Blame It On The CONCRETE Courts!

Whether it be a premature end to the golden era or just a blip this years semi's at the US Open lacks two of the greatest players to ever play the game. Back in the day players continued to play non tie break 5 set matches well into their 30's. The big difference is they didn't have to do so playing on concrete.

“Put it this way,” Brad Gilbert said . “How many sports do you know that they play on cement?”

The answer is none, really, that don’t involve wheels. It’s just not natural. You want to compete on cement, find a NASCAR sponsor or learn to flip on a skateboard.

Or play the U.S. Open.

The Open wasn’t always played on cement, of course. It started out on grass in Forest Hills and then went to clay in 1975 before settling on hard court in 1978. This was the surface that most American kids knew best, and it certainly suited the games of flat, hard hitters like Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi. Neither of those stars seemed to notice that their bodies were aging. Then again, Connors hadn’t played that many tournaments on hard courts when he was younger.

“I think the days of players lasting as long as Jimmy did are over, just because there’s more tennis on hard courts,” Lindsay Davenport said.

Grass isn’t necessarily the answer, either. Gilbert believes Wimbledon, too, is a pitiless place for old-timers.

“For me, as I got older, grass was the toughest,” he said. “It was harder going for low shots. Harder on my hamstrings and harder on my butt.”

Federer and Nadal are European. They prefer later dinners and softer stepping places.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-win-u-s-open-hard-court-flushin-unforgiving-article-1.1153878

Someone should say something! Oh wait a minute someone did...

I think the last thing the game needs now is extended careers.

...or preponderance of DecoTurfII.

I would like to throw this out there.

I find it strange for example that the out courts of Wimbledon play faster than Centre Court and Court 1. The roof of Centre Court then makes it play quick like an indoor court. Same at the US Open. All the courts play quick except Ashe. There is a variation in court speed at a Slam. The outer courts at Melbourne Park play quite quick, yet the Hisene Arena plays quick and Rod Laver Arena plays slower. At the FO in 2011 we saw Phillipe Chatrier as the quickest court compared to Suzanne Lenglen and the outer courts.

Do we think that the lack of exposure of the show courts to the rest of field then makes it more difficult for them given they are subjected to faster and different conditions than the top 4 per se?

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would like to throw this out there.

I find it strange for example that the out courts of Wimbledon play faster than Centre Court and Court 1. The roof of Centre Court then makes it play quick like an indoor court. Same at the US Open. All the courts play quick except Ashe. There is a variation in court speed at a Slam. The outer courts at Melbourne Park play quite quick, yet the Hisene Arena plays quick and Rod Laver Arena plays slower. At the FO in 2011 we saw Phillipe Chatrier as the quickest court compared to Suzanne Lenglen and the outer courts.

Do we think that the lack of exposure of the show courts to the rest of field then makes it more difficult for them given they are subjected to faster and different conditions than the top 4 per se?

I've never really bought into any of the various conspiracy theories before legend, but I must admit I do begin to wonder why AA is so much slower than Armstrong or the other courts. I can just about get my head around the US wanting to try and manipulate things - because the whole tournament is run for television ratings it would appear. But I can't quite believe that the AO, RG and Wimbledon (of all sacred places!!!!) would do so.............and yet.......it is very odd indeed and I don't quite know what to believe anymore.

If it is the case then I think it is obviously morally wrong, totally unsporting, but also from a business point of you it is very myopic short termism and will stifle talent that may prefer faster conditions coming through, and so it is not the best way to 'caretake' the game in the long run.

time please wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would like to throw this out there.

I find it strange for example that the out courts of Wimbledon play faster than Centre Court and Court 1. The roof of Centre Court then makes it play quick like an indoor court. Same at the US Open. All the courts play quick except Ashe. There is a variation in court speed at a Slam. The outer courts at Melbourne Park play quite quick, yet the Hisene Arena plays quick and Rod Laver Arena plays slower. At the FO in 2011 we saw Phillipe Chatrier as the quickest court compared to Suzanne Lenglen and the outer courts.

Do we think that the lack of exposure of the show courts to the rest of field then makes it more difficult for them given they are subjected to faster and different conditions than the top 4 per se?

I've never really bought into any of the various conspiracy theories before legend, but I must admit I do begin to wonder why AA is so much slower than Armstrong or the other courts. I can just about get my head around the US wanting to try and manipulate things - because the whole tournament is run for television ratings it would appear. But I can't quite believe that the AO, RG and Wimbledon (of all sacred places!!!!) would do so.............and yet.......it is very odd indeed and I don't quite know what to believe anymore.

If it is the case then I think it is obviously morally wrong, totally unsporting, but also from a business point of you it is very myopic short termism and will stifle talent that may prefer faster conditions coming through, and so it is not the best way to 'caretake' the game in the long run.

Hey TP

Not so much conspiracy, but is it a case that the top players do in fact get the best of the conditions. The show courts will always be highly used, but by the same players you could argue. Take Roddick. He was on AA throughout his US Open run this year which I think was more to help him due to night scheduling too. Take Wimbledon. Nadal was on the verge of that comeback before the roof came over and it sapped his advantage. Murray v Federer another example at Wimbledon about 2 conditions in one match. Take Nadal at the FO this year. Was fuming because of the play in light rain was taking away the disadvantage to Djokovic.

It isn't a conspiracy, just a strange scenario surrounding conditions and the fluctuations in them.

I happen to think that it's unlikely that Federer or Nadal will again win a slam at Aus or USO - but it's a shame that the writer of the article has not noticed that the ATP Tour no longer plays on carpet and has not done so for a few years (2009 I think).

The surface on which Federer has won 7 of the 9 titles he has won in the last 12 months is, er, Hard Court (Basel, Paris, WTF, Dubai, Rotterdam, IW, Cincinatti).

This isn't about fast, slow, indoor or outdoor or even about the similarity or not of all tournament surfaces it is about CONCRETE. Ballet dancers wouldn't perform on the stuff so why should tennis players be expected to do so.

Hi Legend The top players obviously get the best courts and best conditions, but the slower main court is not necessarily the best condition for every top player. I don't really understand why the main courts in all the major tournaments play slower than the outside courts, if that is indeed the case? Very strange!

Hawkeye - I don't think concrete is really an accurate description of the courts - the top layer has quite a lot of give in it and the hard courts of today are far, far kinder on the joints than those in the past.