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?

socal1976 wrote:Pray tell, young Veejay how are the slow conditions homogenizing results? Why is slow IW as Tenez claims resulting in more competitive matches and upsets than faster court Dubai?

Slow conditions are not homogenizing the results,there have always been slow conditions
But slowing down almost every court and making the different surfaces as similar as possible takes the variety and the challenge that different surfaces and speeds brought to the game away
What does it mean to be a clay or grass specialist if the 2 surfaces are not much different today?
1 Surface and 1 speed across the board is only going to manufacture one style and one kind of player,are you really in favour of cloning the players?
No one is denying that slower conditions don't create more of the spectators idea of what "true" competitive matches in tennis are,I have no issues with slow courts as the game has always had them,but slowing down all the courts is going to hurt the game in the long run
With the way the game is played today,slowing down the courts is like adding another 10 miles to a marathon
You may enjoy the matches it creates but at what expense to the players?
It makes them more prone to injury and players will burn out sooner

CaledonianCraig wrote:One thing I don't buy into this talk that less skill is involved on slower courts.

So the running in those long rallies has little impact on the quality of shots. You think they are little bunnies with battery at the back.

Game of chess? The smart shot consists of putting the ball away from the opponent..right? Very clever indeed.

Great point by craig as usual and more factless posts by BB as ever. How about the three other players tied just under 90 percent hold percentage BB, maybe we can speed up the conditions till Raonic holds 100 percent of the time!

A great passing shot and incredible returns take just as much if not more skill than a guy who can hit a serve 10 miles faster than everyone else. That is one point of craig's that I would like to emphasize here. Anyone who thinks Nadal lacks skill in striking a tennis ball is really playing with a couple cards short of a full deck or Djokovic or murray for that matter.

But anyway, Djoko playing terrible with many UEs made the match more interesting.

socal1976 wrote:A great passing shot and incredible returns ....

Clearly you don;t quite understand where the difficulty lies nowadays. Not in passing ...but in volleying; Not in returning but in acing!

And BTW Socal when you mean more upsets than Dubai fast conds, do you mean stomach upset?

So we've gone from arguing that variety is all very well as long as its the right kind of variety (how funny is that?) to pretending that opponents of one speed tennis want no slow courts on the tour.

Only the man who thinks a bye can hurt your chances could get himself into this kind of mess.

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.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? When did I ever say any of the above?
My issue with the way the courts are slowed down doesn't have anything to do with who wins or loses
I don't think slowing down the conditions is effecting Roger much as he is still posting incredibly consistent results
Sure some like Murray may think he could have been world no1 a lot longer if the courts were faster,but Roger has already proven himself,he doesn't need to be no1 till the day he dies and even if he was no1 till the day he died it will never change the haters opinion,so whats the point of even saying that?
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

"4 are only winning all the time because of how slow everything is."
If Federer is winning all the time because of the slow conditions why are " Fed apologists " complaining?
Once again your comment makes no logical sense,but what irks me more is the fact that you assume and presume I said the above,when in fact I never have
When someone disagrees with your opinion,it doesn't automatically mean they disagree for the one and only possible reason you can think of

What takes more skill a 125 MPH serve then a easy put away into the open court or an amazing return 10 metres off the court, a banana shot which somehow touches the line. You can be the most athletic guy in the world but it takes unbelievable skill to return the shots. You can be fast and fit enough to get to the ball, but topspinning the ball so it curves past your opponent at the net is another challenge completely.
Something resident Nadal hatahs will not comprehend, maybe they can't or maybe they accept the facts which give Nadal credit.
Another lie is that Nadal isn't good on fast surfaces. It's not like he can only beat Federer now due to the slow surfaces, he was immense on the fast surfaces of Miami 2004 + Dubai 2006.

amritia, how does wanting to see more variety in court surfaces equate to being a Nadal hatah??

JuliusHMarx wrote:amritia, how does wanting to see more variety in court surfaces equate to being a Nadal hatah??

King of the Strawman.

Yes, we all believe the choice is between a simple put-away and an incredible looping passing shot. Yes, we buy your choice and will conduct the discussion on that basis.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:One thing I don't buy into this talk that less skill is involved on slower courts.

So the running in those long rallies has little impact on the quality of shots. You think they are little bunnies with battery at the back.

Game of chess? The smart shot consists of putting the ball away from the opponent..right? Very clever indeed.

No the running doesn't matter and if anything increases the skill level to pull off such a shot despite muscles aching etc. My point is:- Is it more skillfull to boom down a 145KPH serve to win a point/won a point with a backhanded winner after two shot rally. Or does it take more skill to hit about ten shots of differing variety ie lobs, backhands, forehands, drop shot or shots with degrees of spin before building an opportunity to hit a winner? The latter method needs said player to have much more shots in their locker than the first option and the tactical nous to build the chance and I would say that takes a heck of a lot of skill.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:One thing I don't buy into this talk that less skill is involved on slower courts.

So the running in those long rallies has little impact on the quality of shots. You think they are little bunnies with battery at the back.

Game of chess? The smart shot consists of putting the ball away from the opponent..right? Very clever indeed.

No the running doesn't matter and if anything increases the skill level to pull off such a shot despite muscles aching etc. My point is:- Is it more skillfull to boom down a 145KPH serve to win a point/won a point with a backhanded winner after two shot rally. Or does it take more skill to hit about ten shots of differing variety ie lobs, backhands, forehands, drop shot or shots with degrees of spin before building an opportunity to hit a winner? The latter method needs said player to have much more shots in their locker than the first option and the tactical nous to build the chance and I would say that takes a heck of a lot of skill.

Who do you think is more talented, Borg or McEnroe? Just asking, as this appears to be the choice you're presenting.

I enjoyed watching them both play for differing reasons so that is tough to call but if pushed I'd go for Bjorn Borg.

CC, you also seem to be dismissing all of Sampras's Wimby wins as not requiring a great level of skill - at least on his service games.

I wouldn't say dismissing - just more that to me that tennis was so boring. Serve was dominant and conquered all in all honesty - not my cup of tea. I suppose akin to the feeling people got watching Wimbledon's kick and rush style football - not very inspiring at all. I am not knocking Sampras though as he remains one of the most successful players of all-time but his strengths didn't make for exciting tennis.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about skill level, rather than excitement factor.

Borg vs Mc....tough one that.
But those 3 consequetive FO-Wimb doubles put Borg in a different league for me. A few questions...

Q: On the face of it who is the most talented - a 6 time winner of FO, a 6 time winner of Wimb or 6 time winner of USO?
Q: Is there ANYONE on here who DOESNT want to see variety in tennis?
(i.e. a good mix of fast, medium and slow courts) If so, why?
Q: In what period of tennis history was there most 'variety' on tour?

I asked talented, not accomplished.

Julius I didn't call you a nadal hatah.

On the other hand the armchair plebians who claim 'nadal can't play on fast surfaces' but fail to accept he has beaten the fed himself on fast hardcourts are Nadal hatahs.

It's a nailed on debate. Everytime resident nadal hatah Tenez rants on about how Nadal can't play on fast HC and how he is just lucky with the conditions I'll ask him one question: Who won Dubai 2006?

Like I say, some just don't get the concept of variety.

I didn't say anything about variety. That's another debate.

Yes, and for me Borg was both. Tell me BB, what other guy in tennis history achieved what he did on the fast lawns of SW19 and slow clay of French by winning the double in same year...a task so hard no-one else could do it. And yet he did it 3 times on the run!

Clay: Borg won 6 FO titles.

Grass: Borg won 5 straight Wimbledon titles and holds the record for longest winning streak at Wimbledon, at 41 consecutive matches.

Indoors: Borg won 22 ATP titles (by age 25), on indoor courts, including the Masters tourneys played in Jan. 80 and Jan. 81. He went 5-0 at those two tourneys against McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl, to illustrate how he could play indoors. He won both equivalent of WTF events.

Hard: Borg reached the finals of the US Open on hard courts in 1978, 1980, and 1981. That was 3 finals out of the 4 chances he had to win a hard court major. He lost to Connors once (bad thumb injury in the final, took pain injections, could not hold racquet properly). Then, he lost to McEnroe in a tight 5 setter in 1980 and then in 1981, after SF match he received a death threat, played a bizarre final vs. McEnroe and rushed off the court (due to threat?) His bad luck at the US Open seemed to match his good fortune at Wimbledon. And USO was his "worst" surface.

GS: Borg won 11/27 GS tourneys he played (a record at 41%). He reached the finals or won 16/27 (59%) GS tourneys he ever played in. That's also a record.

Never bothered entering AO if not won USO.

All that takes real true talent BB when the courts were very diverse.

Like I said I don't mind variety and wouldn't judge Dubai harshly just because there were very few exciting matches...it happens.

time please wrote:I don't understand the title of this thread - what is canged (she asks innocently? )

Canged it.

socal1976 wrote:Only in your demented view of tennis is this approaching the WTA, LOL!

Azarenka vs. Radwanska 6-0, 5-1.

PS:

Djokovic vs Andujar 6-0, 6-7, 6-2

Almagro vs Berdych 6-4 6-0.

Tsonga vs. Nalbandian 6-3 (3 breaks of serve) like Azarenka's first set against Radwanska.

I loved Borg, my favourite player from that era.

That said, he ddnt have half the talent of McEnroe. Not half.

Their talents complimented each other, and it was the variety they provided with totally different styles that made it so exciting - that and the variety in the courts. Of course not so much was televised then - I do remember seeing the US but not the French.

I can't see why anyone would object to variety in the courts.

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.

Different styles indeed, but not poles apart talent. BB, you're just judging McEnroe as more talented from a fast court perspective IMO. I see the most talented as being virtuoso's...feel, performance, dexterity, mastery. Gasquet is much more "talented" on the face of it than most but his performance (i.e. achievement) is lacking. How did Borg come to achieve so much if not uber-talented? Its not just legs, heart, etc. Also, as we're talking variety here, the best players are those who master all styles, all court types. Borg in my opinion did this much better than McEnroe.

They don't, they're your own special invention.

Great to watch someone invent a concept from nowhere, then challenge it's existence. Pretty much up there with Fognini nonsense. Keep it up, I'm sure you will.

Isn't it more idiot to say conds do not influence the winners chances?

Socal you know how to dig a hole for yourself.

Are you saying Sampras might as well have won 7 FOs and 0 Wimbledon?

lydian wrote:Different styles indeed, but not poles apart talent. BB, you're just judging McEnroe as more talented from a fast court perspective IMO. I see the most talented as being virtuoso's...feel, performance, dexterity, mastery. Gasquet is much more "talented" on the face of it than most but his performance (i.e. achievement) is lacking. How did Borg come to achieve so much if not uber-talented? Its not just legs, heart, etc. Also, as we're talking variety here, the best players are those who master all styles, all court types. Borg in my opinion did this much better than McEnroe.

Mac could do anything, and with instinct and incredible feel. He fell short mainly because of indiscipline and a dodgy personal life.
Borg was wonderful, just great. But could he invent shots like Mac? No.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Pray tell, young Veejay how are the slow conditions homogenizing results? Why is slow IW as Tenez claims resulting in more competitive matches and upsets than faster court Dubai?

What upset?

Murray taking time to adapt?

Sorry, Veejay it was Tenez who claimed Murray losing to Garcia Lopez on hardcourt was quote "what upset". I wrongly assumed it was you making the argument.

What upset Tenez? Really murray losing to a barely top 100 guy on hardcourt isn't an upset. You are the chief proponent of how the big 4 are aided by the slow conditions and how they win so much because they are aided by the conditions, I should of known that this level of denial could only come from you.

By the way the hot streak of competitive matches continues as Tsong and Nalby go the distance.

lydian wrote: How did Borg come to achieve so much if not uber-talented? .

Cause as Gasquet proves it (your example) talent and achievement are not automatically linkes. I don;t understand after so many discussions and years of watching sport, you stilll believe that achievement and talent go hand in hand.

They don't!

Let's have howling gales generated on all courts too, then we can count on tight games all the time. That means its great doesn't it?

Tenez wrote:Isn't it more idiot to say conds do not influence the winners chances?

Socal you know how to dig a hole for yourself.

Are you saying Sampras might as well have won 7 FOs and 0 Wimbledon?

Of course not Tenez, conditions obviously play a role. But it isn't the conditions that are creating the consistent dominance of the top 4 they are just better, and it isn't imagined weakness in the second tier of competition either. Nobody is saying sampras could win 7 RGs or conditions don't play a role. It isn't however equalizing results and the cause of why the same 4 guys are winning today. They are better. I think you go too far in claiming that the conditions are all the same. I don't know if I buy your characterization of the current tour as homogenized. If that was the case why has Roger won 6 wimbys and 1 french? Obviously he has had greater success on grass because the conditions suit his game more than clay. Yet you present this stark world where there is little to no difference between the surfaces on tour over the last few years. There is difference between the surfaces week to week and between surfaces, significant differences as the fed analogy shows and that you want to deny with this wimby is green clay nonsense.

when you say 'talent' Tenez, I presume you mean 'gifted'? I would define being gifted as having an innate 'talent' which is extraordinary and which will be obvious from the get go (though hard work will hone it and provide consistency)

talent can also be when someone with good skills, better than average, who works and hones that skill into a rare talent - but they may not have begun with such extraordinary natural gifts.

I don't make the difference. Talent is an innate aptitude at doing something. Making look what's difficult easy.

Work will always improve that gift or talent but some of it needs to be "innate".

bogbrush wrote:Let's have howling gales generated on all courts too, then we can count on tight games all the time. That means its great doesn't it?

Maybe we could use some of the excess wind located between your ears?

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Let's have howling gales generated on all courts too, then we can count on tight games all the time. That means its great doesn't it?

Maybe we could use some of the excess wind located between your ears?

Bless.

socal1976 wrote: Slow court IW blowing away fast court Dubai for quality, maybe that is why they changed in the 1st place

Perhaps the quality is in inverse proportion to the speed of the courts. If that is the case they should slow the courts down further for increased quality. In the limit of stupendous quality the balls will be going backwards.

Nore Staat, all I am saying is that we have had an odd amount of great matches in the last 6 or 7 years. Even with the final of the masters series being changed to 3 sets. And you are smart enough to know that everything in life is down to balance. I don't think that we are too far off the balance we need for optimum match play, others claim we are way far off the right mix of conditions.

Well I suppose for best of three set matches, the faster courts can lead to some relatively quick endings.

Tenez

Your definition of talent is something that Federer has and Nadal doesn't. Ha ha! Your mission is to try and persuade everyone that your definition is the correct one. The way that you do this is to say it again and again and again.... Zzzzz. Your stamina is umatched here on 606v2 or maybe anywhere. No one can compete with you so sometimes you "win" because everyone else has fallen by the wayside. Your "victories" are based on stamina alone and are therefore not proper victories. There is something dodgy about them...

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

Yesterday, Nalbandian beat Tsonga on a 'slow' court. He is not a natural slow-court player, but has played very well on clay (losing to Ferrer in Buenos Aires).

He has adapted his game to 'slower' courts. Watching matches last night, the ball just sits up and slows down, and the new technology allows it to be whacked anywhere. Watch the Dolgopolov-Nadal match and you will see.

Istomin (the match vs Nadal @USO) and Berdych (lost to Nadal at AO), two natural fast-court players were very handicapped in their respective matches.

All slows courts are not clay, hence more injuries. These need not be career-threatening. Do you want to count the number of MTOs annually and withdrawals in the last 10 years and see what it tells you?

I have to say that fun though the muscular tennis can be - just watched highlights of Belluci/Fed where they are both really having to, well for want of a better word, muscle the ball.

I wouldn't want to see slow courts disappear, but it would be nice to see a few fast hard courts where we can all enjoy the lightening reflexes with a raquet from all the players and sometimes see a ball that whizzes so fast into a corner that even the greatest of the athletes cannot make it.

As laver says above, to have every court playing slow will mean that the wear and tear on players is quadrupled.