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

First topic message reminder :

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?

Yes TP variety is the order of the day but this forum at times is like a haven for fast court tennis nostalgia lovers...because they know fast courts suit Federer. Slow courts are bemoaned because they suit Nadal. We then have the talent argument trotted out relentlessly with the caveat being Federer is the most talented human to ever live basically on a tennis court, and Nadal is nothing but a pair of lungs holding a racquet - and there is no room for any position inbetween. Its like on here "innate talent" is the best thing, the only thing. Its all that matters. Why? We are all following professional tennis here, its about achievement, and the ability to win is THE talent. The way some players are able to maximise their ability is an innate talent, their mindset is an innate talent, their movement/speed is an innate talent, their physical attributes are an innate talent...its not just about speed of hands at the net, or hitting a flat shot down the line as a winner that defines who is the best player. Tennis does not have a constitution that says that only fast court tennis is THE best form of the sport. Tennis was first established globally on grass (fast) and clay (slow)...fast and slow courts have always been integrals part of the game. Players who excel at both can be admired for they require different skills sets to dominate. Talent at tennis comes in different ways, sizes, shapes, etc. People have their preference for which they prefer...fine...but who is to say a guy who wins Wimbledon 6 times is a better player than the guy who wins FO 6 times?

Federer is an amazing talent no doubt...but the ever-present elitism on here of putting him up on the highest pedestal known to man and denigrating everyone else under him who is deemed to be a slow court player as a relative donkey is unfair to the amazing talent those players have as well. I dont care if Gasquet can spin tennis balls on the end of his fingers if he cant win titles, etc. I admire the player who wins titles making the most of what god gave him/her. Viva la difference for courts for sure, and viva la difference for what constitutes talent in pro tennis too!

lydian

lydian wrote:Yes TP variety is the order of the day but this forum at times is like a haven for fast court tennis nostalgia lovers...because they know fast courts suit Federer. Slow courts are bemoaned because they suit Nadal.

No. Actually, Federer is a mug when it comes to fast courts as well. Don't you remember Miami 04 and Dubai 06. He wasn't facing quality opposition back then and when he faced he came up second best...

Tenez wrote:It's not MY definition. It's THE definition.

talent [ˈtælənt]
n
1. innate ability, aptitude, or faculty, esp when unspecified; above average ability a talent for cooking a child with talent

But I was talking about YOUR definition. THE definition makes no mention of Federer or Nadal although both have the sort of ability described by THE definition. It is only YOUR definition of talent that includes Federer and excludes Nadal. And you have the stamina to repeat it again and again and again... If you do this it wont make it true but most will lose the will to argue. Just thinking about about it is making me feel fatigued...

lydian wrote: ................................................................................
...................................................................................
Federer is an amazing talent no doubt...but the ever-present elitism on here of putting him up on the highest pedestal known to man and denigrating everyone else under him who is deemed to be a slow court player as a relative donkey is unfair to the amazing talent those players have as well.
...............................................................

lydian - I fully understand the point you're making here, and I agree with the sentiment (as I broadly do with the rest of the content of your post)

However I think it's worth adding that you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush by referring to all those who might praise Federer as part of an 'ever-present elitism.' Perhaps, in fairness to you, it wasn't your intention to do this anyway.

It seems to me that there are many people on the forum who can admire Federer's achievements, including some who think he is very, very special but it's surely only the odd exception(s) who is/are so totally blinkered as to put him on a so-called 'highest pedestal known to man'

Balance & perspective works both ways of course. Some folk constantly trot out his defeats of the past (Miami, Dubai etc...), as a means of countering tired old arguments. I understand why they are provoked into doing this, but like any of the top guys - past or current - Federer is allowed a good few losses without detracting from his status, because the fanciful alternative is that he should have somehow won everything he ever entered......

lydian wrote:Yes TP variety is the order of the day but this forum at times is like a haven for fast court tennis nostalgia lovers...because they know fast courts suit Federer!

That's because you think like a Nadal fan. We want the best tennis to win, be it Llodra, Federer or Djokovic. We want to have balanced matches between attacking players and defending ones like we had on clay and grass. We don't have any balanced matches nowadays between different styles. Those slow courts don;t give a chance to players relying on talent more than lungs.

And yes Federer is the greatest talent and why having baguettes when we can have croissants! THose courts are a joke. It;s going to be Nadal v Djoko final and Djoko is going to cream Nadal. Only Delpo might prevent Nadal to reach the final otherwise it;s going to be the same scenario as the last 15 months!

Tenez

Why do you get to decide what is the best tennis and who has the greatest talent? Is it not my turn yet? Is anyone that has a view different to you a "Nadal fan"? Is calling someone a Nadal fan an insult? Will it be the death of tennis if Nadal gets to the final or (dread the thought) even wins? If anyone beats Nadal on these too slow for your taste courts will they take Nadals place as the death of tennis? Do you really think that Llodra is a better player than Nadal? Has Federer got any Lungs? If Federer beats Nadal will it mean he's been getting christmas presents?

Phew... I think I might have to take a MTO...

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

Why do you get to decide what is the best tennis and who has the greatest talent? ...

Just trust me!

Why do you get to decide what is the best tennis and who has the greatest talent?

He doesnt get to decide but he makes the best points to back up his thoughts. I've yet to see anyone with brains debunk his rationale.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Why do you get to decide what is the best tennis and who has the greatest talent?

He doesnt get to decide but he makes the best points to back up his thoughts.

Thank you very much JM! I owe you one!

socal1976 wrote:

Veejay wrote:

socal1976 wrote: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.

Its stupid to say Roger can only win on faster surfaces,and Djokovic is only winning cause the courts have been slowed down
The recent changes doesn't take anything away from the other players success just like previous changes didn take anything away from those champions
The fact that he is still incredibly consistent even at his age on the slower conditions,proves his versatility and ability to adapt to different conditions.He isn't a one trick pony who only benefited from fast surfaces and a weak era

Exactly Veejay, it is stupid to say Djoko wins because of slow conditions or Roger wins just because of fast conditions tell that to your boy tenez who believes that both Nadal and Djoko win only because of slow conditions. Can't say that I argue with much of anything in this quote of yours above.

You also touched on a point that is the only, only argument that I would give any credence to in the slow court theorist dogma. The possibility that it could lead to more career threatening injuries. I haven't seen anyone do a good argument on this point that goes beyond the anectodal and haven't seen facts provided on this issue. I haven't seen that frankly. If a case could be made though with real facts and arguments and not pure speculation I could be swayed on this point.

Also I don't know why Roger apologists are even needed, and I don't know why they continue to argue that 16 slams on slowed conditions means Roger has been hurt by them. Why don't you ask them? I can't get a straight answer as to this odd sore winner attitude. You raised this point earlier and I have as well. Roger federer has won all his slams on slowed conditions and with modern strings. How exactly has that hurt the sport or hurt federer? I am not the one that makes that argument it is Tenez and BB that are obsessed with excuse making for someone who doesn't need it.

Socal I dont think you understand the economics of slowing the conditions and don't think you understand Tenez's point
Slow conditions doesn't homogenise the results,slowing down the faster courts takes some of the substance from the game away.At the end of the day tennis is still a racket sport,and when you slow the fast courts down the game becomes more about athleticism and endurance then shot making ability
You cannot blame Tenez for voicing his dislike about this because if the all the slow courts were sped up you'd be doing the same thing
At the moment its still too soon to see the results of what slowing down all the faster courts will have on the game,but end of last season Murray,Djokovic and Nadal were not only completely burnt out,they were all injured too
They've been complaining that the season is too long and its killing them,well its not the long season thats killing them,its the courts being slowed down thats killing them
The slower the courts,the longer the matches,the more running and grinding you have to do just to win a single point
Before when there were slow and fast courts,the dynamic was very different and correct me if Im wrong but back in the 90's or 80's I don't think anyone was openly voicing their opinion that the session was too long
Roger didn't win all his slams on slow conditions,the U.S Open and Australian Open were playing faster a few years back then it is today

Tenez wrote: That's because you think like a Nadal fan. We want the best tennis to win..

Both statements together illustrate your assumed elitism.

That's enough! Back to the topic.

JHM....just a bit of fun.

What????? I am not allowed to talk well about JM?..and you allow Lydian to mock him????

THat's pretty biased!

Tenez wrote:JHM....just a bit of fun.

The intent can be lost in written form. One of the things Mods have to be mindful of is how the forum looks to potential new joiners i.e. will they be put off by what they see as, how shall I put it - non-relevant, personal discussion - which they may have to put up with should they join.

From what I've seen LF and I are relatively relaxed about what gets deleted, but when a warning is given to get back on topic, then I'll remove anything after that point that is not on topic. Anything anyone thinks I've over-looked can be reported.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:JHM....just a bit of fun.

The intent can be lost in written form. One of the things Mods have to be mindful of is how the forum looks to potential new joiners i.e. will they be put off by what they see as, how shall I put it - non-relevant, personal discussion - which they may have to put up with should they join.

From what I've seen LF and I are relatively relaxed about what gets deleted, but when a warning is given to get back on topic, then I'll remove anything after that point that is not on topic. Anything anyone thinks I've over-looked can be reported.

You are relax cause teh members are pretty relax. There is no reason to stamp on a bit of teasing. You would be killing the forum if don't let that happen. Besides, I am not sure why you deleted my post and left Lydian's pucking post!

I deleted what was after the request to get back on topic, which is my usual approach

Howver, in the interests of fairness, I have now deleted the other stuff.

how shall I put it - non-relevant, personal discussion

I see alot of this going on in the cryptic thread but no one gets deleted in there do they? Nothing wrong with a good wind up Julius!

To Lags72
You still misunderstand me, my mention of Dubai 2006 was not to denigrate Federer. I understand everyone loses from time to time, federer is a great player, but that doesn't mean he will always win- he is human. In fact looking at 2006 he was very consistent, so all credit to him. I appreciate Federer is a great player.

But I still don't think you understand what Tenez is saying or you woul have realised my post has nothing to do with Federer. Tenez is pointing out that nadal is an average untalented player who can't play on fast HC, yet he can't explain Dubai 2006 or understand that nadal has improved on hard courts as he has got older.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

Why do you get to decide what is the best tennis and who has the greatest talent? ...

Just trust me!

Who says Tenez doesn't have a sense of humor. Great posts by Hawkeye and Lydian as usual. I have no problem giving Roger his due, but as Lydian has pointed out there is this elitism of the CERTAIN segment of Fed fans that has to tell us what is the right type of tennis. They get to define what is talent and who has it. And Tenez's 3 word response basically sums up his entire style of argument, I am Tenez who knows more about tennis than anyone and my opinion is right, most of his arguments have few facts but plenty of unsubstantiated claims and opinions.

No...no...you have not read my posts properly or you pretend not to understand it. No wonder I have to rehash the same points constantly.

No-one is talking about a right type of tennis here. We (I for sure) are talking about a right pace for courts which we don;t have anymore.

In the history of tennis attacking players (outside grass) were very much in a battle versus retrievers. Chang even beat Pete on HC a few times.

Same on clay. We coudl have McEnroe, Edberg, Medvedev, in finals of the FO, we even had Tim in the semi and Noah winning it SVing!!!.

Nowadays we don't have those mythical battles where an attacking player would beat a defending one and vice versa. And more so the fact that creation is simply absent of the final rounds. We simply have 2 retrievers in finals where one is made to look agressive compared to the other.

The tennis you praise Socal is not a creative one. We all know where the ball is going before it's being hit.

Yes I can see your point. We can read what Tenez has said on the Raonic thread.
'I wish Lydian I could talk about Nadal's great game... instead of seeing him scrap the ball back corners to corners, being bossed around by lower ranked players hoping for them to tire.' His lack of tennis knowldge doesn't help him. Nadal dictates baseline rallies, that's his strength, as well as being great defensively. He is bossed around by lower ranked players, well we've certainly seen that this week. Does he wait for them to tire? In each of his matches this week he has win the 3 opening games, no? And can he not play on fast courts? Dubai 2006, Miami 2004? His argument lays in tatters.

Again, slow court IWs continues to deliver massive quality match play. JMDP and Istomin goes the distance, Fed and bellucci go the distance. And I don't know what you guys are watching but I am watching some great shotmaking and attacking play, far superior to the error fest of 2 minute service holds provided us by fast conditioned Dubai.

Frankly, I can't remember a better day of 3 set tennis in a long time. Despite a pandemic flu, IW has produced a great tournament so far this year. This shows why exactly it was that the conditions were slowed down a decade or more ago. Big serve tennis is horribly dull, and most fans when asked to watch match after match of it will just tune out and watch golf or football. The tournament directors had a rational basis for making their decision, and so far if anything their logic is being shown correct.

Wimbeldon is a perfect example, in the late 90s I couldn't watch much of that tournament it was flat unwatchable. And there was a real cry from the fans, media, and critics that the big serve was playing too large a role in the sport. Wimbeldon slowed down and in the last few years we have see more classic matches at wimbeldon than in previous years (final 07,08,09 and Isner v. Mahut). With apologies to Lydian viva la slow court tennis.

@Tenez, I understand the point you are making tenez about wanting to see two contrasting style players the S and Ver and the retriever playing. But S and V tennis has been losing ground for a very long time. Even before the luxilons and the slowed conditions, which have accelerated the process. I think to bring S and V back we would have to make more drastic changes and possibly lose what is good about the current tour. I think i can find some common ground with you in that I think we should try some incremental speeding up of the balls at faster tournaments and see what happens. I tell you what though if it creates half a dozen dubai or cincys I will oppose going any further.


Furthermore, tenez players still do come to the net, they do have to be more selective and come in later in the rallies but a lot of point do finish at the net even in the modern game. Players just don't run up behind the first ball as much, volleying while less important is still a viable variation that the best players have to use from time to time and that will always be a part of the game.

What was so wrong about Dubai socal - the old guy won? Don't worry it isn't going to be a regular occurence so you can relax

I like slow court tennis, I like fast court tennis. Give me both. Give me variety.

In some respects the 80s/90s were an artificial tipping point in the history of tennis. After years and years of slowish tennis from the 30s-70s, the game arrived at its highest peak of evolution, partic. by end of the 90s, on courts that had always been unchanged by and large.

So they had to start slowing them down because the guys were just too quick and powerful for the fast courts, they were hitting right through them. Goran/Pete were putting the ball in play for just 6 mins in a 4 hour match. So something did have to give...but now they've given too much ground to slowness IMO. Not just that though....we have loads of similar courts around the world too....DecoTurfII is everywhere. So we having a general slowing down, and homogeniety.

HOWEVER. There is a potential problem. I'm not sure if S&V can ever make a return as racquets and strings give the returner a much better hit on the ball now. We assume that speeding up the courts is going to be the magic bullet but I'm not so sure. Not just that though. We may just find that the guys have come on so far now, move so well and quickly - partic. since the last 5 years, that they can ralley relentlessly even if you put them on Teflon courts.

No timeplease, we had no competitive matches and no upsets. And I think in reference to the earlier post, that you are the one who misunderstands Tenez' argument. He very clearly states that the homogenized slower conditions are the only reason that Nadal and Djokovic win. So he makes the very argument that you claim he doesn't make.

You watched Dubai and you watched Indian wells. Right now which tournament has produced more watchable tennis? Come on no vacillating a simple answer to a simple question.

As to your point about injuries and the length of the season, well i have watched tennis for a long time. And ever since I can remember we have had injuries in tennis and I haven't seen any real stats on whether that has increased or decreased. Plus other factors come into play, playing more hardcourt events as opposed to grass and clay will increase the pounding on your body. And ever since I remember players have been complaining about the length of the tour, one of the reasons bjorg left was because they increased the number of mandatory tournaments and he already felt burned out and didn't want to play an even more demanding schedule.

Lydian, great point and I have referenced it myself. People don't realize that if you simply sped up the courts to the conditions we had in the 80s and 90s that it might not jive with the larger, taller, more muscular athletes of this era playing with lightening quick racquets. The slower conditons may be needed to encourage competitive matches and rallies because the players are taller, bigger, train more professionally and have better racquets to generate pace. I guarantee that if conditions were faster that some string maker would come up with a string that would allow you to hit 5 miles an hour faster as opposed to generate a few more RPMs like luxlons. Then you might very well have a game much more dominated by power servers than ever. The slow conditons might be a requirement like a governor on the technology and the modern larger male player.

Re: homogeniety. My argument has always been that its aided the lot of them since early 2000s inc. Federer. It makes it much easier for the same player to win all slams without having to adapt their game. In the Open Era we had the almost unique achievement of Borg winning Wimb and FO. No-one else could do it...not the greats like Connors, Lendl, Mac, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, etc. Even Agassi couldnt do it in the same year. Then they slow the courts down and we have Nadal doing it twice (08, 10), and Djoko will likely do it at some point too. We're also getting more guys who'll win all 4 career slams...2 now in recent years, likely 3 soon. Again, its a feat that was only done by Laver and Agassi prior to 2009 in the Open Era. So, the slowing of courts is allowing more people to do this...so it must be making it easier to dominate all surfaces if you are a top top player. The greater variety some years back made this (and the FO-Wimb double) one of tennis's greatest challenges... SO, I'm all for variety....not speeding everything up per se, just more variety, and less HCs everywhere - why do we need 3 HC Masters seasons for a start! (N.American springl.....N.American summer......Asian autumn)

socal1976 wrote:You watched Dubai and you watched Indian wells. Right now which tournament has produced more watchable tennis? Come on no vacillating a simple answer to a simple question.

For me, both pretty much equally enjoyable, although I haven't watched every match. Different skills to enjoy - it's not all about upsets and who wins.

Murray's later matches in Dubai, for example, were much better than the one in IW. I watched the first set of Fed last night and thought he was very average - I guess he got better. Nadal played well in the first set, but Dolgo was absolute rubbish in the second. And so on...

Yes socal...we need to find that balance. A tour full of IWs would be too much, as would a tour full of Dubai's and indoor carpet. We need proper seasons of tennis....slower HCs culminating in AO, clay season culminating in FO....grass season culminating with Wimb...fast HC season culminating with USO, and then indoor season ending with WTF...sounds so easy to rectify but.....

Back in the day it was all played on grass...

....aye, now its nearly all cement...what a natural surface that is.

lydian wrote:Yes socal...we need to find that balance. A tour full of IWs would be too much, as would a tour full of Dubai's and indoor carpet. We need proper seasons of tennis....slower HCs culminating in AO, clay season culminating in FO....grass season culminating with Wimb...fast HC season culminating with USO, and then indoor season ending with WTF...sounds so easy to rectify but.....

I actually agree that we should drop one hardcourt outdoor masters for a grass masters, and don't have a problem in testing out a quicker ball on some of the traditionally faster events. But frankly, I don't want to see the tour dominated by players that are just better at hitting a first serve and not much else. I didn't find the level of variety in the late 90s to be all that great and couldn't stand to watch any of the big servers. So my argument is this it is about the exact mix that we are looking for. How many do we make faster and how much? See the devil is in the details.

Plus we are not dealing with the same athletes that we had in the 80s and 90s. These guys are bigger, stronger, and taller on average and are only getting more so. There was a problem in the late 90s where a lot of fans, myself included felt that the big servers had too much of an edge. I think if we took today's athletes and put them on those conditions the problems we witnessed back then would be even more extreme.

Another important point that is overlooked by teh slow court lovers is that players are so much fitter and faster even that the courts are actually too small nowadays, which means a slow court is even much slower than the same slow court 6 or 10 years ago.

It's simply getting absurd. I personally don;t care the pace of the court as long taking risk can still be rewarded.

It's a myth that clay was very slow. A good Sver had a good chance in teh 90s. Even Tim Henman could have won it.

Now he woudl lose in teh first 2 rounds at best.

Are we always going to be presented by socal with the lie that fast courts mean the game becomes dominated by a guy with a fast serve and nothing else? Is that what we saw in Dubai when the most creatively talented player ever won, and a counter puncher was runner up?

It's either dishonest or ignorant to paint this silly choice.

Well as for Dubai the courts were even faster in 2006 and some random no-hope from Mallorca won, no?

The difference BB is that we talk about what's good for tennis", they talk about what's good for their star players.

amritia3ee wrote:Well as for Dubai the courts were even faster in 2006 and some random no-hope from Mallorca won, no?

Kinda proves the point BB was trying to make
If Nadal a guy who doesn't have a fast serve can win on a fast court then that proves a major flaw in Socals theory don't you think?

No Nadals just that good from back of the court.

Tenez The irony, you're just annoyed Fed can't beat nadal in the big occasions.

amritia3ee wrote:No Nadals just that good from back of the court.

Tenez The irony, you're just annoyed Fed can't beat nadal in the big occasions.

You're not making sense..
Socal suggests fast courts are dominated by big servers,nothing more
You're saying Nadal is so good from the back of the court that he can win on a fast court
You're kinda proving Socal wrong,but I guess you cant see that

Well generally yes, faster servers dominate faster courts. But nadal can still perform in these conditions as he is talented, and can dictate from the back of the court.

No Amirita isn't, nobody claimed Veejay that counterpunchers can't have success on faster surfaces or big hitters can't have success on slower surfaces. We are talking about averages and generalities. Mac almost won the french open, Connors won wimbeldon, we are not talking about the exception but the rule. That is what I think you are not addressing in trying to create a perception that somehow there is a logical paradox which does not exist.

Tenez, you see you believe that I only like slower conditions because it favors Novak. And that you and BB honorably just want variety for the good of the game. I think Novak can play very well on fast conditions. I think generally that somewhat slower conditions in general with a mix of some faster tournaments, (what we have now) gives you the most quality match play. Tournament directors slowed the courts down not to hurt the sport, but to grow the sport. And I think the game is doing well and fans are enjoying the product, the majority of fans. That is why I tread carefully when people discuss drastic changes to the game. You see the game as being broke, I don't, that is why I don't want to see it tinkered with, I like what we have. I liked what we had when Djoko was #3 and routinely getting beaten in the semis by Fed. It is about the mix between fast and slow and frankly I don't think we are far off from the correct mix that will produce enjoyable tennis for the majority of fans and grow the game. You do, that difference in opinion is what colors our different perspectives.

Socal - Novak has been for a long time my second favourite player.

He was so exciting to watch last year, but particularly at the beginning of the year when he looked invincible and was hitting winners constantly.

In his epic matches with Federer over the years he has always been so exciting to watch.

Yesterday the first set was won without a single winner only with UE. Every point was won with an unforced error from someone. The two most exciting points of the match until I had to leave were from Almagro at 3 all in the second on Novak's serve but then Novak served his way out of trouble.

Now yesterday all that was all the No 1 had to do to win the match and his length became much better in the second set. You just know that he is going to crank his game up when he meets the top guys.

But as a fan I would like to see him really crank up the aggression, like he did last year at this time, and come through some of the earlier rounds as majestically as he was doing.

You may not have enjoyed Dubai, but I can't believe you watched the final with Fed hitting aggressive winners deep into the corner too wide and fast for Murray to reach and declare it to be boring - well yes you can I guess, but don't worry I have already got the plot!

socal1976 wrote:No Amirita isn't, nobody claimed Veejay that counterpunchers can't have success on faster surfaces or big hitters can't have success on slower surfaces. We are talking about averages and generalities. Mac almost won the french open, Connors won wimbeldon, we are not talking about the exception but the rule. That is what I think you are not addressing in trying to create a perception that somehow there is a logical paradox which does not exist.

Tenez, you see you believe that I only like slower conditions because it favors Novak. And that you and BB honorably just want variety for the good of the game. I think Novak can play very well on fast conditions. I think generally that somewhat slower conditions in general with a mix of some faster tournaments, (what we have now) gives you the most quality match play. Tournament directors slowed the courts down not to hurt the sport, but to grow the sport. And I think the game is doing well and fans are enjoying the product, the majority of fans. That is why I tread carefully when people discuss drastic changes to the game. You see the game as being broke, I don't, that is why I don't want to see it tinkered with, I like what we have. I liked what we had when Djoko was #3 and routinely getting beaten in the semis by Fed. It is about the mix between fast and slow and frankly I don't think we are far off from the correct mix that will produce enjoyable tennis for the majority of fans and grow the game. You do, that difference in opinion is what colors our different perspectives.

Oh joy, you spend every thread trying to pretend that fast courts mean the game is dominated by fast servers who can't do anything else, then when your friend points out what tosh that is you try to pretend that what you really meant is the complete opposite. Hilarious.

It's great fun watching these things unravel. Fognini; the fast court two-step; what next?

BB, what are you talking about? YOur cryptic and vague posts used to be amusing now they are bordering on stream of consciousness nonsense. I don't see any logical paradox or contradiction. Please try to spell out what you are talking about, because frankly nothing you say makes much logical sense.

Fast conditions generally favor big servers, what exactly is logically inconsistent about that statement? Who can even argue with it?

But it doesn't mean that the big server wins every tournament or that a great counterpuncher can't win matches or have success. That being said, I think the current mix of surfaces we have on tour is pretty close to what we need for optimum match play. I like the matches we are seeing with the conditions we have. So excuse me if I don't support drastic changes to the game.