PDA

View Full Version : Greg Rudeski keeps saying they need a roof


BournemouthBoy
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:17 PM
i don't see whats wrong with waiting till the rain stops or play an extra day, only once since 1988 have they needed a extra day added, thats not worth folking out $50 million dollars for a roof. Then Greg says wimbledon has a roof (as if rain at wimbledon wont matter anymore because ONE court has a roof) :) I think he has a crush on Annabel Croft.

rockstar
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:24 PM
what a tool.

youizahoe
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:25 PM
They need a roof. All slams do. Even the French Open will had 2 new stadiums and 3 with roof by 2014.

ED fan forever
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:29 PM
I just wish they'd shut up.
Their idea to bring back serve and volleying is to make a rule that a player must serve and volley at least once every service game:cuckoo:

Rafito.
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:30 PM
Yeah, They need a roof. Since they cant really put one on Arthur Ashe, they should defintley get one on Louise Armstrong.

Langers
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:32 PM
what a tool.
I struggle to see how exactly this makes him a 'tool'. :confused:

JackFrost
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Well what shall I say? Rusedski is right. Like all the people before him, who have said, that the grand slams needs at least one court with roof.

BournemouthBoy
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:15 PM
this is an outdoor tournement

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:23 PM
Will it make him go away?

fnuf7
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:35 PM
To be honest I don't think they should put a roof on Ashe (could they even do it? The place is huge!) They don't really get that much weather interference often enough to warrant the kind of money that would cost. However, I do think they should have at least one stadium that has a retractable roof on it just in case, maybe Armstrong, maybe Grandstand, maybe a newly built one that's purpsoe is to be an all weather court, big enough to be a show court but smaller than Ashe etc. The weather is no where near as bad as at Wimbledon (ignoring this year's which was very nice weather) where play can be interrupted from the first day through to the last or at Australia where it's more the extreme heat that warrants the roof...at least in New York the rain only seems to hit in the last few days usually so it's "only" affecting the last remaining players & the backlog of matches usually isn't so big as say at Wimbledon.

That said I don't see why it's that big of a deal just to play another day or two & have the finals on a Sunday & Monday if need be...then again I also don't see why the schedulers insist on having the semi-finals the day before the finals, especially with the guys, I think there should be a day off in between semi-final & final.

JackFrost
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:35 PM
this is an outdoor tournement
Maybe. But time has changed. The TV channels canīt afford it, to show tapes or "play suspended" banners for a long time. The audience at the tv donīt have the patience to wait hours or days for suspended matches.

terjw
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:43 PM
Greg has sort of changed his mind. At the beginning of the USO he was commenting on emails about Super Saturday being unfair. And he was dismissing that and saying just accept it and stop whining.

Now he's saying it is unfair and they should either not have Super Saturday or Ashe needs a roof. :lol:

It would be a lot easier to schedule sensibly the way the other slams do and not have this unfair Super Saturday than trying to put a roof on Ashe if that is even possible.

Consigliere
Sep 11th, 2009, 06:12 PM
(as if rain at wimbledon wont matter anymore because ONE court has a roof)

Well it just becomes like a night session, there's one main match on.

Works pretty well at the AO

cept there's two roofs I guess.

tennnisfannn
Sep 11th, 2009, 06:35 PM
I just wish they'd shut up.
Their idea to bring back serve and volleying is to make a rule that a player must serve and volley at least once every service game:cuckoo:
maybe they would like to limit the no. of winners per game too while they are it.

Slammer7
Sep 11th, 2009, 07:21 PM
NYC doesn't have enough extra money to fund it, the USTA will not pay for it entirely. Wimbledon was doing a renovation of the entire facility, that is not happening in NY, and as others have said Ashe is too big to do it. I have heard that if they even consider a roof it will not be on Ashe but on the grandstand or Armstrong. The grandstand is the first option because it is the smallest and would cost the least to renovate. The only way Ashe will ever have a roof is in 30+ years when they have to renovate the entire structure or unless NYC hits some miraculous economic boom and has money to burn. :shrug:

TheBoiledEgg
Sep 11th, 2009, 07:47 PM
just chop Ashe in half and put a roof on it.

Hugh.
Sep 11th, 2009, 08:01 PM
They could probably build a roof anyway in the time it takes the damn rain to stop. :tape:

RFSTB
Sep 11th, 2009, 09:14 PM
This article was dated September 7, 2008. Where's the follow-up? I agree with the USTA official that it simply doesn't rain enough in NYC in late-August/early-September to justify a $100M roof, even if I hate rain delays.


US Open set to approve roof plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7602611.stm)

Match delays and umbrellas could soon be a thing of the past at the US Open
US Open organisers look set to approve plans to build a $100m roof over the Arthur Ashe Stadium.

United States Tennis Association chief executive Arlen Kantarian said: "I would say at this point it's a question of when as opposed to if."

Rain halted Rafael Nadal's semi-final against Andy Murray on Saturday and postponed the women's final between Serena Williams and Jelena Jankovic.

Both singles finals will now have to be played on Monday.

It is the first time an extra day has been needed at the tournament since 1987 and it appears organisers are now ready to follow the lead of Wimbledon, where a roof is being built for next summer's championships.

"We have now completed, as of last week, our third group feasibility study," said Kantarian.

Yet another frustrating, weather dominated fiasco this time at the USO and all because of a lack of roof
"We are a lot more optimistic, given the new technology, given the lighter weight and translucent technology that is available today.

"Our board has approved taking this concept to a more serious construction-planning stage, cost estimates, and we're in a position, unlike three years ago, where we feel this tournament would require a roof."

Of the four Grand Slam events, the Australian Open has two courts with a roof, while Wimbledon's Centre Court will have a new translucent retractable roof next year.

"I will tell you that it is on one hand somewhat pretty hard to justify spending somewhere in the region of $100 million when you have had (only) nine cancelled sessions in the last 20 years of a tournament," added Kantarian.

"That being said, we believe this tournament has now reached a point, given the growth of the tournament, the number of fans, the number of countries that it is televised in, where we have to look seriously, regardless of that data, at putting a roof over Arthur Ashe (Stadium) to protect this kind of thing from happening."

mr_burns
Sep 12th, 2009, 05:33 AM
but a roof on grandstand would lead to chaos...

imagine today they would have started play,, who is allowed to watch and which AA ticket holders (about 18000) need to stay outside???

die_wahrheit
Sep 12th, 2009, 10:33 AM
just chop Ashe in half and put a roof on it.

Since it's nearly never full, that could be the solution.

Apart from that they need a roof and they will build one.
Anything else would hurt the tournament.

Caralenko
Sep 12th, 2009, 11:16 AM
I just wish they'd shut up.
Their idea to bring back serve and volleying is to make a rule that a player must serve and volley at least once every service game:cuckoo:


:spit: :lol:

That is hilarious. 10/10, those fucking idiots! :yeah: :bigclap:

terjw
Sep 12th, 2009, 11:39 AM
I just wish they'd shut up.
Their idea to bring back serve and volleying is to make a rule that a player must serve and volley at least once every service game:cuckoo:

You know full well that Greg and Annabel dismissed that devil's advocate idea which was put TO them not BY them. I pretty well agreed with nearly all of what Greg was saying re the roof and schedule, the poor excuse for no covers - that they looked ugly - and the reasons there was no serve and volley like there used to be and that it wouldn't come back.

The best part though was when Annabel really got annoyed with Greg when she was talking about players sweating. Can't remember exactly what it was she was on about but Greg was really dismissive of what she was saying and his smug self with that grin. And Annabel defended her point of view and ended with something like "And I don't particularly like sitting next to you sweating" :lol::lol:

terjw
Sep 12th, 2009, 11:54 AM
:spit: :lol:

That is hilarious. 10/10, those fucking idiots! :yeah: :bigclap:

Don't believe just because ED to win a slam posted it - that it's anything like the truth (see my previous post).