PDA

View Full Version : Why No Court Covers???


iGOAT
Sep 11th, 2009, 09:10 PM
No roof at the Open is one thing, but why do they not cover their courts so that play can at least start when the rain ends and they don't have to spend about half an hour drying the courts :o?

TheBoiledEgg
Sep 11th, 2009, 09:12 PM
"cos they say it looks ugly" :spit:

treufreund
Sep 11th, 2009, 09:55 PM
It certainly is rather moronic not to cover up the courts.

terjw
Sep 11th, 2009, 09:57 PM
"cos they say it looks ugly" :spit:

I know. How ridiculous can they get. Someone needs fired for this :lol::lol:

Horizon
Sep 11th, 2009, 09:58 PM
:yeah:

Apoleb
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:00 PM
I thought there would be a technical reason. Like the nature of the court or something. But if not, this is the height of idiocy.

youizahoe
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:20 PM
I thought there would be a technical reason. Like the nature of the court or something. But if not, this is the height of idiocy.

Yes there are no water drainage pipes provided for the court, so even if they set this, they water would roll of the covers right back onto the court.

KournikovaFan91
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:29 PM
:rolleyes: The most poorly run slam of them all imo. :o

Slammer7
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:42 PM
The National tennis center is built on marshlands so there isn't a sophisticated enough drainage system to support the runoff of court covers. And it would cost several million dollars to build one. I believe they explained this years ago. The actually looked into the expense of court covers and a new drainage system and realized that it was logistically impossible. It already floods in Queens when there is a lot of rain so there really is no place to funnel large amounts of water that would build up on court covers. All of this was an unforeseen problem because the weather patterns have changed in the last 8 years and the stadium was built before that. It is not worth the money and this is really not a big enough or frequent enough problem to justify spending tens of millions of dollars.

djul14
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:43 PM
So they have the biggest tennis stadium in the world, but no water drainage pipes and so no covers :help:

iGOAT
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:45 PM
It seriously costs millions of dollars to drain the water on the cover :o:tape:? Wow that's pretty lame...

What a mess. They really need a roof.

Slammer7
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:47 PM
So they have the biggest tennis stadium in the world, but no water drainage pipes and so no covers :help:

What are they supposed to do magically change the ecosystem and 200 feet of dirt for hundreds of miles. The whole borough is this way. And this wasn't even an issue until about 8 years ago, because it always used to be bone dry this time of year. This is still an infrequent occurrence as it is. There is no need to rip up acres and acres of perfectly fine land to build a system to save 2 or 3 days of tennis every five years.


Oh and it wouldn't just be pipes it would have to be miles and miles of an entire infrastructure that would extend beyond the national tennis center. This would be incredibly complicated, it's not as simple as you guys want it to be, sorry. :shrug:

Slammer7
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:49 PM
It seriously costs millions of dollars to drain the water on the cover :o:tape:? Wow that's pretty lame...

What a mess. They really need a roof.

The water has to go some where, if the ground become super saturated which happens quite often in Queens and even more often in marshlands there will be flooding in the streets and in peoples homes. Is tennis worth that much? The water just doesn't magically disappear into space.

kris719
Sep 11th, 2009, 10:50 PM
chill out, it's the way it is. building a roof over arthur ashe is ridiculous.

rockstar
Sep 12th, 2009, 02:15 AM
what's the big deal? it's a hard court, at least it can be dried, not like clay or grass, so yeah

KournikovaFan91
Sep 12th, 2009, 02:18 AM
A court cover would still be helpful and what is with the towels to dry it?? Seems inefficiant.

Rafito.
Sep 12th, 2009, 02:27 AM
USO Just got the award of " Worst Grand Slam".

Caralenko
Sep 12th, 2009, 02:36 AM
USO Just got the award of " Worst Grand Slam".

This is very debateable. For some, the crowd at RG makes it the worst. Personally, the USO is my least favourite - but not for any particular grudge, except maybe time zone difference :shrug:

It is rather silly that they don't have a roof though.

Donny
Sep 12th, 2009, 02:38 AM
The National tennis center is built on marshlands so there isn't a sophisticated enough drainage system to support the runoff of court covers. And it would cost several million dollars to build one. I believe they explained this years ago. The actually looked into the expense of court covers and a new drainage system and realized that it was logistically impossible. It already floods in Queens when there is a lot of rain so there really is no place to funnel large amounts of water that would build up on court covers. All of this was an unforeseen problem because the weather patterns have changed in the last 8 years and the stadium was built before that. It is not worth the money and this is really not a big enough or frequent enough problem to justify spending tens of millions of dollars.

Say what? Citi Field is right next door and they use tarps for rain delays. So did Shea.

Slammer7
Sep 12th, 2009, 02:50 AM
Say what? Citi Field is right next door and they use tarps for rain delays. So did Shea.

City field isn't 20 courts, and that had and infrastructure that was there for half a century. The tarp goes over an infield and a baseball field is on clay not concrete so the dirt can absorb the water much like what you have at the FO. And when it rains really hard the field becomes a muddy mess, just like any baseball field. The canals are closer to the national tennis center than Shea/City field also.

Renalicious
Sep 12th, 2009, 03:23 AM
They need a roof over a smaller court, perhaps Grandstand or Armstrong. It would help a lot. :shrug: