Odd concept of quality from Murray

I noticed this comment from Andy and thought it a bit strange, and perhaps revealing;

“I think he played well,” said Murray. “I didn't think it was incredibly high standard in terms of length of points. There were a lot of quick points.

Since when did long points mean quality? Long means quantity, and there's no reason why long points should mean higher quality than short; Federer was playing attacking tennis and looking to shorten the points, and he did it pretty well.
It may just be a slip of the tongue but there's often truth in such slips. The idea that 30 stroke rallies all the time is "quality" is an odd concept that gets an airing on here sometime.

Granollers is pretty good at this kind of quality. Is that what we're after?

It's a pop at Fed. I liked Fed's little dig at the end too 'we've played three times in London this year' (subtext - 'and I've won two of them!' )

No love lost still methinks!

Seriously though I think it is a little arrogant of Murray and to be quite frank his mutterings last night did him no credit. There is no shame in losing to a legend like TMF but Murray's behaviour on court suggested that it was somehow a little ridiculous that he was - the crowd responded accordingly!

You think? I saw it more as the reflecting the contemporary obsession with endless retrieving and rallying as "Golden". Maybe you're right, I can't say.

I guess that what he's saying is that when he's on his game he doesn't let attacking players, even Fed, get away with quick points against him - and given his H2H vs. Fed he's got a right to say that.

Yeah I do BB I may be wrong (perish the thought!) but I think that arrogance mixed up with complacency at times is still Murray's Achilles' heel. He won the last two encounters with Fed and what is more, Delpo, a player Murray is and feels better than, has trounced Fed twice recently - 1)he expected to be the home favourite a la the Olympics but you get a much more international crowd at O2 than you do at SW19, and 2) he expected to be able to dominate the match as he has done the last couple of times they met - when neither circumstances were clear cut he began f-ing and blinding to the cameras again and allowed himself to lose a lot of crowd support and the match.

His behaviour was in stark contrast to Fed's zen like countenance (apart from the eyes!) whether he was behind on the scoreline or in front. Murray really fed up (excuse pun!) that Fed had a lot of Murray's 'home crowd' rooting en masse for him and I think he may be subtly pointing out that the crowd won't get such an entertaining match tomorrow now he is not there to lock horns with Novak. If Fed is playing well, however, I think most tennis fans would prefer to see another thrilling Novak v TMF final than anything else - let's hope it doesn't disappoint!

time please wrote:It's a pop at Fed. I liked Fed's little dig at the end too 'we've played three times in London this year' (subtext - 'and I've won two of them!' )

No love lost still methinks!

Seriously though I think it is a little arrogant of Murray and to be quite frank his mutterings last night did him no credit. There is no shame in losing to a legend like TMF but Murray's behaviour on court suggested that it was somehow a little ridiculous that he was - the crowd responded accordingly!

So as usual it's ok for Federe to have a pop at Murray but it's arrogant of Murray if he has a pop at Federer. Double standards I'm afraid. Lets be consistent in our criticisms. I don't mind either player having a pop at the other. It adds a bit of spice.

Reckon quite a lot gets lost in translation when players speak immediately after a match. Are they supposed to make much sense when they have just, breathlessly, lost ?

It's obviously a pop at Federer, but it's also utter nonsense. The big mistake Murray did yesterday is to try to engage in a class contest, and not pursuing with enough belief the usual "high balls on Fed's BH" tactic, which imo is the only way he can can give Federer an upset.

Calder106 wrote:

time please wrote:It's a pop at Fed. I liked Fed's little dig at the end too 'we've played three times in London this year' (subtext - 'and I've won two of them!' )

No love lost still methinks!

Seriously though I think it is a little arrogant of Murray and to be quite frank his mutterings last night did him no credit. There is no shame in losing to a legend like TMF but Murray's behaviour on court suggested that it was somehow a little ridiculous that he was - the crowd responded accordingly!

So as usual it's ok for Federe to have a pop at Murray but it's arrogant of Murray if he has a pop at Federer. Double standards I'm afraid. Lets be consistent in our criticisms. I don't mind either player having a pop at the other. It adds a bit of spice.

Actually you are completely misunderstanding me calder - I think I make it clear that they are both playing mind games with each other (plus ca change). As a Fed fan I can see that he is often narcissitic (sorry can't spell that) and prone to arrogance - I expect the top athletes to be a little. My criticism of Murray is not that he can be arrogant, but that his arrogance does not always translate into strong self belief and instead can spill more easily into lack of confidence and petulance when its all going pear shaped. I do think that he is unwise to play patronising mind games - unless he is sure that he can win all the battles otherwise he is merely motivating his more than competent opponent.

It was more a criticism of one aspect of his play last night, not a character assasination.

Short points are often described as crap as are long points. Any match is lucky to have a mixture. Murray clearly noticing that the first he had the upper hand until Federer pulled out a serving masterclass towards the end of the set and into the TB.

Once Murray coughed up the UE's, it was normal service for the Fed Express.

He should count his lucky stars he didn't sit through the first semi!

Still looks like a biased view to me. Players don't like it when things are not working out for them and show it in different ways. I agree that Murray goes over the top too much in matches and I don't think it helps him. A lot of that though is self criticism.

What is said outside of the matches though is different if it is ok for one player to have a dig in a press conference it should be the same for opponent.

Anyway I'm not convinced that what Murray said was a dig. I can't comment on the first set because I didn't see it. However I saw the whole of the second set and, almost wholly down to Murray's poor play, I didn't think it was high quality. That is not to take anything away from Federer. He won and won well. He also played a few excellent shots but most of the time he was playing within himself and letting Murray make the mistakes. That said if Murray's level had been higher I think Federer would have been able to play at a higher level also and still would have won.

Calder106 wrote:Still looks like a biased view to me.

You're entitled to your opinion. I may be a little biased, though I am actually a fan of Murray too - you won't get totally objective opinion from anyone on a forum imo, however hard they try to pretend otherwise - we are all here, after all, to share our particular view of things.

Ironic that you can't see that your attitude to my opinion is as biased as you are accusing me of being - do please tell me what I should think

I agree Murray played poorly in the second, but he was a little disconcerted to see Fed beginning to read and return his 130 mph serves. Fed got a better read on the power and velocity from Murray and forced a bit of the collapse imo (oh dear, there I go again!)

Ok so I'm biased I can accept that but I'm also entitled to an opinion and to disagree with others points. I have actually looked at the clip of the press conference on the BBC site rather than just the quote in the OP and am still not convinced it was a dig (my bias again showing here). He doesn't say much about the first set but tells the second set as it was including saying how difficult Federer is to stop once he gets ahead.

Hey calder I wouldn't deny you the right to disagree with any of my points, it just not terribly respectful of my right to a different opinion to call it 'biased' and that sort of prevents an exchange of views imo, that's all.

You may well be right that I am seeing things that aren't there - but imo, there is definitely an undercurrent in the Fed/Murray exchanges and I agree that it can add a little spice to the encounter. I am just not sure that Murray always uses it wisely, that's the essence of what I am saying.

But sirfred is right that much is lost in translation - but hey ho, where is the fun without a bit of speculation

There is definitely a bit of needle between the two.

Federer I think for a long time was annoyed at the fact he lost so much to Murray in the early part of their rivalry. The nature and brand of tennis used to beat Federer for me especially was something that didn't sit well with the maestro and I for one think I can understand because certainly at that point in 2006-2008 there were better players than Murray on the tour that Federer was beating comfortably. I think when Federer beat Murray in the US Open final in 2008, I think he felt Murray wouldn't comeback from that defeat and Murray put so much into their Shanghai encounter later that year despite already qualifying. In a sense smacked of disrespect that he put so much into beating him with Davydenko round the corner who deserved more respect in the performance that Murray put in.

Murray for a long time has wanted to prove Roger wrong in that the brand of tennis he plays was not enough to win a Slam and Roger was right given the aggression Murray has had to play with to win that maiden Slam. Murray probably feels Roger does not pay him the due respect he might do to Nadal or Djokovic, but given the scale of their achievements one could see why Andy is not in such company just yet. Time yes is on his side, but you feel with Federer nearing the end of his career and Nadal looking less likely to feature in a diverse calendar that Andy's Slam achievements should they continue beyond 2012 might be perceived as circumstantial with 2 of the greats not in their pomp. I always feel Andy riles himself to really out-perform Federer. In a aggressive and forceful nature.

It is a nice and welcomed added spice.

Way too much being read into this, as normal.

There was a lot if quick points, not because of blistering winners but because of forced and unforced errors. A lot of stuff that these two at their best would usually get back.

Why is suggesting the match was not of the highest quality an insult to either player? I just consider it a fact. I've some both of them play way better against each other.

time please wrote:Hey calder I wouldn't deny you the right to disagree with any of my points, it just not terribly respectful of my right to a different opinion to call it 'biased' and that sort of prevents an exchange of views imo, that's all.

You may well be right that I am seeing things that aren't there - but imo, there is definitely an undercurrent in the Fed/Murray exchanges and I agree that it can add a little spice to the encounter. I am just not sure that Murray always uses it wisely, that's the essence of what I am saying.

But sirfred is right that much is lost in translation - but hey ho, where is the fun without a bit of speculation

That's the bit I don't understand though and why I said what I did earlier. Why is it not wise for Murray to have a dig but ok for Federer ? As I say I've no problem if they do it but can't see the distinction.

Because it distracts Murray. Ok it's only my opinion, but I think that everytime Murray does it against Fed he sort of forgets that when Fed is on he can still be awesome. It's not that I object to Murray thinking he is the better player, in fact I would be on his case if he didn't as it is no way for a top sportsman to think - I know I am explaining this all very badly so I will just sum up and say that, imvho, Murray gives too much of the rather obsequious sort of respect to Rafa, and too little respect in his own mind to Fed.

I think the 'I didn't have to do anything special to beat him' comments of a younger Murray beating Fed against the positively gushing comments about Rafa are probably what make me inclined to this opinion.

In other words, imo, when Murray needles he is often placing too much importance on the last result and is underrating Fed, though history should tell him it is unwise to do so. When Fed does it, it usually points to him really being up for the match and meaning business, in my view of course.

Very interesting comment indeed - would be interesting to ask him to qualify.

I would argue

long points ending on a winner BEATS short point ending on a winner BEATS long point ending on an error BEATS shorts point ending in an error.

I think long points are better than short points on average but, paradoxically, I do like to see players going for the winner.

BB, was just watching a re-run of the Federer-Murray tiebreak and after one point they said it was a 22-shot rally, the longest of the match, and I thought really? I'd forgotten it instantly, it was quite dull, apart from the last 2 winning shots from Federer.

I think long points are the best but not just baseline to baseline rallies, when it's side to side and cross courts and run each other around....and someone comes to the net and gets lobbed...and they throw a lob back and it carries on..those kind of points are entertaining.

time please wrote:Because it distracts Murray. Ok it's only my opinion, but I think that everytime Murray does it against Fed he sort of forgets that when Fed is on he can still be awesome. It's not that I object to Murray thinking he is the better player, in fact I would be on his case if he didn't as it is no way for a top sportsman to think - I know I am explaining this all very badly so I will just sum up and say that, imvho, Murray gives too much of the rather obsequious sort of respect to Rafa, and too little respect in his own mind to Fed.

I think the 'I didn't have to do anything special to beat him' comments of a younger Murray beating Fed against the positively gushing comments about Rafa are probably what make me inclined to this opinion.

In other words, imo, when Murray needles he is often placing too much importance on the last result and is underrating Fed, though history should tell him it is unwise to do so. When Fed does it, it usually points to him really being up for the match and meaning business, in my view of course.

I'm afraid we will have to differ in opinion again. I don't think that Murray pays Federer 'too little respect' or 'thinks he is the better player'. He does know though that he can match up against Federer and if he plays well over the full duration of a match he can beat him (note I said can not will). He also knows if he is not playing at top level he will probably lose. Somebody pointed out an interesting fact on another thread in that Federer/Murray rarely play a close match. The early stages of their matches may be close but one or other usally wins comfortably in the end. So I do think there is a lot of mind games going on between them and Murray would be very stupid if he thought he just needed to turn up to win. I think the mind games actually show the respect that they have for each others ability rather than the opposite.

I didn't think it was needle, I just thought it was Andys definition of quality and of a part with the modern ideal of the 6 hour match.

I disagree, I think a well executed short point is the hardest thing of all to achieve, and therefore demands the greatest quality.

Not quite sure about that BB. Quality is not directly proportional to length otherwise we'd be hailing Karlovic as some genius with his ace count.

Winning a ralley at the earliest opportunity is what Federer is about. The other big 3 are quite prepared to work the point around more given they know their baseline game is rock solid on both sides...plus their attacking skills arent as adept. But when you watch a Nadal point on clay, or Djokovic point on HC it can also be a wonder of quality. Horses for courses....or rather surfaces. There is no 'best' way to play the game in my opinion - that varies on the cirumstance other than its about winning at the earliest opportunity. Or is it? Some players like to wear their opponents down into the bargain...Muster and Agassi were cases in point there, Nadal these days too.

Murray may have been meaning he felt he wasnt able to extend the ralleys as well as normal and he was breaking down. It might be an error comment on himself.

He should be worrying why his quality - not length or otherwise - and concentration dropped off all of a sudden!

lydian wrote:Not quite sure about that BB. Quality is not directly proportional to length otherwise we'd be hailing Karlovic as some genius with his ace count.

Winning a ralley at the earliest opportunity is what Federer is about. The other big 3 are quite prepared to work the point around more given they know their baseline game is rock solid on both sides...plus their attacking skills arent as adept. But when you watch a Nadal point on clay, or Djokovic point on HC it can also be a wonder of quality. Horses for courses....or rather surfaces. There is no 'best' way to play the game in my opinion - that varies on the cirumstance other than its about winning at the earliest opportunity. Or is it? Some players like to wear their opponents down into the bargain...Muster and Agassi were cases in point there, Nadal these days too.

Murray may have been meaning he felt he wasnt able to extend the ralleys as well as normal and he was breaking down. It might be an error comment on himself.

He should be worrying why his quality - not length or otherwise - and concentration dropped off all of a sudden!

I agree with that - too crude a guide.

What I'm saying is that Andys bald statement that it wasn't that great because the rallies weren't long is a giveaway; I'm not saying he was having a pop myself.

Yes but I'm not sure I read his comment with the same conclusion as yourself - funny how there are quite a few different takes on it judging by the responses so far.

He said "I didn't think it was incredibly high standard in terms of length of points. There were a lot of quick points".

Quick point in winners, or errors...surely errors. His error count went up alarmingly from late Set 1 onwards...resulting in shorter ralleys than he'd like. i.e. Federer was also making quite a few errors. If it was high quality shoot-out tennis and he was complaining about length then fair enough but he's not. His comment is about error-count in my opinion. Besides which I dont think Murray overtly seeks to extend ralleys...just waits for the counterpunch opportunity. Unfortunately for him, he was breaking down before those opportunities came last night.

Variety and good sportsmanship won through in the end there, which in Andy's case means their was no quality. Everyone MUST play 30 shot rallies and shout when they lose every point, for better quality production.

This is where Lendl is an odd choice of coach - he was a very attacking player and didnt seek to extend ralleys, basically by pulverising the ball into the corners. The Lendl approach seemed to work for 20 minutes with Murray until Andy forgot the script and reverted back to type.

Ah well, I'm sure Federer will be subjected to the full version of extended rallies tonight!

Indeed. Lest we forget Federer doesnt mind ralleying, he was brought up on clay after all

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Variety and good sportsmanship won through in the end there, which in Andy's case means their was no quality. Everyone MUST play 30 shot rallies and shout when they lose every point, for better quality production.

Yes.

bogbrush wrote:Ah well, I'm sure Federer will be subjected to the full version of extended rallies tonight!

Hopefully he's learned his lesson after the FO. Federer is a great player but sometimes his tactics can be a bit dodgy. I'm quite looking forward to this match...

lydian wrote:
Murray may have been meaning he felt he wasnt able to extend the ralleys as well as normal and he was breaking down. It might be an error comment on himself.

He should be worrying why his quality - not length or otherwise - and concentration dropped off all of a sudden!

That's how I interpreted it Lydian.

Interesting comment from Tim Henman in the commentary - saying that 1hr22 for a set and a game was indicative of the high quality.

Actually having read the full post match interview I admit my first was a knee jerk reaction and I was really basing it on the needling between these two in the past - so hands up, and all that

I'm with Calder on this one. Needles fine but it works both ways. People (myself included, particularly when i was younger) can get quite defensive when Murray is criticized, but then hes gotten a fair bit of undue stick over the years too, some people still hold the world cup thing over him. Maybe that explains it.

His attitude this week on the whole was a little too grumpy, and in a negative way... distracting him instead of spurring him on. You all prolly remember the first set of the us open final, the set point he won, there was a let i think and he nearly blew up, but he stopped took a deep breath and won the point.
I don't think his general attitude should change though, it's how he plays, it shows he cares, I like a bit of emotion on court, he just needs to make sure it doesnt hurt his game, which to be fair most of the time this year it hasn't.

I mean i doubt Federer or Murray like each other too much, for one i doubt they even know each other that well, to each other theyre just enemies on opposite sides. But i can't see anything to suggest a little dig or arrogance, it's easy to find stuff when you look for it, doubly especially if you take it out of the rest of the context

I think his comment was about how relatively short the points were, given the slowness of the court, which meant for him he couldn't get into his proper rhythm rather than that he prefers the 6 hour marathon

In their last 3 meetings (even Wimbledon) Murray has managed to dictate a lot of the pace of the game and it's interesting that Ferd is the one player who can force Andy into rushing and vice-versa - so they can both look to be playing very poor

I thought the first set was superb - but Andy simply ran out of ideas

Still think that their matches are the best on show. This has nothing to do with any needle, as I don't think there is any (that is reserved for Fed v Novak, did you see Fed' stunned look of disbelief when he lost that second set!!) I just think both bring out the best instintive play from each other at some stage of their matches. And as they are the best instinctive / touch players they do produce the 'best looking' spells of matches

IMHO!!!!!!!!!!

Roll on 2013 - see you in a few weeks as I must start doing a bit of work and I'm in New York for 3 weeks over Xmas

bogbrush wrote:I didn't think it was needle, I just thought it was Andys definition of quality and of a part with the modern ideal of the 6 hour match.

I disagree, I think a well executed short point is the hardest thing of all to achieve, and therefore demands the greatest quality.

I agree BB, along with lydian's qualifier below your post. I also think that there's something in the idea of arrogance at the highest level - all players have it, in the sense that they back themselves and their gameplan to the hilt repeatedly. Murray knows that despite his decent touch game, his rallying is overwhelmingly the more effective tactic for him in the modern game, and so he'll naturally view that particular brand of tennis as 'higher quality'. Federer can do it all, and though I'd expect him to have the opposite view, he's also said in interviews that he relishes the physical challenge and has even tried to purposefully direct big matches towards that style in the past. I agree that there are way more factors to be taken into consideration than simply rally duration! Novak vs Murray was described as a 'thriller', a match during which I nearly fell asleep. However, today's final was pretty absorbing and less safe by contrast.

Doubt there's much needle, just Murray backing what he's good at. No shame there, it'll just rub some people who prefer variety up the wrong way. I can understand that. Everyone has a different view of what constitutes quality - for me it's the balance between attack and defence, along with the full array of shots, so Federer wins that battle. They should all be respected as athletes of tremendous skill and athleticism, however.

Are you Roger fans really complaining about Murray's some what innocous comments about Roger? Isn't Roger the same guy when asked after Murray had beaten him I think in 3 masters in a row if he was impressed with Murray's game said:"Not really."Isn't federer the guy who once famously after a straight set loss said one of the reasons he lost was that his opponent quote:"shanked a lot of balls that went in." Or how about the now famous shrieks of "lucky shot" to the world wide media after losing in the USO semi to Djoko?

Roger fans should really not criticize murray for this rather mundane comment. If ungracious post match interviews were a crime Murray would be the hamburglar and Federer would be John Gotti.

This thread has nothing to do with Murray talking about Federer. It's about Murray's concept of quality.

I agree. It got sidetracked a bit with me being one of the main culprits but I felt I needed to say something at the time. All cleared up now hopefully.

Anyway back to the subject. The question that Murray was addressing (maybe not with the best choice of words) went something like 'Andy you have often talked of Roger as the best player of all times and tonight we got an exhibition of that especially in the second set'

I didn't think the second set was particularly high quality. Federer won it and won it well (efficiently would be a better word) but there were very few exciting points a lot of which was down to Murray's errors. I think Murray knew that as well and that is what he was trying to articulate.

I'm not claiming to know what he thinks but would be surprised if he was talking about 30+ stroke rallies. It was probably more about making the opponent win the point rather than giving it away with a poor shot early in the point.

I agree that really short points can be high quality as well and if a player is serving well, getting his opponent out of position and hitting winners that's quality too.

Watching last nights 2nd set I thought the general quality of the second set was much higher than in the Federer/Murray match. There were rallies but not of the 30 stroke variety and for most of the set the player who won the point had to really work for it.

Sorry BB, I'm the main culprit for taking your interesting thread down the wrong track.

totally agree with your last sentence Calder - the lightening exchanges were very much more exciting for me than gruelling hard hitting 30 plus stroke rallies all the time. I think the answer is that a few instances of long rallies in a match can be very exciting but when every exchange is attritional then the quality of the strokes seem to suffer as each plays a waiting game.

This article is interesting...comments from Federer echoing what many of us on here say....more speed on some courts = more variety!

"I think some variety would be nice, some really slow stuff and then some really fast stuff, instead of trying to make everything sort of the same," he said. "You sort of protect the top guys really by doing that because you have the best possible chance to have them in the semis at this point, I think. But should that be the goal? I'm not sure."

The bit at the end is always echoing what BB is saying with this thread re: drawing Federer into longer rallies (but not the quality point per se), where Djokovic says of Federer:

"He's somebody that is very aggressive, that likes to finish points very quickly," Djokovic said. "But I managed to get a lot of shots back into the court, being passive, a couple meters behind the baseline. ... That was one of the goals tonight, to always try to get him into the longer rallies where I think I had the better chance."


Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/article/Federer-wants-faster-courts-to-encourage-attack-4030817.php#ixzz2C7ourNzg

"Having more tournaments played on faster surfaces could make it easier for other players to challenge the sport's "Big Four," Federer said, adding that he wasn't sure tournament directors would necessarily buy into that."

Fed's implication is that the courts are deliberately set up to give the best oppotunity of getting the big four into the semis. Then when it happens, we say how great the big four are, golden era etc.
Could the so-called golden era have been brought about as much by the conditions as the players?

Yes and he alludes to that in the italics I posted too. Clearly this has been at the heart of homogenisation these past few years. Getting the same guys to the weekend because they're the draw.

Its kind of insulting to all the other players really, but it also shows how mono-focused the TDs have become. Their decisions have been at huge detriment to the game.

Absolutely yes....current conditions have led to the game being able to be dominated by 4 players. I, and others, have been writing about this on here for ages now...good to see Federer at the top recognises this and is prepared to speak his mind. Perhaps he feels able to do so given his career is coming towards its winter period...but he wasnt saying so 2-3 years. I bet Nadal and the others also know exactly the same thing but why should they object when they're the main beneficiaries of an homogenised tour?

If you have much more variety you would have a much more dynamic set of rankings...with surface specialists causing big surprises. Right now, there are NONE! And its stifling the game...

Someone posted that in an interview Djoko gave to Sky before the semi or final, he said the conditions had helped him, Rafa and Murray - but I don't have a link or the context.

I agree Lydian, except for the following.

Federer is not a beneficiary of the slower courts. Sure he has had incredible success on these slow surfaces but everyman and his dog knows that Roger is a better fast court player. He just also happens to be an incredibly good all round player and on all surfaces.

Wimbledon, Cincinatti, Dubai, Basel, USO, WTF (which was a fast court in Shanghai and Houston) are the fastest courts on tour, and not surprisingly the tournaments where he has had the most success. Four of his five wins against Murray and Djokovic this year came in Dubai, W (2), and Cincinatti. Slow courts stifle HIS game and force him to rally endlessly from the baseline when he would prefer to use all the tools at his disposal.

If the conditions were faster there would be more upsets AND Federer would be the top ranked player, even at this age - I have no doubt about this.

In fact Murray said the same thing after Dubai and Djokovic said this week that he, Murray and Nadal have benefited from the slower courts. He left out Federer because he knows the slower conditions have really hurt the old guy against his biggest rivals.

A final point; you may be right that the courts slowed more dramatically in the early noughties, but there is also no doubt that this trend has continued. Just take a look at the USO, watching video replays one can see a marked difference from even 2008, compared to the last couple of years.



emancipator.

It would be interesting to plot how the courts slowed. From 2001 to 2003 they slowed markedly IMO at slams...then continued to do so across the whole tour. From 2009 they cut out carpet and TDs added more sand to paint just about everywhere. Also, balls have got bigger.

Its an interesting one about Federer. I think now he's older he's become more aggressive and adapted to fast courts even more so. Early in his career he wasnt an adept fast court player at all...regularly losing to true fast court players like Henman, Rafter and Kafelnikov.

If you look at his earlier success he won 8 Masters titles between Hamburg (slowest event all year) and Indian "slower than clay" Wells. And of course there is the small matter of reaching 5 French Open finals, plus AO isnt exactly quick either. By 2003/4, courts speeds were nowhere what they used to be...being slowed down principally between 2001-03 principally (so I read...more sand). Funnily enough he started winning slams in the main from 2004 onwards.

Federer got to 7 carpet finals, winning only 2 of them...not his usual conversion rate...and those 2 wins were Julien Boutter and Fernando Gonzalez. 20% of his 110 career finals are on clay courts.
Basel/Dubai may be "faster" but how do they compare to fast courts in say year 2000? When Basel was on carpet he lost 2 finals...to Enqvist and Henman.

I'm not saying he cant play fast court tennis but he doesnt tend to face fast court players anymore either. I'd argue he's at least, if not more adept on medium-fast conditions, than outright fast. The "medium-fast" period 2004-2008 probably suited his game down to the ground...not as fast as pre-2001, not as slow as speed-reduced 2009 onwards when they cut out capret and moved to slower courts all round.

One thing for sure is that they've been tinkering with the courts ridiculously in the 00's. It needs to stop.

So in fact Federer himself has thrived from the courts slowing down just as much as the next man. As for courts speeding up again I would like to see quicker courts introduced to increase variety and guess what? I feel the likes of Djokovic and Murray are the sort of the players that would be able to adapt and adjust their game to suit. After all servers would benefit for added pace to their serve but as we know Djoko and Murray are the best two returners of serve around so they'd be least affected plus quicker courts would just add more pace to their ground strokes enabling their shots to become more winners. We also know how both work so hard at their games and their work ethic with tweaks to enhance their game. Look at Djokovic. Early in his career he had big fitness issues and they looked like they would forever blight him but he adapted and Murray was similar and himself has adapted other elements of his game such as improved second serve, instilled better forehand and better mental strength.

Federer says :
"I think some variety would be nice, some really slow stuff and then some really fast stuff, instead of trying to make everything sort of the same," he said. "You sort of protect the top guys really by doing that because you have the best possible chance to have them in the semis at this point, I think. But should that be the goal? I'm not sure."

I've no issue with varying court speeds. However I don't really see that it will make that much difference to the guys at the top. From what I read Dubai and Cincinatti are seen as the faster court on tour. From 2006 Dubai has been won by Nadal, Djokovic and Federer (apart from Roddick 2008). Cincinatti since 2007 Murray and Federer (Roddick in 2006). In a lot of these cases the runner up has been one of the current top 4. So I don't really see where these players who are going to benefit are.

I always see players such as Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer as dangers anyway so am never surprised if they beat one of the top 4. Del Porto for instance was in the semis of both Dubai and Cincinatti this year. Raonic may benefit because of his big serve but then again I think he can get close to the top anyway even if the courts stay as they are.

Paris is fast and there have been some surprises over recent years.

The point is: why should all courts look the same? Isn't it more interesting to have different brand of tennis and different conditions, rather than only baseline tennis all the time?