Slow court IW blowing away fast court Dubai for quality, maybe that is why they changed in the 1st place

Already by the end of the third round IW and despite a flu bug that has knocked out a dozen or more competitors, IW has already produced more watchable and enjoyable matches than the fast court dubai snoozefest. With quality matches from Step and Tsonga, Fed and Raonic, and Baggy and Dolgopolov. We have seen plenty of winners, aces, and yes even a great deal of volleying. Not to mention that those who posit that the same players are winning because of slow conditions and fitness again need a napkin to wipe the egg off their face. Slow conditioned Indian wells also has produced more upsets than fast conditioned dubai. David Ferrer #6 out, Andy Murray #4 out. I thought slower conditions were homogenizing the results? Funny in Dubai the top 3 seeds and Del Potro all got to the semis. In Indian Wells federer had to fight from a set down, and two big upsets have already occurred. It seems like slow conditions have actually helped and not hindered the competive nature of the matches. And maybe just maybe the same 4 guys just win most of the times because they are that good. So far I don't know which fast conditioned tournament has been worse the Cincy snoozefest of 2011 or the Dubai snoozefest of 2012, is this the fast court Nirvana we are being sold?

Great article
Great exciting tournament so far, more upsets than Dubai!

socal1976 wrote:I thought slower conditions were homogenizing the results?

No, homogenous conditions are homogenizing the results. Hence, when we get 2 tournaments with different surfaces, we get to see different styles of tennis with different skills and different results - and everyone is happy (except those that only like one style of tennis).

That is right amiritia, IW's slow conditions has already produced more great matches than all of Dubai's matches combined. This considering that we have had a huge number of walkovers due to a nasty flu bug. So I guess the following equation has been proven Slow conditions + flu pandemic>fast conditioned snoozefest, and we haven't even started the 4th round yet!

REally Julius why haven't the homogenized conditions homogenized the results on the women's side? Where week to week you have no idea who wins a tournament, Aza is finally trying to change that? Dubai was the tournament that had homogenous results, and everyone talked about how fast it was playing. We have already had more upsets here than we have had in the Dubai snoozefest where we had exactly zero major upsets and zero competitive matches. Every kind of variety is not enjoyable in life, see the movie Trading places. I don't want to trade my limousine and house on the hill for eating garbage out dumpster of fast conditions.

socal, if you only want to watch slow courts, there's lots of other things to do instead. I, and many others, happen to like variety in tennis, and appreciate the chance to see different skills. Obviously you don't - no-one's forcing you to watch.

All courts produce entertaining matches, if you like differents kinds of tennis.

Perhaps I should have said "homogenous conditions are homogenizing the tennis" - and that's worse than homogenizing the results IMHO.

Variety is the key. That's why clay and fast grass with hard court in between was so great.

Of course some people like to order the same dish for starters, main and appetiser, probably because they partake not for the taste but for their favourite to prevail, but there's no accounting for a bland palate.

I have seen a few tournaments played on slow courts that have been drab as well so wouldn't blame the court speeds for Dubai's lack of sparkling matches but more a case of **it happens.

Actually, I disagree Craig. You are right dull matches can occur on any surface and good matches can occur on any surface. But I disagree that the surface speed can and does impact the competitive nature of matches. On fast conditions you get less close matches because the lack of breaks often doesn't allow for as many back and forth matches. The guy with the bigger serve is going to win 2 or 3 close sets most of the time. And rarely do you see a set decided by more than one break.

Yes, yes variety the spice of life. But that saying depends on what type of variety we are talking about. I watched the tennis at this tournament so far and we have gotten plenty of variety. Lots of volleying. The big beef with the fast condition proponents is that players don't serve and rush in after the first ball. Well that style of tennis was dying even before they slowed down the conditions. And players today still volley they just have to construct their net approaches more effectively.

I suppose if I couldn't tell the difference between risky shots carrying a high degree of difficulty and bread and butter rallying to move someone round I'd feel the same way.

I suppose if I had an inflated view of my own tennis knowledge (like some people I know) I would think it is good debating to throw out one line digs competely lacking in any facts or evidence.

There are two things:

1- Variety in court paces allowing different styles to be successful according to courts pace

2- courts which allow variety of styles to be successful. Those actually tend to be the fastest ones nowadays.

IW is actually so slows that it will simply kill any style to be successful bar teh retrieving one.

Djoko and Nadal will reach the final and Djoko will cream Nadal once again!

As simple as that. The courts are too small for Nadal and Djokovic. No one will shake them off.

Going to watch the Nole match, Tenez really maybe Nadal and Djoko will get to the final because they are the 1 and 2 players in the world and are just better. Did you watch the matches i referenced, I saw a fair number of volleys and a lot of great winner shots. Now you can pretend that the error fest in Dubai was so rewarding for risky tennis. Risky one and two shot tennis is always much more fun for the participant than the fan.

Federers not even lost yet and Tenez is giving us sob stories.
Djokovic and nadal are number 1+2, and that's for a reason. Predicting the number 1and 2 to reach the final is hardly a bold prediction from Tenez.

Or maybe we will hear how nadal can't cope against federer on fast surfaces like Dubai. On that note, who did win when nadal and fed last played in Dubai. In 2006. On a fast hardcourt. If you don't know you can google it because one things for sure, Tenez will shy away from answering as it debunks 90% of the stuff he says.

You do realise though that we teach the chldren to play tennis with Red, Orange and Green balls which are extremely slow to give them the chance to practice and hit more ball.

Those courts is like giving them orange balls. They can hit them all day long "without making mistakes" as you say. I find it far more interesting when it's fast and those with the best eye/hand coordination win.

So who won Dubai 2006?

socal1976 wrote:Risky one and two shot tennis is always much more fun for the participant than the fan.

Unless some fans like it, which they do - as well as liking other styles as well.
There were plenty of skills on offer in Dubai, not just S&V, or 2 - 3 shot rallies. None of which, by your own admission, you appreciate. Which is fine - but don't deny that they are there and that other people enjoy them.

Tenez has disappeared, perhaps Julius can enlighten us.

As for the article, I think Social is right in pointing out there has been more upsets this week than in Dubai already.

Sounds like something from kids tv or maybe pantomine...?

All together now : "So, who won Dubai 2006 ??"

"I don't know. Who did win Dubai 2006??"

socal1976 wrote:Going to watch the Nole match, Tenez really maybe Nadal and Djoko will get to the final because they are the 1 and 2 players in the world and are just better.

On those courts yes. They might not be number 1 and 2 on faster courts.

That's exactly the point of some of us.

socal wrote:On fast conditions you get less close matches because the lack of breaks often doesn't allow for as many back and forth matches. The guy with the bigger serve is going to win 2 or 3 close sets most of the time.

If WTF is considered fast, do you know how many breaks of serve between Murray and Nadal?

Did you watch Raonic serve at 145mph and still lose the match yesterday?

And Raonic served 10 aces (same as Federer - with identical double faults).

And Denis Kudla had 2 BPs against Federer of which he converted 1.

Your generalizations are causing paradoxes.

socal wrote: And rarely do you see a set decided by more than one break.

Please watch the Dolgopolov-Baghdatis match.

Perhaps WTA is something you should watch more often, if you want to see a break-fest.

amritia3ee wrote:I think Social is right in pointing out there has been more upsets this week than in Dubai already.

There have been many stomach upsets compared to Dubai certainly.

Still avoiding my question Tenez.
I wonder why?
------------------
Lags72, maybe you don't know Tenez that well and hence can't understand what he is saying. He's trying to say nadal can only win on slow surfaces, and he is not talented enough to win on fast surfaces.
What happened in Dubai 2006? Did they slow the court down in the last 2 sets?

Nole time , 4:0 already

Laverfan, perhaps as a mod you should inbox him the results of Dubai 2006, that'll send his comical 'Nadal can't play on fast surfaces well' line out of the window.

The grey long-haired bloke has just taken his T-shirt off AGAIN

5:0

Sorry, wrong thread

careful laverfan, re stomach upsets...!!

some members have already admonished fellow members for even daring to mention :

1. 'the virus'

2. the wind

Exactly, Nole time. Laverfan there are no paradoxes. You are creating those positions by arguing things that I am not arguing. We have facts laverfan, I maybe haven't watched tennis as much as you have. But I have about 3 decades of playing and watching tennis behind and I can't remember a period where we have had this many great classic matches. I think if you had tennis critics talk about the best competition in terms of match play the slow court era matches and surpasses any period I have seen. Even the 80s, those guys had great matches and games but I will put up the matches i have seen in the last 6 or 7 seven years with any. My theory if it ain't broke don't fix it. Novak is running buck wild 5-0 great backhand up the line for 0-30.

Djoko v Andujar

Exciting tennis and match! I wonder who is going to win that one.!

Well Andujar is a clay courter, I think he won Casablanca last year. Certainly he prefers slower surfaces.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Going to watch the Nole match, Tenez really maybe Nadal and Djoko will get to the final because they are the 1 and 2 players in the world and are just better.

On those courts yes. They might not be number 1 and 2 on faster courts.

That's exactly the point of some of us.

Tenez, you enjoy hypothetical worlds where players play on the conditions that exist in Tenezland. Meanwhile I will enjoy the high level of competitive match play we are enjoying here on planet earth.

By the way Novak is volleying up a storm, he is finishing so many points at net.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I thought slower conditions were homogenizing the results?

No, homogenous conditions are homogenizing the results. Hence, when we get 2 tournaments with different surfaces, we get to see different styles of tennis with different skills and different results - and everyone is happy (except those that only like one style of tennis).

Hitting the nail on the head there
Tennis has always had variety because of the different surfaces and speeds
What Socal may consider a snooze fest,others may appreciate,but just because Socal may consider it boring,doesn't automatically make it wrong
It may be a spectators sport but we are talking about different tournaments and faster courts are important and needed from the players perspective

socal1976 wrote:Meanwhile I will enjoy the high level of competitive match play we are enjoying here on planet earth.

You must be enjoying the Djoko match - very competitive

socal1976 wrote:why haven't the homogenized conditions homogenized the results on the women's side?

You seem to fixated on WTA and seem to make WTA and ATP look similar. You do not have a dominant Top 4 (The Williamses, Clijsters, Henin provided a much more consistent Top 4 then the current crop).

It is due to the lack of consistency.

Mona Barthel (rank #39 in Doha R32 - January 2012) lost to Azarenka 6-1 6-0. The same players playing at IW in March 2012 had the scoreline of 64 67(4) 76(6). Mona had MPs against Azarenka.

Do you understand the inconsistency in WTA tour? And Azarenka is the AO champ and was almost eliminated in R1.

Can you research when was the last time that an ATP world #1 lost in R1?

Pray tell, young Veejay how are the slow conditions homogenizing results? Why is slow IW as Tenez claims resulting in more competitive matches and upsets than faster court Dubai?

Laverfan, same conditions so for whatever reason hasn't homogenized results on the women's tour. Call it what you like but if slow conditions drive the results as being claimed by the slow court theorists/fed apologists then why exactly hasn't slow conditioned tennis resulted in the same players winning on the woman's tour? Ergo because conditions aren't driving the results. The top 4 are just that good and consistent. The quality of the top 4 are driving the results.

socal1976 wrote:Pray tell, young Veejay how are the slow conditions homogenizing results? Why is slow IW as Tenez claims resulting in more competitive matches and upsets than faster court Dubai?

As we've said before - it's not slow surfaces homogenizing results, so much as homongenous surfaces homogenizing tennis. If it was all fast surfaces, it would be the same. We get the fact that, by your own admission, you don't like variety - why is it so hard to accept that many people do?

socal1976 wrote:Pray tell, young Veejay how are the slow conditions homogenizing results? Why is slow IW as Tenez claims resulting in more competitive matches and upsets than faster court Dubai?

What upset?

Murray taking time to adapt?

I like variety , just the right kind of variety. I like variety of good v. good. Not the variety of dubai compared to the AO semi and final. That is like the variety of a root canal compared to a foot massage.

Oh ok Veejay, we heard over and over by the fed apologist/slow court cabal that Nadal and Djoko only win because of slow conditions and that the big 4 are only winning all the time because of how slow everything is. Well Dubai was faster and we had all three top 3 seeds advance with delpo. Already we have had a big 4 upset. I love slow court theorists when facts arise that throw your wild theories into disrepute, well then just pretend that there was no upset. Ok murray losing to Garcia Lopez isn't an upset, according to Veejay here.

amritia - well, I can't say I follow every detail of Tenez's many posts in the way that others perhaps might, but rest assured I was well aware of the particular point being made here.

Paradoxically the very absence of a response can often say a lot in itself. Debate can be healthy, it's what the forum's about. But ...... if you're confident of your arguments, why worry about endlessly forcing an issue when others reading the early exchanges are perfectly capable of forming their own conclusions ?

Many 606 folk will recall UE/SA pushing and pushing for "an answer" (invariably with a grim determination to prolong tired old arguments), whereas letting it go could - ironically - have helped his cause. Such pushing always had the complete opposite effect of what he intended. But I'm 100% convinced that his totally irrational bias never allowed him to grasp as much. I don't recall a single incident of anyone ever being converted or saying ah yes, SA, I see what you mean ......

The desperation of socal hammering away that more breaks = excitement is really odd. Why does tuning the men's game, where serve carried more importance, into a version of the women's game make it exciting? Are we hearing that a break every service game would be the most exciting?

All a bit self-fulfilling without any testable logic.

socal1976 wrote:I like variety , just the right kind of variety.

You mean not much variety, with all courts pretty much the same pace?
I like my kind of variety, but I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that it is the 'right' kind.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I like variety , just the right kind of variety.

You mean not much variety, with all courts pretty much the same pace?
I like my kind of variety, but I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that it is the 'right' kind.

Like i say, some people like to order the same dish for starter, main and dessert.

No bogbrush, the fact that players can break back in a set to an extent, is enjoyable. Players routinely not holding serve is not enjoyable. Is that what we are witnessing on the slow courts? I think not, coming into the tourney Raonic holding 95 percent of the time Fed holding 92 percent of the time. Only in your demented view of tennis is this approaching the WTA, LOL! But I guess i shouldn't be surprised this from the same logical mind that produced the Hewitt/Djokovic equivalency argument.

Great retrieving from Djokovic. I've not seen anything like ths since Hewitt.

I don't understand the title of this thread - what is canged (she asks innocently? )

I love your notion of variety socal - it's just not quite the same as mine

bogbrush wrote:Great retrieving from Djokovic. I've not seen anything like ths since Hewitt.

Now that is definitely not the type of variety we are looking for on here thank you very much BB

socal1976 wrote:No bogbrush, the fact that players can break back in a set to an extent, is enjoyable. Players routinely not holding serve is not enjoyable. Is that what we are witnessing on the slow courts? I think not, coming into the tourney Raonic holding 95 percent of the time Fed holding 92 percent of the time. Only in your demented view of tennis is this approaching the WTA, LOL! But I guess i shouldn't be surprised this from the same logical mind that produced the Hewitt/Djokovic equivalency argument.

Yes, if I was looking for typical rates of dropping serve I'd look to Raonic and Federer. That makes sense.

One thing I don't buy into this talk that less skill is involved on slower courts. Nonsense. I have watched players pinned back on the baseline and look set to lose a point and then they pull off a shot of fantastic skill be it a top-spin lob and they win the point. Or they are way off-court and hit a great passing shot when all looks lost. These who think faster courts means more skill I don't buy it as the court speeds mean you can win a point with one meaningful shot whereas on slower courts you have to play an array of shots and have the tactical nous to build a point, create a chance and take it.

Put it this way draughts is played on the same sized board as chess and is a far quicker. Game but chess is seen as the far more skillful.