I think it's really interesting that the Australian Open, which used to be the medium speed slam, is now at medium-fast, the fast grass slam is now medium, and the USO is also solidly in the medium category.
cincy is widely regarded as being fast for the balls they are using there only, courts never seemed to be that high on CPR as far as i know.
as for flushing and ashe stadium in particular i'm a bit torn. the court seems to grip to the spin quite well, but won't bounce much if hitted more flat. i wonder how they managed to do that when setting up the court layers...
And yet Rafa was up a break in the fifth set of the final that was played on the fastest Slam court this year.
The legend about Rafa hating fast conditions is so old and stupid. You can say he's not that great indoors but fast HC is not an issue for him, just like he's way better when the clay is fast.
When putting this post together I've read and found a lot of conflicting information that makes me think Court Pace Rating is nothing more than just the dream of someone behind a desk who thought it'd be a good idea to categorise court surfaces to help buyers but I don't think it really works.
The article briefly mentions balls and basically just says they use whatever balls were lying around, which of course is complete
As we all know, the women use different balls than the men at the big tournaments, which completely changes the results. For example, at this U.S. Open, the purely observational results would show that while it was somewhat fast for the women, it was actually quite slow for the men. You just have to look at the men's and women's QF participants to see the results.
To answer both of you, I know that the tours use different balls. I merely put the information out there to foster discussion.
I think the weather at each of the slams made the huge difference. Like, how the USO got faster (it should have registered slower) day by day. Wimbledon had lots of clouds, so I can see how the grass was slower but low bouncing at the same time. The French was mud most of the time as well.
If the weather patterns Australian news cycles have put out saying that we'll have another hot summer in Australia again are true, the AO should still be just as fast. Which I loved.
The Australian Open was too fast this year in my opinion. I think the courts should start slower for the season and then speed up, because it's far easier to play on slower courts at the beginning of the year and I do think there's a place for slow hard courts. Wimbledon also definitely needs to be sped up, it's getting ridiculous now with Grass being slower than both hard court events I'd also like to see the USO a bit faster, but the balls they use at USO seem to travel through the air a lot quicker so it still favours attacking players.
The article briefly mentions balls and basically just says they use whatever balls were lying around, which of course is complete
As we all know, the women use different balls than the men at the big tournaments, which completely changes the results. For example, at this U.S. Open, the purely observational results would show that while it was somewhat fast for the women, it was actually quite slow for the men. You just have to look at the men's and women's QF participants to see the results.
I've heard that the playing surface of the court on The Arthur Ashe stadium has been slowed down and that the surface is relatively grittier than previously. Why have they done this? Is it to stop big servers and to benefit baseliners? :shrug:
I've heard that the playing surface of the court on The Arthur Ashe stadium has been slowed down and that the surface is relatively grittier than previously. Why have they done this? Is it to stop big servers and to benefit baseliners? :shrug:
Surface seems fine to me. The quality of tennis this tournament has been pretty decent and there are a lot of big hitters in the last few rounds so if people are thinking there is some sort of conspiracy going on to favour defensive baseliners... well I'd say that is pretty ridiculous.
There was no deliberate policy to slow it down. The Ashe court was surfaced pretty late after problems were observed on it. Regardless, the "slowness" of it is exaggerated. Federer fans are particularly getting their excuses in early if he gets hammered by Nadal in the semis - which I don't think will happen cos Nadal has been atrocious on hardcourts for a long time.
There was no deliberate policy to slow it down. The Ashe court was surfaced pretty late after problems were observed on it. Regardless, the "slowness" of it is exaggerated. Federer fans are particularly getting their excuses in early if he gets hammered by Nadal in the semis - which I don't think will happen cos Nadal has been atrocious on hardcourts for a long time.
I heard that Wimbledon slowed down it's surface and introduced different balls for men to help Tim Boring Henman. Anyway as much as I can't stand seeing men's matches which are just 1st serve and double faults Wimmby is just too slow now.
You know which player in the ATP gets broken the most out of all players? It is Diego Swartsman gets broken almost half his service games, yet he is having a pretty good year and today was in the QF in a slam, it really is not just service. Also I do not see how slowing Wimbledon courts would help a player like Tim as it made him vulnerable to baseliners as well (lost 3 0 to Hewitt in 2002 which was the year the courts slowed down.)
I am so tired of this obsession with court speed. Fact is the game is way faster than it used to be because the rackets generate so much more power. Having superfast courts doesn't result in more engrossing tennis, it just doesn't.
But I argue it makes healthier tennis. Tennis in the early 2000's hit its high mark, and there were distinctly different speeds, and the last two slams were fast court and I argue the better matches came on those faster courts.
Compare the 2000 Wimbledon QF between Hingis and Venus, the SF between the two at the USO that same year, and the compelling matches we've seen at this year's USO. It's not the same quality. I think the drama factor has been as high, but the quality has definitely gone down. The tennis we saw in the early 2000's looked sustainable for the body and it was high quality and entertaining. Today's game is entertaining, but it doesn't seem sustainable for the body and as high a quality.
You might say I have a nostalgia boner, but I don't necessarily believe that this is a good thing for women's tennis. We had that spate for a while there that we couldn't get players in the top 10 to show up because they basically passed around injuries.
The only way the women are going to not injure themselves as much is to use perhaps a lighter, faster ball.
Australian Open was to my surprise really fast this year, imo even too fast, I agree with you. It used to be unbearably slow though, I still remember those 50-shots rallies from Murray - Djokovic match.
As for US Open ... seemed to be medium in the 1st week now it's bit slower or maybe the same. The balls though travel fast, and many flat hitting players hit very deep here.
The Aussie Open also changed balls - I've played with the official ball from previous years and compared to this year, the balls were a lot faster as well. I didn't play on the courts so I can't tell but the balls definitely faster.
I don't think it is any different to other courts or previous years. It has always been Medium paced with a good high bounce (grittier). That's why my fave Sam Stosur (and 2011 USO Champ) has always enjoyed this surface together with Roland Garros, because of the higher bounce.
Not sure slowing down Wimbledon had anything to do with Henman. Firstly, by the late 90's, the likes of Sampras, Krajicek and Ivanisevic made tennis on it nigh on unwatchable with the serve-fests. Also, the grass mix wore out faster and created too many uneven bounces.
Can't say I get why people are so obsessed these days about court speed. Conditions are not nearly as homogeneous as made out. I remember people calling Wimbledon "green clay" because Nadal reached 5 consecutive finals and was winning on it, yet the court speed index has always been massively different and all those South American and Spanish contingent were still struggling on grass. The game today is no slower than the 80's, which was seen as the golden era of tennis. This is because even as the surfaces may have been slowed, racquet technology has made the game quicker. You really wouldn't want to see a peak serving Karlovic on a 90's Wimbledon court.
They mean the same thing of course but if by 3rd fastest you are actually slower than half of the majors I think it should be worded the way you said it.
Hopefully the AO court next year will be as "fast" as this year. And it wasn't even fast. Only medium fast according to the ITF classification. Slow or medium slow hardcourts are by far the worst courts around. Long matches and 30 breakpoints per match, players grinding and injuring themselves. Matches like Carreno Busta-Schwartzman will be the future and that's pretty much the death of tennis.
The racquets and strings are so good these days that it's becoming impossible to hit winners earlier in the rally. Del Potro - Nadal was a prime example of that. Because of the modern equipment players with mediocre hands are able to create great defensive shots from difficult court postions and that's one reason why net rushing is almost dead.
Women's hard court tournaments should be always played on faster hard courts and the men need more too. The tournaments in China have had pretty speedy courts for the past years and still the tennis has been very good.
The WTA, ATP and ITF are all thinking of ways to shorten matches. So let's not pretend that there isn't a problem. The matches need to be quicker.
I can't believe I'm reading this trash. Del Potro and Nadal are not players with mediocre hands. Rafa Nadal is arguably the best defensive male player in the history of the game. Using this match to support your ridiculous argument simply shows you have no argument. Yes, rackets these days do allow for more spin and that does help players who are capable of creating spin to hit good defensive shots. It does help much for those who don't have great touch and racket skills though. The modern equipment also makes it easier to create great volleys as well so it works both ways.
If you really don't like extended rallies maybe you need to address your short attention span. And what is so terrible about having players hitting great defensive shots anyway. Would you rather that one big hit ended the point, time and time again?
I don't have to provide facts. I am okay with the status quo. You are the one who wants change. You have to argue why change is needed. You have failed to do so.
Don't worry, you didn't provide any. You haven't really provided anything too useful. Listen, you came with your arguments and cocky attitude to counter my post. But pretty soon we realized that you really don't have all that much to give. Thinking that Radwanska and Wozniacki need slower sufaces pretty much says everything about your knowledge of tennis. But like you said, you don't have to provide any facts.
It's not my failure if you can't read or can't use a search machine. Like I said google the words "Stats Corner:Longest Matches". You actually think 11 3h+ matches in three months isn't providing some facts that the matches are getting longer? I don't know if you even followed the US Open. They had again many long matches, including the longest of the history of the Open.
And let's hear your arguments why WTA/ATP/ITF are considering or at least talking about different rule changes to the scoring system to shorten matches? Do you think they feel a "change is needed" or are the three associations just "imagining things"? Don't tell me you haven't heard about this and you need facts?