Federer wants variety of speeds on Tennis courts!

Federer lost to Novak Djokovic in the final of the season-ending ATP finals on Monday, and then praised the top-ranked Serb’s ability to retrieve so many shots and keep the ball in play. That’s a trait Djokovic shares with Federer’s other two biggest rivals _ Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray _ and the Swiss star said attacking play doesn’t always reap the benefits it deserves even on hard courts because they’re often slower than they used to be.


“It’s an easy fix. Just make quicker courts, then it’s hard to defend,” Federer said. “Attacking style is more important. It’s only on this type of slow courts that you can defend the way we are all doing right now.”

Is Federer venting pent-up frustrations?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/12/federer-wants-faster-courts-to-encourage-attack/

Please also see Time Please's article - https://www.606v2.com/t36866-slow-courts-pat-cash-echoes-606v2

But he will be called poor sportsman for it, coz his duty his to retire now rather than trying to beat the young guns out. Damn oldie

He doesn't just want faster courts :-
"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"

The article/link headline (and the poll) are a bit misleading

variety would be good. very entertaining match with some lightening aggressive stuff from both, and so courageous again from both - different to the heavier, muscular thumping of the ball that is more common now. Although Fed and Djokovic produced fast pacey play on the slow conditions, that makes them the exception rather than the rule.

It would just be good to mix up the tournaments a bit so the tour wasn't the same week in and week out.

I agree with JHM, the title is a bit misleading (naughty LF resorting to tabloid tactics).

If you read the whole link you'll see that Federer's comments are actually very balanced and reflect the same concerns that pretty much everyone now seems to acknowledge.

emancipator wrote:I agree with JHM, the title is a bit misleading (naughty LF resorting to tabloid tactics).

If you read the whole link you'll see that Federer's comments are actually very balanced and reflect the same concerns that pretty much everyone now seems to acknowledge.

I have changed the title to better reflect the commentary. My apologies for creating a tabloid-like title.

Laverfan

The title should have been:
'Federer demands new conditions to help Weak Era problem'

I agree we should federize all the conditions after federer won 17 slams with slow conditions, now that others are faster than he is we should make defending more difficult. It is the perfect solution and we should also make sure that Roger gets to pick what chair he sits in at all times.

socal1976 wrote: and we should also make sure that Roger gets to pick what chair he sits in at all times.

Ok, that was good

As for the earlier point, I think variety wouldn't go amiss, perhaps start the year of with two slower clay grand slams, then end with a couple of fast court Grand Slams on grass and HC?

i think we know who put no eh

The timing of the statement aside, I agree that there should be more variety in the court conditions in the modern game. There needs to be a balance between faster and slower courts. It does not seem as if he was arguing for the predominance of one speed of court of another.

Taken on its own merit, I fail to see how this statement can be construed to be unreasonable.

LuvSports! wrote:i think we know who put no eh

LuvSports I think you are regular sherlock holmes you found me out.

I prefer to think of myself as an inspector clouseau!

' Do you have a hhhrrrroooommmmm yoouuu ffuuulleeeee'
'Doees yoouuuurrr doooouuuugg bite?'

socal1976 wrote:I agree we should federize all the conditions after federer won 17 slams with slow conditions, now that others are faster than he is we should make defending more difficult. It is the perfect solution and we should also make sure that Roger gets to pick what chair he sits in at all times.

Also we should keep mum on Djoko's double bounce and keep the game going, no idea why not Djoko not attempt the shot on the 10th bounce after DP played it, may be he might have won the point.

Djokovic would have voted Yes, as he said pretty much the same thing as Fed a couple of months ago. Presumably Djokovic wants to de-Djokovize the courts, for the overall good of the game, whereas Fed wants to Federize them for purely selfish reasons.
Djoko's a saint, bless him.

My attempt to have a reasonable debate ends up in flame wars.

Can we please have balance, like Federer is suggesting?

laverfan wrote:My attempt to have a reasonable debate ends up in flame wars.

Can we please have balance, like Federer is suggesting?

It's your job to identify the root cause of a dysfunctional forum and handle it. No point just asking the general forum if you know most people aren't responsible is there?

How can anyone not want variety? That's just silly.

If I were a blind fan I'd want every court to be lightening fast, then Federer could clean up in to his mid thirties. But I'm not, so I don't.

Do we really need 6 hard court Masters? Get rid of one of those and add a grass court Masters tournament to the calendar.

That's one simple way to add some variety.

HM Murdoch wrote:Do we really need 6 hard court Masters? Get rid of one of those and add a grass court Masters tournament to the calendar.

That's one simple way to add some variety.

Not if it's slow grass.

A grass Masters would be a good idea; let's have it 1990's style!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Djokovic would have voted Yes, as he said pretty much the same thing as Fed a couple of months ago. Presumably Djokovic wants to de-Djokovize the courts, for the overall good of the game, whereas Fed wants to Federize them for purely selfish reasons.
Djoko's a saint, bless him.

Astute analysis you are finally coming around to the right answers to the right questions Julius. I may have to lower case the first three letters of your formal title if you keep going strong like this. Keep up the good work.

The question of variety is one thing. I actually don't like to favor the specialists. I want variety but within a scope where the best players are not getting knocked out in the first round of RG by a guy who sells out his technique and training for 2 months of the year. Everyone bemoans the death of surface specialists, I frankly never liked them on grass or clay. I want variety but again not too much. Right now we have variety, if not why would Nadal have 7 titles at RG and one at the USO? Or fed one RG and 7 wimbys? I don't really have much of a problem with the current mix of courts. Although more grass courts instead of a fast hardcourt would be a very good suggestion, just to save wear and tear on the tour.

The problem socal is that when everyone has become a "specialist", no-one is. If you like everything you eat to taste like vanilla then vote for the status quo. Socal, you keep saying nothing needs to change and yet the top players dont agree with you - what gives?

lydian wrote:The problem socal is that when everyone has become a "specialist", no-one is. If you like everything you eat to taste like vanilla then vote for the status quo. Socal, you keep saying nothing needs to change and yet the top players dont agree with you - what gives?

I don't like the one trick ponies Lydian, I never have. There are plenty of changes I support, some I don't. I have been on record for drastically increasing the grass court season in order to prevent wear and tear. I don't know I have seen two guys Novak and Roger in passing mention an amorophous desire for more variety. Now as usual the devil is in the details.

One trick ponies dont win slams. They tend to be top10 players.
Its not just about more grass but more surface variation in general...we dont need every tournament to be played on same speed index hardcourt...otherwise why bother having a tour!!!!

Well that is the kind of change you support I just wouldn't mind having a grass court masters or a longer grass court season in general. When you start making changes you always have an issue of how much and calibration and as I have said before any change should be incremental and limited until we see how it impacts the game. Basically with experimentation first. In my mind all these arguments will be mute as the athletes will catch up to the conditions and I bet you in ten to 15 years they will slow it down again.

Moot, surely?

socal weren't the specialists just special on their particular surface because the difference with the other surfaces were extreme unlike it is today.

So players who won on all surfaces may be seen as specialists on one surface back 10 years ago or so.

LuvSports! wrote:socal weren't the specialists just special on their particular surface because the difference with the other surfaces were extreme unlike it is today.

So players who won on all surfaces may be seen as specialists on one surface back 10 years ago or so.

I disagree, a specialist is a guy in the tennis context of a guy with a big serve or big western strokes and speed on clay and grass respectively. These players would focus excusively on training and selling their technique out for success on one small part of the season. Currently, we have variety, not as much as some like. I personally think we see plenty of differing styles and techniques in the various top 20. Days of watching the world #1 lose in the first day of RG to Juan Pablo NooneKnowsWho are what the specialists give you. I am glad they are gone, one of the many things I just am not nostalgic for.

I understand but for instance, thomas muster or a sergi brugera were clay court specialists ye?
Because they won like 90% of his trophies on the red stuff.

They didn't do particularly well on the other slam surfaces that were very fast, quite fast and i think a slowish grass court (soz if im wrong).

But if the conditions were like they were today, would these players have done much better on all surfaces like players are doing today. I know this really is a hyperbole but I wanted to hear your take on it.

Excellent point LuvSports. To be fair lydian was argueing along the same lines as well and the point that both of you have brought up is a fair criticism. IE that S and V is dead and the modern pro all court game looks more similar among varying players in the past. I don't dispute this and never have. Nor do I dispute that the courts have been slowed down or that racquets favor returns and passing shots more than S and V.

The players today however are not the heirs to the grinders of the 80s. They are more along the line of the power baseliner what Connors, Lendl, and Agassi were doing trying to dictate from the back of the court and not always counter pounch. The power baseliners were not really surface specialist as the common understanding of it in tennis went. Generally power baseliners could make a go of it on both the faster and slower surfaces, in fact that was one of the reasons that once the technology came around to support it that the power baseline game became more and more favored. Usually they preferred an outdoor hardcourt but the great power baseliners unlike the S and V guy could beat the grinder on clay and the could compete with the fast court player on grass and indoors. So in away the modern player is the heir of the tour's great generalists, the power baseliners who really not only swept away the S and V player but also for the most part sent the traditional grinders who play defense from the baseline alone from the baseline away.

To understand what I am saying you have to distinguish between a traditional grinder who really counterpunches mainly and looks for errors, and the power baseliner. Two distinct approaches but both from the baseline, the attacking baseliner and the principally defending baseliner. But on some level what you say and lydian as well as others say is correct S and V is dead, but in my mind nothing but very dramatic wholesale changes to the game really would bring it back, and in that process we would lose what we have now. Which in my mind blows S and V away in terms of what I prefer to watch and what I think most other fans will prefer as well.

Remember, even prior to the slow down of the early 2000s, even in the late 90s S and V had already been losing ground and rapidly to power baseline game. Sampras and Rafter in many ways the last of the dying breed. So to get S and V back we will really need to alter dramatically to turn course on 20 or 30 year trend.

I agree with Federer.

Getting the courts to be speeded up is like stopping MTO's being allowed. The majority want it, but the ones that have the biggest say let it happen.