Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[britbox]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

Monfils is primarily a counter puncher.

I think you have to wait until we define terms. Someone who hits some such high-risk shots can't be categorized as a counter-puncher, even if you qualify it with "primarily."

I don't need to wait for anything... he is primarily a counter puncher. You can still hit high risk shots even when counterpunching.... it doesn't exclude them. But on that note, Monfils cannot be described as a high risk player by any stretch of the imagination. He has always been far too passive on court. His showmanship and flamboyant personality seem to be painting a blurred picture of how he plays the game.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

Monfils is primarily a counter puncher.

I think you have to wait until we define terms. Someone who hits some such high-risk shots can't be categorized as a counter-puncher, even if you qualify it with "primarily."

I don't need to wait for anything... he is primarily a counter puncher. You can still hit high risk shots even when counterpunching.... it doesn't exclude them. But on that note, Monfils cannot be described as a high risk player by any stretch of the imagination. He has always been far too passive on court. His showmanship and flamboyant personality seem to be painting a blurred picture of how he plays the game.

BritBox, sometimes I wonder if they are watching the same sport we are...LOL..:angel:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Monfils is a counter-puncher for sure. He can rip 100 mph winners, but he's a counter-puncher.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

Monfils is primarily a counter puncher.

I think you have to wait until we define terms. Someone who hits some such high-risk shots can't be categorized as a counter-puncher, even if you qualify it with "primarily."

Counter-punchers can go for high risk shots. If your opponent takes you out of the court with a big cross court backhand, and you respond with a running forehand up the line from miles behind the baseline, it IS a high risk shot, but you're counter-punching.

Guys like Monfils, Simon, and Murray are the ones that stand out to me currently on tour as counter-punchers, though Murray is obviously far more versatile.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But on that note, Monfils cannot be described as a high risk player by any stretch of the imagination. He has always been far too passive on court. His showmanship and flamboyant personality seem to be painting a blurred picture of how he plays the game.

Yeah, this. I think people see him sometime destroying the ball with super low percentage shots and get a skewed outlook on his game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger Rasheed says Melbourne is slower than Brisbane.

https://twitter.com/roger_rasheed

"Hit on Margerat Court Arena today, when finished it will be superb, will add great atmosphere this year. Court is slower than Brisbane btw".

This is literally my least favorite part of any slam. Different players/coaches/commentators will provide different accounts of how fast/slow courts are playing, and people will lose their minds. While watching, very few will actually notice any difference...and Djokovic will play Nadal in the final

 

[Goldenboy]

Roger Rasheed says Melbourne is slower than Brisbane.

https://twitter.com/roger_rasheed

"Hit on Margerat Court Arena today, when finished it will be superb, will add great atmosphere this year. Court is slower than Brisbane btw".

This is literally my least favorite part of any slam. Different players/coaches/commentators will provide different accounts of how fast/slow courts are playing, and people will lose their minds. While watching, very few will actually notice any difference...and Djokovic will play Nadal in the final

I always enjoy the week before a slam. Lots of anticipation and irrelevant discussion, but its always fun. Hope you are right about Nadal playing the final. Not too fussed if Djokovic isn't there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger Rasheed says Melbourne is slower than Brisbane.

https://twitter.com/roger_rasheed

"Hit on Margerat Court Arena today, when finished it will be superb, will add great atmosphere this year. Court is slower than Brisbane btw".

This is literally my least favorite part of any slam. Different players/coaches/commentators will provide different accounts of how fast/slow courts are playing, and people will lose their minds. While watching, very few will actually notice any difference...and Djokovic will play Nadal in the final

I always enjoy the week before a slam. Lots of anticipation and irrelevant discussion, but its always fun. Hope you are right about Nadal playing the final. Not too fussed if Djokovic isn't there.

LOL, I hope Djokovic isn't there. But in reality, he's a pretty overwhelming favorite to be there. With Federer stinking up the joint, question marks regarding Murray's form after the injury, Del Potro's historically shaky form in Melbourne, and the lack of any in form serious threat, I don't see how Djokovic doesn't make the final.

I too, love the week leading up to a slam. Though oddly enough, my favorite part is always the first week of a slam (for some weird reason I prefer it to the second week), especially at the AO. The sun, the blue colors, the 2 million different matches taking place at the same time and being up at unreasonable hours to watch them...I love it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/\

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/\

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

 

[Moxie]

LOL, I hope Djokovic isn't there. But in reality, he's a pretty overwhelming favorite to be there. With Federer stinking up the joint, question marks regarding Murray's form after the injury, Del Potro's historically shaky form in Melbourne, and the lack of any in form serious threat, I don't see how Djokovic doesn't make the final.

I too, love the week leading up to a slam. Though oddly enough, my favorite part is always the first week of a slam (for some weird reason I prefer it to the second week), especially at the AO. The sun, the blue colors, the 2 million different matches taking place at the same time and being up at unreasonable hours to watch them...I love it.

We'll all be looking at the draw when it comes out at the end of the week. I agree it's hard to picture Djokovic not in the final, (and Rafa, too.) It would take more than a couple of spoilers in their draws to take them out, most likely.

I like the first week of a Slam, too. So many matches it's hard to know where to look, and the interesting matches by also-rans that, while they won't decide the outcome of the Slam, are fascinating on their own. (One that comes to mind is an epic between Kuznetzova and Schiavone a couple of years ago.) I love the summer coming though my TV in winter during the AO, and having my whole schedule turned upside-down for two weeks. Sleeplessness can be bracing.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Roger Rasheed says Melbourne is slower than Brisbane.

https://twitter.com/roger_rasheed

"Hit on Margerat Court Arena today, when finished it will be superb, will add great atmosphere this year. Court is slower than Brisbane btw".

Well there we have it..the reports were premature if he is accurate.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafael Nadal was told the Australian Open courts were playing very fast. His response? “S***.”

Nadal first went with a bit of cheekiness: “How do you know that?” he inquired of Flatman. “You’ve been there?” Flatman responded by pointing to Australian colleague Leo Schlink, sitting to his left and saying that’s what he’s hearing from the Australians.

“Yeah? Very fast? Yeah? S***,” were the immortal words of Rafa, that sent the journalists laughing. “I thought (Australian Open tournament director) Craig Tiley was a good friend.

“Okay. Doesn’t matter. I won tournaments on very quick surfaces, Montreal few times, and if I’m playing well, it’s not a big problem, playing on very quick surfaces. But it’s true that if it’s very, very quick, maybe it’s a problem.”

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Rafael Nadal was told the Australian Open courts were playing very fast. His response? “S***.”

Nadal first went with a bit of cheekiness: “How do you know that?” he inquired of Flatman. “You’ve been there?” Flatman responded by pointing to Australian colleague Leo Schlink, sitting to his left and saying that’s what he’s hearing from the Australians.

“Yeah? Very fast? Yeah? S***,” were the immortal words of Rafa, that sent the journalists laughing. “I thought (Australian Open tournament director) Craig Tiley was a good friend.

“Okay. Doesn’t matter. I won tournaments on very quick surfaces, Montreal few times, and if I’m playing well, it’s not a big problem, playing on very quick surfaces. But it’s true that if it’s very, very quick, maybe it’s a problem.”

Uh huh.....

 

[GameSetAndMath]

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/\

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

From your reply, I presume that you did not even bother open the link. The article
that I was citing is a fairly technical article on court speeds. You might want to go through
it before responding.

 

[Moxie]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

I'm pretty sure that Roger played 3 sets the day before. And Hewitt is not lucky, he's opportunistic, and brave. And talented.

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/\

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

From your reply, I presume that you did not even bother open the link. The article
that I was citing is a fairly technical article on court speeds. You might want to go through
it before responding.

The link you cite is a blog, with as much opinion as everyone else has about the quickness or slowness of all the courts. It is certainly not the voice of authority. The courts will play as fast or slow as they do. And I'm really amazed that we have this conversation, when much of the board space is taken up with the "homogenization of the surfaces." Either they're essentially the same, or there is enough subtlety that we can argue between Brisbane and Melbourne. So, which is it? :angel:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

I'm pretty sure that Roger played 3 sets the day before. And Hewitt is not lucky, he's opportunistic, and brave. And talented.

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/\

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

From your reply, I presume that you did not even bother open the link. The article
that I was citing is a fairly technical article on court speeds. You might want to go through
it before responding.

The link you cite is a blog, with as much opinion as everyone else has about the quickness or slowness of all the courts. It is certainly not the voice of authority. The courts will play as fast or slow as they do. And I'm really amazed that we have this conversation, when much of the board space is taken up with the "homogenization of the surfaces." Either they're essentially the same, or there is enough subtlety that we can argue between Brisbane and Melbourne. So, which is it? :angel:

Good try at dismissing an article. While it is a blog, the classification of courts given in
there based on pace is indeed official one. If you like, you may read the following 92
page technical article by ITF on this matter. In particular it gives an explicit classification
of courts based on pace (slow, medium slow, medium, medium fast and fast) and gives
a list of different surfaces which meets the different category of the above mentioned
classification. Look at Chapter C of this manual.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/118889/118889.pdf

Hopefully, it will be official enough for you.

Only reason that I cited the blog article is to make it easy to digest the crux of
the message instead of ploughing through a 92 page technical manual.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

I'm pretty sure that Roger played 3 sets the day before. And Hewitt is not lucky, he's opportunistic, and brave. And talented.

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/\

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

From your reply, I presume that you did not even bother open the link. The article
that I was citing is a fairly technical article on court speeds. You might want to go through
it before responding.

The link you cite is a blog, with as much opinion as everyone else has about the quickness or slowness of all the courts. It is certainly not the voice of authority. The courts will play as fast or slow as they do. And I'm really amazed that we have this conversation, when much of the board space is taken up with the "homogenization of the surfaces." Either they're essentially the same, or there is enough subtlety that we can argue between Brisbane and Melbourne. So, which is it? :angel:

No he played 5. 3 sets of singles and 2 sets of doubles.