ) disagree with this, but this is what it is. So enjoy the drama, there are plenty these days.

I and some others want to see different skills in tennis. I want to see players with different skills have a chance to win. I want to see players with ability to adapt to various surfaces. I want to see a young player with talent pull out some upsets. I want to see top players face more challenge from the chasing pack. I would love to see some talented players who have a game so great that they can win despite all the surface variation and playing conditions due to their ability adapt... There are 1000s of things I want to see. I enjoyed those when they were in old days, and now I miss those. I care about the game of tennis.

socal,

Have you forgotten Wimbledon 1999 where Sampras produced the most dominant performance witnessed in a Slam final?

Yes years ago slowing down courts was a radical thing to consider and yes it drew in a new audience. Now what we have is something similar to F1 where people might just wait for a final set showdown and then tune in and watch to avoid the boredom of the first 2/4 sets. Take the AO Final 2012. I would wager most fans who watched it would probably feel a lot happier not to watch another tennis match ever again.

There are lots of fans I remember who said Sampras was the death of tennis and now they Nadal is too. It shows that an evolution is required to meet the needs of all the players, but also the paying fans too. I remember my nephew last year who is a keen tennis player could not understand how Queens played like an ice rink and Wimbledon played like a bog. The tournaments all want the best players to be their champions, but let's not manipulate the conditions to suit the preferred choice.

I think, raiders, you are making the wrong assumptions as social himself has said he'd also like to see more variety in court speeds. Just because he says he prefers the tennis played now as in long slugfests doesn't mean he only wants slow courts. Now as far as Nadal fans go here we have two who post regularly out of how many members? If the clamoring for fast courts by the mass public is really so enormous it will happen is what I am saying. Court speeds do change and will change again.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, raiders, you are making the wrong assumptions as social himself has said he'd also like to see more variety in court speeds. Just because he says he prefers the tennis played now as in long slugfests doesn't mean he only wants slow courts.

. Did you even read socals' posts since the Dubai semis? Or shall I bring out some quotes to aid your memory? I am not making any assumption. I'm saying this based on what socal writes in his posts.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now as far as Nadal fans go here we have two who post regularly out of how many members? If the clamoring for fast courts by the mass public is really so enormous it will happen is what I am saying. Court speeds do change and will change again.

Nadal and Fed have almost similar number of facebook fans. Fed slightly more, but the numbers of Nadal fans have increased drastically since the AO 2012 loss. Nadal was even voted most popular player this AO 2012. But still despite those figures, Nadal fans on any tennis forums (and not fan-site) are always low.

The reason that there aren't many Nadal fans who post regularly is : Nadal fans are mostly people who are casual watcher of tennis. They watch tennis for the drama it can produce. They mostly have not much understanding of the game to actually get into any debate/discussion. They don't have time or inclination or the energy for anything like those. In short they are not passionate about it. some people ( including me) post regularly here on 606v2 post even late night, from their work-place. How many people can have energy and time do keep doing it? Fans are certainly there ( we have the stats ), but they just don't care to post much.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
The reason that there aren't many Nadal fans who post regularly is : Nadal fans are mostly people who are casual watcher of tennis. They watch tennis for the drama it can produce. They mostly have not much understanding of the game to actually get into any debate/discussion. They don't have time or inclination or the energy for anything like those. In short they are not passionate about it. some people ( including me) post regularly here on 606v2 post even late night, from their work-place. How many people can have energy and time do keep doing it?

This is a very good point I was going to make. I even think the vast majority of those are women who fancy Nadal but woudl not bother to join a tennis forum to discuss tennis matter but would prefer to communicate with him by FB. On teh other hand, I am a big fan of tennis and like Federer's game (and certainly don't mind his personality) but I woudl never try to be friend with him on FB...and I am pretty sure many tennis fans are the same.

I won't go into detail about what happened to the large amount of Nadal posters who posted here at one time as it is well-documented and yes I do read socal's posts as at least he has the courtesy of given each player credit where it is due even if that player is a direct rival to his own favourite. Socal did labour long and hard about the drabness of Dubai in terms of exciting matches and that is a valid point but I personally think that wasntvmuch to do with court speed but just the way things panned out as I have watched tournements on slower courts that have been short of exciting matches. However, social did also say he welcomed court speed variety as well. Hunt around and you will find the posts.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Nadal fans are mostly people who are casual watcher of tennis. They watch tennis for the drama it can produce. They mostly have not much understanding of the game to actually get into any debate/discussion. They don't have time or inclination or the energy for anything like those. In short they are not passionate about it.

That's your short-sighted and biased opinion, and its no surprise to see Tenez latch onto it also.
This forum is so anti-Nadal, anti-Nadal fan its untrue at times.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
The reason that there aren't many Nadal fans who post regularly is : Nadal fans are mostly people who are casual watcher of tennis. They watch tennis for the drama it can produce. They mostly have not much understanding of the game to actually get into any debate/discussion. They don't have time or inclination or the energy for anything like those. In short they are not passionate about it. some people ( including me) post regularly here on 606v2 post even late night, from their work-place. How many people can have energy and time do keep doing it?

This is a very good point I was going to make. I even think the vast majority of those are women who fancy Nadal but woudl not bother to join a tennis forum to discuss tennis matter but would prefer to communicate with him by FB. On teh other hand, I am a big fan of tennis and like Federer's game (and certainly don't mind his personality) but I woudl never try to be friend with him on FB...and I am pretty sure many tennis fans are the same.

The best thing that tennis has done is come away from the 'eliteism' mindset that had plagued it during the amateur era and early into the Open Era. Borg had a massive following of female fans and Agassi did to, all before Nadal ever did. Yes to some it is frustrating that hear female fans drool over player appearances, but if we argue that out of 10 female fans that follow tennis because of the 'talent' on display and say 3 out of the 10 actually develop a much deeper interest in the game and span out their interest beyond eye candy, then that is a good thing for the sport.

You will get girls who love players because they are good looking.

You will get the nationalist fans who follow the players of their country religiously.

You will get the fans who love the sport itself and the players who play the best and eye catching tennis.

It takes all sorts.

What I don't want to see is suited up ponces drinking Champagne, eating Strawberries, polishing their monocles who are there to be with an elite and not have a clue about the game of tennis!

Tenez wrote:Yes but I have always maintained that at 30 you don't have a drop in reflexes and footwork. Certainly not visible with a naked eye as some have been saying here. And in any case Fed had still the best eye/hand coordination out there at 30 which should advantage him on fast surfaces.

Reflexes can stay at peak up to age 30ish - and actually peak around mid-20s.
But reaction times, reflexes and hand-eye/foot-eye coordination are not all the same thing.
Reflexes form a part of reaction time, but muscle memory is a major component too.
It is also your opinion that Federer is the best at all these things...it cannot be proved by subjective discussion.
Being adept on fast surfaces is much more than just reaction time, reflexes.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I won't go into detail about what happened to the large amount of Nadal posters who posted here at one time as it is well-documented and yes I do read socal's posts as at least he has the courtesy of given each player credit where it is due even if that player is a direct rival to his own favourite. Socal did labour long and hard about the drabness of Dubai in terms of exciting matches and that is a valid point but I personally think that wasntvmuch to do with court speed but just the way things panned out as I have watched tournements on slower courts that have been short of exciting matches. However, social did also say he welcomed court speed variety as well. Hunt around and you will find the posts.

I don't know what happened to them They all left while I was "away" for quite a bit. I was "away" because those same Nadal fans were complaining about me having about 10 of these after I wrote an article about Nole's win over Nadal in Madrid.

Then somebody (assume it was mods at the time) removed all the smileys and told me to tone down. I was astounded, felt like a cold shower....and for what?

So I have no idea why they left, but didn't miss them on my return which had nothing to do with them being either here or not.
I was so happy because that was a monumental win for Nole.

Also, LK not all fans HAVE to be great "knowers" of the game...the game would die if it didnt have a large majority of fans following it and paying gate receipts who dont know who won Wimbledon titles 20 years ago, or what grip Federer plays with compared to Nadal or Djokovic...

But its the almost inbuilt superiority of some Federer fans on here that does this forum no good at all. It may be a surprise to some but not everyone who is knowledgeable about the game thinks Federer walks on water.

lydian wrote:Also, LK not all fans HAVE to be great "knowers" of the game...the game would die if it didnt have a large majority of fans following it and paying gate receipts who dont know who won Wimbledon titles 20 years ago, or what grip Federer plays with compared to Nadal or Djokovic...

But its the almost inbuilt superiority of some Federer fans on here that does this forum no good at all. It may be a surprise to some but not everyone who is knowledgeable about the game thinks Federer walks on water.

Oh, but he's pretty close

I don't mind Fed fans, they are passionate and can come across as "superior" but only if you allow yourself to think they are.
Fed is such a great player and has done so much for tennis, it's hard to pick his game and argue with his fans.

I accept both him and his fans like that. Fed is a rare phenomenon so, why not enjoy him while he's here.
I don't find it difficult to like him and be a Nole fan.

There's a chasm between like and love.

the difference is liking is conditional and love is not.

I totally agree lydian.

legendkillar wrote:The best thing that tennis has done is come away from the 'eliteism' mindset that had plagued it during the amateur era and early into the Open Era.

I can't say really cause I have not known it but my grandparents had great memories of tennis from teh musketeers. It think it was great then as well. It's just different now.

Borg had a massive following of female fans and Agassi did to, all before Nadal ever did. Yes to some it is frustrating that hear female fans drool over player appearances, but if we argue that out of 10 female fans that follow tennis because of the 'talent' on display and say 3 out of the 10 actually develop a much deeper interest in the game and span out their interest beyond eye candy, then that is a good thing for the sport.

I don;t mind having the whole planet looking at tennis because a player is good looking. It's actually good for the game. What is wrong and we have made it clear it's to change the rules and conds to favour one popular player at teh expense of others. It takes the sport closer to a show than a real sport. That is the down side of having lots of fans who don't really understand the effort of a SHBH down the line and a bashing of the ball from 3m behind the baseline. Especially at a time where "physique and power" can be so easily acquired.

legendkillar wrote:What I don't want to see is suited up ponces drinking Champagne, eating Strawberries, polishing their monocles who are there to be with an elite and not have a clue about the game of tennis!

I don't mind those either. As you say it's for everybody, but let's not change the conds to favour one player. When they changed the conds in the 90s, it was to make it more of a spectacle but I do not remember the purpose was to facilitate the game for a star player....unless they already tried to slow it down to Agassi but I doubt as he had already won Wimby in quick conds.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yes but I have always maintained that at 30 you don't have a drop in reflexes and footwork. Certainly not visible with a naked eye as some have been saying here. And in any case Fed had still the best eye/hand coordination out there at 30 which should advantage him on fast surfaces.

Reflexes can stay at peak up to age 30ish - and actually peak around mid-20s.
But reaction times, reflexes and hand-eye/foot-eye coordination are not all the same thing.
Reflexes form a part of reaction time, but muscle memory is a major component too.
It is also your opinion that Federer is the best at all these things...it cannot be proved by subjective discussion.
Being adept on fast surfaces is much more than just reaction time, reflexes.

YOu see you accuse some of being "knowers" (or pretending to be) but you come with your own little fabricated science to try to impress even more than the "knowers". It's comical if you ask me. I am not going to discuss memory muscles here. It's not going to lead us anywhere. Let's call it timing, reflexes and eye/hand coordination. Everybody understands that and they are the essential ingredients to talent. In short the pace and dosage of stimuli travelling the nerve cells.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I won't go into detail about what happened to the large amount of Nadal posters who posted here at one time as it is well-documented and yes I do read socal's posts as at least he has the courtesy of given each player credit where it is due even if that player is a direct rival to his own favourite. Socal did labour long and hard about the drabness of Dubai in terms of exciting matches and that is a valid point but I personally think that wasntvmuch to do with court speed but just the way things panned out as I have watched tournements on slower courts that have been short of exciting matches. However, social did also say he welcomed court speed variety as well. Hunt around and you will find the posts.

1. Nadal's posters are few on every tennis forum, not just 606v2. There are plenty on facebook and his fan sites. Why is this so?

2. Don't use terms like 'well-documented'. Show me where its well-documented why Nadal fans left this 606v2 forum? who are the many of the Nadal fans that left this forum. I belive this forum never had many Nadal fans to begin with. Like I said most nadal fans are casual watcher of tennis. They will never have the time or energy to keep discussing lines and lines of text about tennis. They rather post a "good luck Rafa", "I love you rafa", "rafa, you are the best" on his facebook page than wasting time on talking about his game on 606v2.

And lets assume even if they did, Nadal fans left this forum because Nadal started to lose. Because he couldn't be the GOAT that they hailed him once for. No one banned them.

606v2 is one the most popular tennis forums and tennis lovers love to be here. If myself had stopped posting for few months, but I couldn't keep away because, frankly there is no place as good this. If Nadal fans aren't here, they can't be on any other sensible tennis forum. Those fans can only be on facebook and fan sites.

3. Give credit? What do you actually want me to do? How much credit you want me to give to players. I'm not on this forum to keep giving credits. I'm here to discuss tennis. Players will get credit when I think they should. Murray got credit for reaching the Dubai finals. He got credit for serving brilliant against Djo. He gets credit for being #4. Likewise other player also get it. I give them but I can't keep doing that on my every post. You keep doing it, if you wish. My main reason to be here is to discuss tennis rather than 'distributing' credits.

4. Yes socal's point of dumping trucks of sand on every hard court to slow it down to hell limits is also very valid. Very thoughtful of you.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The best thing that tennis has done is come away from the 'eliteism' mindset that had plagued it during the amateur era and early into the Open Era.

I can't say really cause I have not known it but my grandparents had great memories of tennis from teh musketeers. It think it was great then as well. It's just different now.

Borg had a massive following of female fans and Agassi did to, all before Nadal ever did. Yes to some it is frustrating that hear female fans drool over player appearances, but if we argue that out of 10 female fans that follow tennis because of the 'talent' on display and say 3 out of the 10 actually develop a much deeper interest in the game and span out their interest beyond eye candy, then that is a good thing for the sport.

I don;t mind having the whole planet looking at tennis because a player is good looking. It's actually good for the game. What is wrong and we have made it clear it's to change the rules and conds to favour one popular player at teh expense of others. It takes the sport closer to a show than a real sport. That is the down side of having lots of fans who don't really understand the effort of a SHBH down the line and a bashing of the ball from 3m behind the baseline. Especially at a time where "physique and power" can be so easily acquired.

legendkillar wrote:What I don't want to see is suited up ponces drinking Champagne, eating Strawberries, polishing their monocles who are there to be with an elite and not have a clue about the game of tennis!

I don't mind those either. As you say it's for everybody, but let's not change the conds to favour one player. When they changed the conds in the 90s, it was to make it more of a spectacle but I do not remember the purpose was to facilitate the game for a star player....unless they already tried to slow it down to Agassi but I doubt as he had already won Wimby in quick conds.

I agree with what you say in principle Tenez. I would like variety. I would like to see different champions at Slam and Master events. Different surfaces to give different response to speed and trajectory to players groundstrokes. I do hope that events will start to listen to players and fans and get changes introduced immediately.

lydian wrote:That's your short-sighted and biased opinion, and its no surprise to see Tenez latch onto it also.
This forum is so anti-Nadal, anti-Nadal fan its untrue at times.

Nothing is anti-Nadal here. If its anti tennis it will be brought up in discussions. If it happens to be also anti-nadal, then so be it. It wouldn't have mattered if the player was Nadal or Federer or someone ranked 786. No player is above tennis for me.

Why don't you answer my questions 1. and 2. in the my reply to CC?

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The best thing that tennis has done is come away from the 'eliteism' mindset that had plagued it during the amateur era and early into the Open Era.

I can't say really cause I have not known it but my grandparents had great memories of tennis from teh musketeers. It think it was great then as well. It's just different now.

Borg had a massive following of female fans and Agassi did to, all before Nadal ever did. Yes to some it is frustrating that hear female fans drool over player appearances, but if we argue that out of 10 female fans that follow tennis because of the 'talent' on display and say 3 out of the 10 actually develop a much deeper interest in the game and span out their interest beyond eye candy, then that is a good thing for the sport.

I don;t mind having the whole planet looking at tennis because a player is good looking. It's actually good for the game. What is wrong and we have made it clear it's to change the rules and conds to favour one popular player at teh expense of others. It takes the sport closer to a show than a real sport. That is the down side of having lots of fans who don't really understand the effort of a SHBH down the line and a bashing of the ball from 3m behind the baseline. Especially at a time where "physique and power" can be so easily acquired.

legendkillar wrote:What I don't want to see is suited up ponces drinking Champagne, eating Strawberries, polishing their monocles who are there to be with an elite and not have a clue about the game of tennis!

I don't mind those either. As you say it's for everybody, but let's not change the conds to favour one player. When they changed the conds in the 90s, it was to make it more of a spectacle but I do not remember the purpose was to facilitate the game for a star player....unless they already tried to slow it down to Agassi but I doubt as he had already won Wimby in quick conds.

I agree with what you say in principle Tenez. I would like variety. I would like to see different champions at Slam and Master events. Different surfaces to give different response to speed and trajectory to players groundstrokes. I do hope that events will start to listen to players and fans and get changes introduced immediately.

I don't wan to see different champions at slams. I want Nole to win them all.

Variety is irrelevant. That's the tennis tournaments directors' problem.

Obviously, different surfaces play differently, and although they have merged closer, they are not all the same.

A real tennis master can and will win on any surface.

legendkillar wrote:.....I would like to see different champions at Slam and Master events. Different surfaces to give different response to speed and trajectory to players groundstrokes.

I think we are all in agreement with that but what we are seeing nowadays is the 2 fittest players sharing all slam finals playing the same way on all surfaces.