Re: Equalizing the Surfaces - Has it been good for the game?
I know the quirky bounces on grass drives/drove most modern players nuts, especially the ones who learned the game on only one surface and/or in a mass-production instruction setting. I know that grass' ability to "amplify" power --anybody's power-- can lead to the "better" player not always winning in a given match or at least dull just-skip-to-the-tiebreak matches. Likewise with clay: the understanding that the ball might come back one more time than it would on a fast court can drive players to try reckless/stupid/frustrated shots that they wouldn't even think of attempting on a hard court. So I understand the seeming dilemma facing the officials.
But trying to make the different surfaces uniform is a bad idea for many reasons, not least of which is that, try as they might, there is no way to make them all play the same. Clay and grass will never play like a hardcourt, even if just for the footing aspect, and the bounce will never be as consistent. All trying to normalize the surfaces and "appease" the players has done is weaken the general skill set or at least diminish style diversity -- and those are two things that most fans or even casual viewers like/liked to see. Primarily net play vs. primarily baseline. Scrambling vs. flamboyance. Basher vs. tactician. Junk baller vs. brawler. Who adapts or at least tries to vs. who sticks with their bread and butter. Who skips town vs. who takes the inevitable loss on the chin year after year.
That kind of tennis biodiversity isn't possible without different tennis ecosystems. So let grass play like grass and let clay play like clay and let carpet play like carpet, etc. Let the one dimensional players be at a disadvantage sometimes, even if it's just to a different kind of one dimensional player. Let the cookie cutter players complain and give the one-offs a chance to surface. It will work out fine.