Roofs - Too Late For The Slams?

Rain. Always a tennis player’s nightmare. Tim Henman in 2001 at Wimbledon was flying against Ivanisevic. 2-1 in sets and 2-1 up in the fourth and heavens opened up on the Friday afternoon. Cue Saturday and it was real cat and mouse. Goran took the fourth in a TB. Into a fifth we went and at 2-3 Goran the heavens opened again and play was suspended. Play started after 1pm on Sunday and Goran ran out winner in 5. It’s a fair reflection that Tim never got the momentum back after the break on Friday. 2012 at the French Open saw Rafa on course for a 7th RG title. Leading 2 sets to love and a break up in the third we all thought it was going to be a formality. However, Djokovic wrestled the momentum and from 2-0 in the third he ran off 8 games in a row to take the third and break in the fourth. The heavens opened up and Rafa was distracted. Play continued and Novak lost the fourth despite being a break up and Rafa ran out victorious. Who could forget the US Open 2013 and Hurricane Sandy.

So with that said, have the Slams waited too long for roofs?

The Australian Open sets the bar with the RLA getting it’s roof nearly 30 years ago! Since then Hisense was built and roof put on in 2000. Margaret Court Arena got a roof for 2015 as part of a $362 million re-development plan for Melbourne Park. So 3 stadiums with roofs. Yet the other Slam venues did nothing. Wimbledon followed suit and in 2009 we saw the debut of the roof on Centre Court. Matches could now be played beyond 9:00pm. There was an extra 2 hours of play to be snagged. Plans were submitted in 2013 for a roof to go on Court 1. A figure of £18M has been banded about which is almost on par with the cost of the CC roof. Court 1 roof is to be ready for the 2019 Championships. Given the nature of Grass courts and the care required, I would’ve thought roofs would’ve been put up years before. With the fallow Sunday, rain can cause chaos with the schedule.

So where does this leave the US Open and French Open? A NY Times article in November 2014 had indicated that the USTA had commissioned a 10 year investigation into a roof on Arthur Ashe! The USTA announced in 2014 a $500M investment into the courts in Flushing Meadows with Arthur Ashe Stadium getting a £100M roof. This is to be ready by 2016/17. Louis Armstrong is being revamped and a roof hasn’t been mentioned. I hope it does.

The French Open is more farcical. The FTF agreed to help Roland Garros build a roof on Philippe Chatrier and develop the other courts. A figure of 330M euros was to be invested, though the FTF told RG to find 10% of that figure to fund it. This has set the project back a year and now the roof won’t be ready until 2019 at the earliest. Same with Wimbledon, the schedule is short as the HC Slams have the luxury of night matches. I am amazed it has dragged on like it has.

Now it is anticipated all Slams with have a court with a roof by 2019. 32 years after the first. By that time I would think Federer and Nadal to be retired. Arguably the sport’s most famous cash cows.

Do you think the Slams have acted too late?

There is a certain irony that the slam least affected by rain got its roof so long before the others!

Indeed. I think they are more likely to close their roofs because of the heat rather than the rain.

Amazing to think that in this decade over $1 billion would've been invested in the courts and infastructure at the Slam venues.

I do wonder if they will recoup those costs beyond that.

Just one tongue-in-cheek comment to this: ROOVES, for cryin' out loud!

No to your rooves!

I am told that rooves is a dialect, and that the correct plural is roofs.   However, the same text said that the plural of hoof is hoofs.  :facepalm:

Anyway, taking the thread ever so slightly off topic, I firmly believe that the rules regarding roof use should be made a lot clearer.  

At the moment, it seems that they yank the one at Wimbledon across at the first peep of rain.  If it looks like a quick shower, they should take the normal rain break, and if play resumes on the outside courts, then the roof should stay open.  If play is suspended indefinitely on the outside courts, that is the time to close it.

Also, I firmly believe that play on the Centre Court at Wimbledon should finish at the same time as the matches on the other courts.  It is unfair to the players who are not fortunate enough to be on the main court, who may have to complete their match the next day because it is too dark.  Not only that, but closing the roof alters the playing conditions, and may favour those who play better on indoor courts.

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should.

I'll get down off my soap box now.....

Do you not feel though when Wimbledon redeveloped Court 2 that they should've incorporated a roof onto it? I agree with you in principle that with just the one court with a roof you leave yourself open to the haves and have nots. I believe Wimbledon should follow the lead of Melbourne Park and have at least 3 courts with a roof. To an extent I agree that play should end at the same time, but I feel also of you can help clear a backlog of matches with a roof, why not?

It shall be interesting to see how the roof project develop at RG.

I'm interested to see the roof they build for Arthur Ashe Stadium. The Stadium hold over 22,000 people. They're always boasting that it's the biggest stadium in tennis, so it's probably going to be extremely expensive to put up a roof.

I wonder when it's built, will they then be boasting about how they have the biggest roof?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Do you not feel though when Wimbledon redeveloped Court 2 that they should've incorporated a roof onto it? I agree with you in principle that with just the one court with a roof you leave yourself open to the haves and have nots. I believe Wimbledon should follow the lead of Melbourne Park and have at least 3 courts with a roof. To an extent I agree that play should end at the same time, but I feel also of you can help clear a backlog of matches with a roof, why not?

In that case, they would have to rebuild Court 1 as well, which is the other show court at Wimbledon.

I feel that now they pull the roof across and switch the floodlights on simply to complete a match, even if there is no backlog.  If the Centre Court has two men's singles matches scheduled on the same day, with the first starting at 2pm, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the second one might not start until 6pm or even later.  

So the likelihood of finishing it under normal circumstances is slim.  but this is no excuse for holding up the play and getting the courts set up to finish indoors under floodlights.  This is just pandering to the tv executives.

Atila wrote:I'm interested to see the roof they build for Arthur Ashe Stadium. The Stadium hold over 22,000 people. They're always boasting that it's the biggest stadium in tennis, so it's probably going to be extremely expensive to put up a roof.

I wonder when it's built, will they then be boasting about how they have the biggest roof?

I expect so. Presumably the biggest roof will also take the longest to close.

I think Wimbledon's Court 1 roof is still scheduled to be ready in 2019, which was always the target date, wasn't it? I think when they built the new Courts 2 & 3 they probably already had a roof for Court 1 in mind, and it was probably never in consideration for the two smaller show courts. Court 2 was completed in 2009, the same year as Centre Court's roof, and Court 3 two years later, so surely they would have had roofs from the start if that was ever intended.

I've always found the evolution of the courts at Wimbledon fascinating, having started my Wimbledon-going in the 1980s. I used to like Court 13, which I think was roughly where Court 2 is now, though it's stretching my memory a bit. I had a gap of about 5 years when I didn't go to Wimbledon at all, and on my next visit I was astonished by the "sudden" appearance of the massive new buildings (players' restaurant etc.) by Centre Court (& now Court 3). I had no idea you could now get all the way through (St Mary's Walk) from the low-numbered courts to the high-numbered ones, and for ages I was still running  all the way round via the Fred Perry statue.  

Then there was the year they opened the new Court 2, and the as-yet-undemolished old Court 2 was called 3, Court 3 was called 4, etc.  

Last year they'd dug up Courts 14 & 15 (to put some underground area beneath them, I think) but hadn't replaced the courts yet. I wonder if they will have them in action this year. Courts 14 to 17 are my least favourite outside courts, really hard to get in and out, and you can't see what's going on from outside. But I'm sad to hear they are going to dig up Court 19. It's a quirky court, I've seen some great matches there and it never seems to get that crowded—maybe people forget where it is because it's kind of on its own.

Roland Garros—they are only planning a roof for Chatrier, non? I haven't heard that Suzanne Lenglen is getting a roof.

That's a great insight Listen.

As it stands RG are falling behind every passing year. Work was scheduled to start this year and already they are a year behind. Funding seems to be the issue as the FTF are only funding 90% of the money required for the project. I think 2019 will be beyond them.

The Arthur Ashe project is interesting as they were adamant they couldn't build a roof due to the soil the stadium was built on and yet here they are building one

legendkillarV2 wrote:That's a great insight Listen.

As it stands RG are falling behind every passing year. Work was scheduled to start this year and already they are a year behind. Funding seems to be the issue as the FTF are only funding 90% of the money required for the project. I think 2019 will be beyond them.

The Arthur Ashe project is interesting as they were adamant they couldn't build a roof due to the soil the stadium was built on and yet here they are building one

I don't pretend to know anything about soil & stadium roofs, but maybe they should consult architects from the west, where they're used to the need for earthquake-resistant structures.

Ah... I just read that the stadium is built on a swamp. Did they choose to build on a meadow, and fail to notice the "flushing" qualification? Sticking with Forest Hills might have been safer. It could be worse—at least it's not one of USA's most sinkhole-prone areas.

From the New York Times:
"Ashe Stadium cannot support the weight of a roof because of the swamplike soil it sits on and its size — with more than 22,500 seats, it is the largest stadium in tennis. Therefore, a 5,000-ton superstructure is being built around and above the stadium, which will be covered with a translucent fabric.

The plan is for the roof to be finished by the 2016 Open. The retractable sections of the roof and most of the fabric will not be added until after next year’s tournament.

Construction of the new 8,000-seat Grandstand court in the southwest corner of the grounds will also begin this winter. The Grandstand and a renovation of the south end of the tennis center are expected to be completed for the 2016 Open.

A new 15,000-seat Louis Armstrong Stadium, possibly with its own retractable roof, is the final part of the renovation project, and is expected to open in 2017."

I liked this line:
"At the moment, the National Tennis Center does not look ready to host anything but a welders’ convention."

So Is Louis Armstrong stadium getting a roof too? I would have thought that would need to have been decided long ago, if it's expected to open in 2017.

That is the million dollar question Listen.

No-one has said yes and no-one has said no.

I hope they do.

USO has missed on the Roof for many years. I can still recall the 40 mph winds in Agassi v Federer. It is a Vortex in AA. USTA is the worst.

TA seems the most modern of all these bodies.