How has surface change/homogenisation impacted the top players?

As you may know, the courts now are a lot different to what they were a decade or so ago. Tennis is now a game dominated mainly by base-liners, and the impact of a big serve is not as big as it was before.

This is my judgement on the current surfaces in the Grand Slams of the ATP tour:

Australian Open- Medium Slow Hard Court

French Open- Slow Clay

Wimbledon- Medium Grass

US Open- Arthur Ashe: Medium Slow, rest all Medium Hard Court



So as we can see the surfaces at the moment are all quite similar, if you agree with my judgments you will agree that all surfaces vary from the range 'slow' to 'medium.' This means that the server will now have a decreased advantage during his service game, compared to 10 years ago.

I will now try and address some questions that could arise, in-light of this.



Why the shouldn't the Courts all be sped up?

Some of you may think: Ah, let's just speed up all the courts to what they were before. However I think this could have possible disastrous consequences. The tennis racket is becoming more and moer powerful as a weapon. If the court surfaces are sped up to what they were before, I really think the game would just become a serve based fest. Players above 6"5 would just hammer down ace after ace, and there would be a lack of rallying.

Hence I believe that we should try and speed up some of the courts, but not to the point where a 6"7 guy can just go tournaments unbroken.

In terms of surface variation between the four slams, this would be, for me (of course you can disagree!) a good change in terms of variety:

Australian Open (Medium Slow Clay- like Rome)

French Open (Slow Clay)

Wimbledon (Medium Fast Grass)

US Open (Fast Indoor Hard Court)

This would mean we have a real mix, with: slow, medium slow, medium fast, and also fast.



Who has really benefitted from the change in surfaces/surface distribution?

At the moment there is an inbalance in surface distribution. I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about the surface.

Movement on a particular surface stays the same, generally, for a player irrelevant of the surface speed. The only difference, however, is that as the surface gets slower, movement on that surface becomes even more important.

Now, we have 2 Grand Slams on Hard Court (50%), 1 on Grass (25%), 1 on Clay (25%). This means there is an imbalance, as there is more Hard Court Slams than any other surface.

If we look at surface movement, Federer moves equally on pretty much all surfaces (he's quite fast, but not as fast as others). The player though I believe benefits most from the Hard Court imbalance is: NOVAK DJOKOVIC. Djokovic, as we know, moves best on hard-courts. In-fact I could say that Djokovic is the best mover on hard courts of all time. So having 2 out of 4 slams on HC is brilliant for Djokovic.

What makes it even better for him is the fact these hard-courts are slower, which means that movement becomes more important, irrelevant of who you play. Let's get some stats to show Djokovic's hard court domination:

-Djokovic has only won 1 slam outside hard-court, half of the amount Nadal has won just on grass.

-Djokovic has won 5/6 slams on HC- this is 83%

So this 'hard court' imbalance has clearly benefitted Djokovic. The slowing down of the surfaces extend this even further to his favour as it makes movement more important, which is Djokovic's huge strength on hard courts.



What about Nadal?

Rafael Nadal has won 11 slams, this is the second most out of all active players atm. So how has the surfaces changes affected him?

Now let's get one thing straight before we start. There is no 'morally good' surface.' There is no requirement on surfaces- grass does not have to be fast, it does not have to be anything. A Grand Slam win, individually, is earned. Surface chance does not make a slam more or less 'valueable.'

However, when we have homogenisation of surfaces, it is easier to make your mark on all the slams, rather than just one or two. Nadal has shown he can win on clay, grass, and hard-court; i.e. on that particular surface. He moves well on all the surfaces, it is just the fact he moves best on clay which makes a big difference. More on this later. Anyway it can be argued he has not shown he can win on 'fast grass' 'fast hard-court'. In-fact I think if this was another era he might not have won so many slams off-clay. Conversely Pete Sampras, if he was playing now, in a game where rallying and baseline awareness is more important, would struggle to win a slam on any surface.

Nadal is not a 'one surface' pony at all, the fact is he has won Grand Slams on all surfaces. However it could be argued that he is a 'slow court' pony- i.e. he prefers slow courts to fast courts. But people get very confused when analysing the game of Nadal. I believe that Nadal could have chosen to be a more aggressive player, watch clips on Miami 2004/5 and Dubai 2006. However the surfaces then slowed down, and Nadal changed his game and has lost some of the aggression. If the surfaces were sped up I believe Nadal, as he matured, would be made by Toni to change his style to make it more effective on faster surfaces. Would he be successful? Who knows?

I am aware that when Nadal was young, and the surfaces were faster, he did not generate fantastic results on surfaces outside clay. But this does not mean it would have to be the case for his whole career. Nadal grew up playing tennis on clay in Spain remember, so would take time to change his game for other surfaces.

This causes a problem- it is like a experiment where two variables has changed:
-Nadal has got older, and hence was free to develop his game before-hand. If the surfaces were sped up then Toni could have changed Nadal's game to be effective for that, and the disparity in tactics between clay and hard courts for Nadal would increase further.

-The surfaces have changed. These changes meant that Toni didn't have to change Nadal's game as much for him to be able to play on all surfaces.


What would my surface mix mean?

I suggested this earlier:

Australian Open (Medium Slow Clay- like Rome)

French Open (Slow Clay)

Wimbledon (Medium Fast Grass)

US Open (Fast Indoor Hard Court)

This would mean we have a real mix, with: slow, medium slow, medium fast, and also fast.

I believe Nadal, throughout the decade, would dominate the first 2 slams of the year, just like Federer would dominate the final 2 Grand Slams of the year.
In my eyes, for Federer to win a Grand Slam on clay, he would need to avoid Nadal (i.e. rely on a early Nadal exit or him to withdraw from the tournament).
Nadal, would struggle on the fast indoor surface, the low bounce and pace would mean it would be very difficult for him to win. A win at Wimbledon would be more likely, although I feel Nadal would need to be serving very very well to have a chance there.

I think Djokovic would struggle away from the US Open, and even in the US I think he'd have to avoid Federer to have a chance of winning. That's just my opinion though, I am sure many Djokovic fans will disagree with me.


Anyway, thanks for reading, will be a pleasure to hear your views as usual
Amritia

A good review IMBL but I'm not quite sure where you're headed with the article per se.

Are you in favour of introducing more variation, and/or speeding up conditions in general?
If so, how?

lydian wrote:A good review IMBL,

Thanks

lydian wrote:
Are you in favour of introducing more variation, and/or speeding up conditions in general?
If so, how?

Well I think there needs to be more variety throughout the 4 Grand Slams. The surfaces are not exactly the same, but they are too similar.
I have posted a possible court surface mix for the 4 Grand Slams- which include: slow (FO clay), medium slow (AO Clay), medium fast (Wimby Grass), and fast (USO indoor).

And I know some Djokovic fans complain about draw luck etc. but Djokovic has 2 Grand Slams on his favourite surface, a luxury someone like Nadal doesn't have. Federer I don't think he minds having 2 on HC or 2 on grass, but he wouldn't want 2 on clay.

Can you be more specific? I.e. what changes need to happen at each slam vs how they are now?

My thoughts - I think French should be marginally slower (restore amount of top dressing per yesteryear), AO should revert to IW grade plexicushion, Wimb back to 2000 conditions i.e. back to old grass mix, USO gets grit taken out of paint and back to old Penn balls. That makes for 4 very different slams.

lydian wrote:Can you be more specific? I.e. what changes need to happen at each slam vs how they are now?

Australian Open should be clay. With the Babolat Balls used in FO 2011, this makes the play a bit faster.
French Open should be exactly like the conditions this year (FO 2012)- slow.
Wimbledon- they should speed up the surface- not too much like the 90's but somewhere in between now and the 90s. Also make the balls a bit smaller i.e. it will be played at a 'fast medium' pace.
USO- They should have it indoors, relocate. Surface Hard-court and fast.

Hmmm. clay for AO?

If we're talking ideals...Best of 14 event rankings to maximise quality, not quantity.

Off season between Jan-mid March (low ranked players can play of course at lower events)

Late March....IW and Miami...slower events so build well into European clay season.

FO....90s conditions. Play in May. Preceded by usual events but replace Madrid with Hamburg (see WTF below)

Wimb....halfway between 90s and 2003, play late July preceded by 500 Queens and then Masters Halle.

USO...90s conditions, with roof, move to late Sept. Preceded by Canada, Cincy, etc.

AO indoors on Rebound Ace, it's too hot anyway down under in Jan.
Move to November and precede with indoor events and Masters.

Early Dec....WTFs...indoors on faster clay at Madrid Open (has a roof).

Didn't have time to read the whole article, but read much of it, I agree more ranges of speed required, although not sure a surface change (clay Oz or indoor New York) is really required.

Speeding up the courts would create a problem for serving. How about speed up the back portion of the court but not before the service line? (I'm serious, by the way.)

Henman Bill wrote:Didn't have time to read the whole article, but read much of it, I agree more ranges of speed required, although not sure a surface change (clay Oz or indoor New York) is really required.

Yes, HB I do agree that more range of surface speed is required. My formula would have a mix for me, but of course others may prefer other combos.
As for the article, I do recognise it is long, I have covered a lot of points for one article. Honestly I could make an article out of every sub-heading here, in-fact maybe I might do that at a later date.

Henman Bill wrote:
Speeding up the courts would create a problem for serving. How about speed up the back portion of the court but not before the service line? (I'm serious, by the way.)

Interesting
Would it be realistic/possible to have 1 bit of the court 1 speed, and the other bit another speed, and still maintain an even surface?

Good work IMBL, I agree that we should not mess with technology and speed up the game much. That is pretty funny though a Nadal fan wanting another clay court slam, no conflict of interest there IMBL, lol?

I just disagree with people I don't find anything wrong with the tennis today. I don't want anything sped up or slowed down or to go down the road of banning technology. If not for the crappy weather this tournament has had great matches and plenty of upsets and young guys making improvements. We hear that the slow conditions add to injuries but players are having more and more success the older they get and I haven't seen any appreciable increase or decrease in injuries between now and lets say 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

There have been 2 clay slams in the past, and there have of course been 3 grass slams too. It is only the current obsession of the American based ATP, where hard courts over there are more common than donuts, that has resulted in the preponderance of hard courts across the globe in recent times. Thanks for directing tennis into one vanilla flavour ATP.

But ironically what are the USTA dong now after seeing American fortunes dip in the game since the late 90s and clay based players fortunes rise? They're ripping up loads of hard courts to replace them with clay courts as they realise they're a better way to learn and play the game. So perhaps 2 clay slams isn't completely a ridiculous idea

I'm not anti-HC per se, a fast USO is a good addition to the game, but likewise the tennis 'handbook' does not have a maxim that dictates the game shalt be conducted on cement...especially slow cement that is not good for sinew, bone and muscle alike.

There are four main ways to play the game; Grass, Clay, Hard and Indoors. It seems elegant and logical to have 1 Slam on each.

The AO is the obvious Indoor option.

Let each be the epitome of that environment, so far as entertaintment permits.

The winner of the Grand Slam would truly be an exceptional player, even more so than now.

I think we both know why you want 2 Clay Slams IMBL from discussions on other threads.

I kind of ermmmm and ahhhhhhh over the thought of an indoor slam. I look at Paris and think urgh! Make Wimbledon fast again. Speed up the US Open to play like IW or Cinncy. The Slams should play similar to the warm up events before them. Queens plays like an ice rink and yet Wimbledon is like clay at times! Australian Open and French Open are the only Slams for me which a slightly in sync with the events that proceed them. I find it daft that 2 show courts play completely different.

If people are not getting enough time to read articles, may be the organisers should speed the articles up.

I think when we say indoor, we mean fast....i.e. carpet, which left the tour after 2009. But I do have concerns about the modern game on carpet...it would need to be a slower carpet for sure.

But we need more variety...so how?

Lydian - perhaps a magic carpet, that could pave the way for a return to the courts of a certain Al Addin. Forgive my (alleged) levity. Just twiddling my thumbs before the big final.

lol...I almost mentioned magic carpet in my post too

Funny how we have "human" connections with carpet (magic..), grass (the green green...), and clay (...the earth beneath our feet...) but cement isnt something we get too involved with as a substance. Yet we conduct most of tennis on it now because its cheap, uniform and easy to maintain. Perish the day SW19 gets "decoturf'ed".

Australian Open should be clay.

You off your head? Running about on clay under those temperatures with that humidity?

Hey? Running about in 40c is running about...and arguably cement absorbs and re-emits more heat than clay which can be watered down. It also doesnt stop Spaniards competing on it in their own country in the summer months when its as hot if not hotter than Australia.

Melbourne hardly reaches 40C in January. The highest temp this year was 32C. You need to go north like to Alice Springs to hit the 40's.

Whereas in Spain it regularly gets into the 40c across July-August...I know because my parents live there (last year it was 45c in the shade when I visited) and its unbearable at times with high humidity too...but it doesnt stop the spaniards playing tennis tournaments.
AO is no hotter than places like Cincinnati where oncourt conditions are seriously oppressive with the huge humidity you get in the US.

So in a hot country like Spain why do they play on clay if its so oppressive

Cincinnati is just ridiculous for heat. I mean that is the dry no air or breeze type of heat I wouldn't wish on the devil himself. As Melbourne is near the coast it attracts sea breeze which can knock a few numbers off the temperature.

My Dad lived in Majorca for 5 years and he nearly died in the heat sometimes. I went in September and it was 37!!! How Rafa trained there is just stupid!

Yeah exactly, its no wonder Nadal is as crazy fit as he is.
I was there just a couple of weekends back and it was 39 one day - before that it had been around 40 for 2-3 weeks...its actually really unpleasant unless you're conditioned to it. Like Nadal.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think we both know why you want 2 Clay Slams IMBL from discussions on other threads.

I simply can't understand what you are hinting here.
Just to make it abundantly clear my plan is made for:

-Reduced surface homogenisation- leading to a better future of tennis.
-A better mix of surfaces. Bogbrush said it was crucial to have a clay, HC, grass and one other indoor slam. My plan includes all of those.
-A good mix of surface speeds. Under my plan there would be:
*A Fast Surface- US Open (also indoor)
*Fast Medium- Wimbledon (i.e. between the 90's speed and the current speed)
*Medium Slow- Aussie Open
*Slow- French Open/Roland Garros.

This would also mean that different styles could succeed at different point of the year- arguably players who like faster surfaces would prefer the final 2 slams of the year, but players who are more suited to slower courts would prefer the first 2 slams of the year. To win all the slams in a year, a player would have to adjust his style depending on the event. It would generate interest by opening up a 'pandora's box' if you were- interesting questions could be raised such as how will Toni make Nadal adjust, will Djokovic come to the net more, can big servers start getting dangerous at Wimbledon again etc.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Australian Open should be clay.

You off your head? Running about on clay under those temperatures with that humidity?

You have a interesting view on logic, slightly different to the norm let's say.
I would answer but Lydian has already nailed it (as usual if I may add).

lydian wrote:Hey? Running about in 40c is running about...and arguably cement absorbs and re-emits more heat than clay which can be watered down. It also doesnt stop Spaniards competing on it in their own country in the summer months when its as hot if not hotter than Australia.

Whereas in Spain it regularly gets into the 40c across July-August...I know because my parents live there (last year it was 45c in the shade when I visited) and its unbearable at times with high humidity too...but it doesnt stop the spaniards playing tennis tournaments.
AO is no hotter than places like Cincinnati where oncourt conditions are seriously oppressive with the huge humidity you get in the US.

So in a hot country like Spain why do they play on clay if its so oppressive

sirfredperry wrote:If people are not getting enough time to read articles, may be the organisers should speed the articles up.

This article may be ever so slightly long
I think the problem is I've covered quite a vast area of tennis for one debate, arguably I could have split this up into two articles: 1. Who has benefited from the surface distribution/speed; 2. What could the ideal surface/speed distribution be for the future.
I was also going to add in a another paragraph detailing technology changes etc.; but then I realised the article was getting too long.

Oh well, at-least we have around 4 hours before the final starts- you can immerse yourself in this in the meantime

lydian wrote:There have been 2 clay slams in the past, and there have of course been 3 grass slams too. It is only the current obsession of the American based ATP, where hard courts over there are more common than donuts, that has resulted in the preponderance of hard courts across the globe in recent times.

I'm not anti-HC per se, a fast USO is a good addition to the game, but likewise the tennis 'handbook' does not have a maxim that dictates the game shalt be conducted on cement...especially slow cement that is not good for sinew, bone and muscle alike.

It totally agree. Personally I think this domination of hard-courts over the tennis season is frankly disgusting and practically unforgivable.

I myself think a good 25 percent split between each of the four types of events outdoor hardcourt, clay, indoors, and grass is the ideal format for tennis. I have long advocated for a proper grass court season with a slate of 250, 500, 1000 tourniers before wimbeldon. But that would require drastically curtailing the North American summer swing, which generates a vast sum of money for the ATP tour especially from large American broadcasters. So it is a bit of conundrum. Grass itself could be argued is not really a surface that is played on much and for 25 percent of the season to be on grass that is really divorced from how all these players grow up playing and how the average guy plays as well. There is afterall probably 1000 or 2000 clay and hardcourt courts for every grass court.

I still think clay in Australia is not on, IMBL. Their 'heritage' is grass, clay is primarily a European / South American thing.

bogbrush wrote: Their 'heritage' is grass, clay is primarily a European / South American thing.

Well in that case this could be a fresh new introduction for the Aussies.
Plues, if they abandoned grass for HC, they can switch from HC to clay

socal1976 wrote:I myself think a good 25 percent split between each of the four types of events outdoor hardcourt, clay, indoors, and grass is the ideal format for tennis.

My 'mix; contains all of those apart from an outdoor hard.

socal1976 wrote:I have long advocated for a proper grass court season with a slate of 250, 500, 1000 tourniers before wimbeldon. But that would require drastically curtailing the North American summer swing, which generates a vast sum of money for the ATP tour especially from large American broadcasters. So it is a bit of conundrum. Grass itself could be argued is not really a surface that is played on much and for 25 percent of the season to be on grass that is really divorced from how all these players grow up playing and how the average guy plays as well. There is afterall probably 1000 or 2000 clay and hardcourt courts for every grass court.

Yes, I agree with this
Remember American tournaments do not have to be HC, Newport for example is played on grass.

Yeah why don't they make Cincy a grass court Masters and have it right after wimby, is it written in stone that the masters event has to be before the grandslam. There are clay and grass events on right after wimby and RG respectively. I think the players would love to have the cooling effect of playing on grass as opposed to the horrific tendency of the acryllic surface of the hardcourts to bake and radiate heat. Plus quicker points and less of a pounding on the body.

socal1976 wrote:Yeah why don't they make Cincy a grass court Masters and have it right after wimby, is it written in stone that the masters event has to be before the grandslam. There are clay and grass events on right after wimby and RG respectively. I think the players would love to have the cooling effect of playing on grass as opposed to the horrific tendency of the acryllic surface of the hardcourts to bake and radiate heat. Plus quicker points and less of a pounding on the body.

I fully agree with that

You are a brilliant poster Socal, but as Nadal would say 'keep cal-m'

IMBL, I am always calm but I don't like the feeling of not saying certain things that I believe need to be said.

socal1976 wrote:IMBL, I am always calm but I don't like the feeling of not saying certain things that I believe need to be said.

Comprendo

Anyway as a Djokovic fan, do you think he's lucky to have 2 Grand Slams on his favourite surface per year.
Nadal doesn't have that luxury

Honestly I don't know if I buy clay court tennis as much as a good hardcourt event. I feel like a medium hardcourt is the fairest surface and accentuates the attacking game while at the same time allowing the defenders a good chances as well since they can rely on the bounce and comfortably play and move on the hardcourt. Clay court tennis features a higher percentage o points ending in errors and less winners than hardcourt tennis. Grass in my mind features too much of an edge to the big server and attacker. Give me a good medium fast hardcourt match over either grass or clay.

By the way hardcourt should dominate the tour it is by far the most dominant surface if you include all the indoor hardcourts in the world. They are the cheapest to build and maintain so they have had a huge impact on popularizing and globalizing the game. Just lay down the concrete and paint the lines and you can play ball. However the one worry of course is the pounding on the body. But as a viewer I actually enjoy a medium hardcourt the most in terms of the play and competition.

Personally I don't like watching tennis on hard-courts.. but we'll have to disagree there.

Anyway overall I think it dominates the tour far too much anyway.

Well I mean most people do play on hardcourts and then a distant second on clay courts so on that basis I don't know if I think that the pros should play more on clay and less on hardcourt. The AO on clay I think that is a bad idea IMBL. The heat alone and those long matches will be cause even more players to break down fitness wise and coming early in the year on those slow conditions we are bound to have a lot of error filled tennis.

socal1976 wrote: The AO on clay I think that is a bad idea IMBL. The heat alone and those long matches will be cause even more players to break down fitness wise and coming early in the year on those slow conditions we are bound to have a lot of error filled tennis.

As opposed to the quick, fast tennis we have now at the AO....
2012 AO final was very very long, also HC is much worse for the body so has a much more denigrating effect compared to clay.

Given Australia's location and position in the sport now I wouldn't be averse to moving Australian Open to South America... there it could be clay and is preceded by a few well known clay events too.

lydian wrote:Given Australia's location and position in the sport now I wouldn't be averse to moving Australian Open to South America... there it could be clay and is preceded by a few well known clay events too.

Surely a step too far. The problem can be fixed without dumping so much history with it.

I mean... This is the country of Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Tony Roche, John Newcombe.

Admittedly also Pat Cash but they're still massively in the positive.

lydian wrote:Given Australia's location and position in the sport now I wouldn't be averse to moving Australian Open to South America... there it could be clay and is preceded by a few well known clay events too.

I should have thought of that earlier

I know BB...I'm not recommending it but then again I would understand if they wanted a change. But it will never happen anyway...as you say there's too much history in that country even if their best emerging players are imported from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

But nor should tennis stand still forever...

Yeah I don't know about moving the Australian open to South America. I think tradition dictates where the slams are to be played even more than the type of surface they choose to play it on. The tour is not able to create a new slam the slams rose up organically a century ago. Their name recognition, history, and brand name are tied up in the character of the country they are located in. And besides if you do want to move the AO which again is anohter radical change I would oppose, why not move it to ASIA or if you are going to sell it to the highest bidder like that give it to some Arab Sheiks in the gulf for a 9 or 10 figure payday. But in my mind that is highly unlikely scenario. The ATP just doesn't have that kind of power. The slams created the tour not the other way around it is unlike the tour could radically change the character of any of the slams that represent a national identity as well.

I'm not aware of Middle Eastern ATP series events.
South America already has 3 x 250's and a 500 early in the year.
Tennis is the 3rd bigget sport in South America.

Also, if we go back to AO...it was the last added slam in the 1900s, not 1800s, and was hardly visited by mainstream players until the 1980s. Borg didn't bother going there, Sampras and Agassi also some years early on. It's certainly on a much lower footing than the others...and we couldn't justify it's inclusion just because of Laver....on that basis Switzerland should have one. Besides which there are many past great players from South America, e.g. Vilas.

I'm not saying move it but we also have to recognise the world changes around us.

Well Doha and Dubai are in the middle east. I am not suggesting moving it there I just think if you are going to make a strict financial decision china or the gulf arabs have a lot of coin.

But that is neither here nor there you would have a better chance of creating 5th slam, which is close to zero than of stripping the AO. Of course the AO was not in parity with the other slams for many years but improvements in travel, facilities, prize money, and scheduling have pretty much guaranteed the same high level as the other slams since the mid 80s. Why would we now punish the AO when they have done a yeoman's job of lifting the calendar from a big 3 to a big 4. They still have a century of tennis behind them and isn't just laver it is hoad, emerson, laver, rosewall, newcombe and the whole lot of them that in many ways built the modern pro game.

I just don't get your desire to drastically overhaul what I believe is a steady, stable, and working formula.

Socal, I know you like to say how Djokovic doesn't get fair treatment from the ATP etc. but look at the current surface balance: it is perfect for him!

Now, we have 2 Grand Slams on Hard Court (50%), 1 on Grass (25%), 1 on Clay (25%). This means there is an imbalance, as there is more Hard Court Slams than any other surface.

NOVAK DJOKOVIC. Djokovic, as we know, moves best on hard-courts. In-fact I could say that Djokovic is the best mover on hard courts of all time. So having 2 out of 4 slams on HC is brilliant for Djokovic.

What makes it even better for him is the fact these hard-courts are slower, which means that movement becomes more important, irrelevant of who you play. Let's get some stats to show Djokovic's hard court domination:

-Djokovic has only won 1 slam outside hard-court, half of the amount Nadal has won just on grass.

-Djokovic has won 5/6 slams on HC- this is 83%

So this 'hard court' imbalance has clearly benefitted Djokovic. The slowing down of the surfaces extend this even further to his favour as it makes movement more important, which is Djokovic's huge strength on hard courts.


And I know Federer fans like to say 'Nadal this' Nadal that' but at the end of the day if Nadal had 2 surfaces on his favourite surface, like Djokovic has now, he could have had 10-15 more slams than Djokovic! (irrelevant of the other two surfaces).

What IMBL they didn't come up with two hardcourt slams to benefit Djokovic that has been the case for 25 years. I think Djokovic first off will win more slams off of hardcourt if I was Nadal I wouldn't sleep on him for next years' clay court season.

By the way hardcourts if you include indoors are by far and away the most prevalent courts in the world. They are cheaper to build and maintain and open up the game and make it accessible in areas where you just can't maintain and spend the money on a clay or grass court. Its the peoples court surface if there is such a thing. So why should the tour play a large part of the season on grass when maybe .1 percent of all tennis courts on the planet are grass?

socal1976 wrote:What IMBL they didn't come up with two hardcourt slams to benefit Djokovic that has been the case for 25 years. I think Djokovic first off will win more slams off of hardcourt if I was Nadal I wouldn't sleep on him for next years' clay court season.

By the way hardcourts if you include indoors are by far and away the most prevalent courts in the world. They are cheaper to build and maintain and open up the game and make it accessible in areas where you just can't maintain and spend the money on a clay or grass court. Its the peoples court surface if there is such a thing. So why should the tour play a large part of the season on grass when maybe .1 percent of all tennis courts on the planet are grass?

I actually agree with that, even though I love grass court tennis. The tennis club I played at had clay courts only and I practised the odd time indoors on a hard court too. However, I never got anywhere near a grass court. I don't even think there are even grass courts in the city.

socal1976 wrote:What IMBL they didn't come up with two hardcourt slams to benefit Djokovic that has been the case for 25 years.

I'm not saying that the ATP changed anything.
I'm just saying it's lucky for Djokovic that this was the case.

There was a time when there were 2 clay events, and 2 grass events. Hard Courts are the worse on bodies, and simply an unnatural choice of surface. The only good thing is that it is easier to maintain.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_court#Hard_courts
Although hard courts are the least expensive to maintain, they are generally more rough on the human body than other surfaces due to their rigidity.

Yes and a lot of people can't afford to play on clay and grass courts and a lot of local boards that build these courts can't pay for the maintenance involved. The slams have reached a place of stability none of them are looking to go from grass to hardcourt or to clay. And IMBL the game of tennis at is usually played is on hardcourt. The tour and the club players game should not be divorced from each other by having one set of surfaces for the pros, more traditonal surfaces. And then one set of surfaces for almost all recreational players. The six green clay courts at my club are the only clay courts I know of within 500 miles.

socal1976 wrote:Yes and a lot of people can't afford to play on clay and grass courts and a lot of local boards that build these courts can't pay for the maintenance involved. The slams have reached a place of stability none of them are looking to go from grass to hardcourt or to clay. And IMBL the game of tennis at is usually played is on hardcourt. The tour and the club players game should not be divorced from each other by having one set of surfaces for the pros, more traditonal surfaces. And then one set of surfaces for almost all recreational players. The six green clay courts at my club are the only clay courts I know of within 500 miles.

In London in my tennis club (David Lloyd) has all the courts on carpet. Having clay court surfaces, although more expensive, is far better for the development of games of young children.