Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[Moxie]

GSM, I didn't mean to dismiss your point. The document you provide is interesting, though it would have been helpful if they had codified specific tournaments with their 1-5 system of quickness. I'm not the one, however, that you need to convince about the relative slowness/quickness of the courts. I don't, personally, complain. I believe what Michael Chang said, on our recent "Down the T" interview:

"Homogenization will never truly happen. The simple reason is because there are way too many differing factors in different places where pros play around the world. They tried to do that with something as simple as balls being played each week and it couldn’t be done. Weather conditions, altitude, humidity already make each city different in playing conditions."

We can debate surfaces, and balls, ad nauseum, but every venue will be different, and the players still have to deal with the different conditions, including weather.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

GSM, I didn't mean to dismiss your point. The document you provide is interesting, though it would have been helpful if they had codified specific tournaments with their 1-5 system of quickness.

That is being simplistic. Real life is lot more complicated.

ITF has this court pace classification system with rating of 1-5 (slow, medium slow,
medium, medium fast and fast) and ITF has laboratories which can test the speed of
any surface and classify.

However, ITF does not dictate that a particular tournament should use a specific
speed. For example, there is no rule by ITF that says US open should be played in
fast courts only. It is up to the tournament organizers of the US open to decide
what type of surface they want.

As you know US open and Australian open went from Grass to Hard Courts,
which is a fundamental change.

Also, some years ago Australian open changed from Rebound Ace surface to
Plexicushion surface. These are decisions made by the tournament organizers.
ITF does not dictate them. So, it is not possible for ITF to codify as to which
tournaments has which speed.

Also, as you realize now the speed of a tournament surface is also not fixed.
If they want to, they can slow it down and if they want, they can speed it up.

 

[Moxie]

You also miss my point. For all the engineering notions about surfaces and speeds, there are other components: the ball they use, and the changes in weather. In any case, you clearly believe that tournaments control surfaces and that they are different. There is a legion out there that will tell you that surfaces have been homogenized over the years, and all that paperwork is for nothing. I'm interested, but there are loads who won't buy it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You also miss my point. For all the engineering notions about surfaces and speeds, there are other components: the ball they use, and the changes in weather. In any case, you clearly believe that tournaments control surfaces and that they are different. There is a legion out there that will tell you that surfaces have been homogenized over the years, and all that paperwork is for nothing. I'm interested, but there are loads who won't buy it.

Oh Boy, You are contradicting yourself.

Just in the previous post, you said you believe that homogenization will never happen.
Now, you are saying you believe everything is homogenized.

Also, there is no need to believe things when there are facts out there. Read your
bolded comment. It is not just my belief, it is a fact. What do you don't understand?
There are different surfaces with different speeds. You should be able to realize that
from the catalog of surfaces given in ITF manual. Also, it is up to the tournament
organizers to decide what surface they want, at least as far as the speed of the
court is concerned. Of course, they cannot select a triangular court or an ice
surface.

The phrase "homogenization happening" is often used when people want to
express the fact that more and more tournament organizers are preferring
the same type of surface (typically on the slower end of speeds). The thing
that is causing homogenization, if any, is not some material property of the
surfaces; it is the preferences of the different tournament directors converging
into the same thing.

When there were too many aces and very quick points in fast courts,
many tournament directors felt that the fans perceive the matches to be
boring and so they slowed it down so that rallies can take place. It may be
the case that people feel long monotonous rallies are boring and so they
may be trying to increase the speed of the courts. Everything changes,
nothing stays the same forever.

 

[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.”

By the way, I did not make this up. I found it in SI Tennis Daily Bagel.
Here is the link for it.

http://tennis.si.com/2014/01/01/daily-bagel-rafael-nadal-australian-open-fast-courts/

 

[Goldenboy]

http://tinyurl.com/mcr9q5f

So Craig Tiley says the speed is the same as last year. If true, much ado about nothing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

http://tinyurl.com/mcr9q5f

So Craig Tiley says the speed is the same as last year. If true, much ado about nothing.

I was just about to post this and you beat me to it. I believe what he says.
I don't expect much change to court speed, if any. So, don't expect any surprises.
Only Novak or Rafa will win this edition.

 

[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.

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.

No, the joke a random guy on a tennis forum saying Hewitt is stupid for wanting faster courts, thinking he knows Hewitt's own game more than Hewitt himself. The joke is some random guy on a tennis forum ignoring Hewitt's 2 Grand Slam wins on fast surfaces, saying that Hewitt hasn't done anything since, while ignoring that he has NEVER DONE ANYTHING ON SLOWER SURFACES. Don't you realize the stupidity of that argument?

 

[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).

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.

I need to watch a video to determine that it's ridiculous to claim the AO is faster than Wimbledon? No, I did not watch it, because that claim alone turned me off.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Jesus, this thread makes me miss arguing with Cali... Hewitt prefers slower surfaces and the AO is faster than Wimbledon. Now I've heard it all.

 

[Kieran]

Oh Boy, You are contradicting yourself.

Just in the previous post, you said you believe that homogenization will never happen.
Now, you are saying you believe everything is homogenized.

No, she didn't contradict herself: Moxie quoted Chang who said "Homogenization will never truly happen", and in her next post she said that "There is a legion out there that will tell you that surfaces have been homogenized over the years."

Neither of these are an explicit statement of her own beliefs.

As for homogenisation - did it, didn't it - the surfaces are closer now in speed than ever. There isn't a huge re-alignment of skills needed to move from one surface to the other, regardless of the balls used.

As for Australia being faster than Wimbledon, I'm thinking this can't be, mainly because of how low and fast the ball dives at Wimbledon. It isn't greasy nor does the ball skin away as quick as it used to, but the lowness of the bounce makes everything happen faster whereas at Oz you get a medium bounce which gives you more time to prepare, chase, fetch etc.

As for the actual speed, rather than the effect of the court, I still think the grass must be faster...

 

[brokenshoelace]

This isn't rocket science:

Why did we see a 3 year long marathon between Isner and Mahut at Wimbledon in which they each racked up twelve hundred thousand aces and nobody got a sniff at breaking the other's serve, while Simon and Monfils engage in a 70 stroke rally at the AO? Why is it that the average stroke per rally is far less at Wimbledon than it is at the AO (or any other slam for that matter)? Someone watch Nadal vs. Djokovic at the AO in 2012, and compare it to their Wimbledon match the previous year. If you really still can't see which surface is VISIBLY faster then something is wrong with you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, Chang is spot on: "Homogenization" is false term. Surfaces are not homogeneous. Clay still plays nothing like grass, and I mean nothing (unless you believe the bandwagon that started labeling it as such once a certain "clay courter" reached the Wimbledon final). Grass has been SLOWED DOWN, which while unfortunate, does not equate to surfaces being "homogenized." What is more or less homogenized is the way tennis is played. In other words, baseline tennis is dominant, and therefore, there doesn't seem to be a big noticeable difference between the way tennis is played at say the Australian Open compared to the US Open.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You only need to watch about 2-3 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQOVmKmPAAo

Then watch about 2-3 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JInQVyVaAfI

Seriously, the first rally of the second video alone should settle this conversation. I believe these two videos hold more face value than whatever "evidence" a tennis blog presented.

 

[brokenshoelace]

http://tinyurl.com/mcr9q5f

So Craig Tiley says the speed is the same as last year. If true, much ado about nothing.

Isn't that always the case when it comes to talk about how fast/slow a surface is playing? That's exactly what I meant when I said it's my least favorite discussion in the week leading up to a slam. Different people will provide conflicting opinions on the speed of the surface, and the same guys will dominate the field regardless.

 

[the AntiPusher]

http://tinyurl.com/mcr9q5f

So Craig Tiley says the speed is the same as last year. If true, much ado about nothing.

Isn't that always the case when it comes to talk about how fast/slow a surface is playing? That's exactly what I meant when I said it's my least favorite discussion in the week leading up to a slam. Different people will provide conflicting opinions on the speed of the surface, and the same guys will dominate the field regardless.

BS.. The same I would agree and also say the about the draw.. Fans love to whine about the unfairness of the draw when at the end of the day on the last Friday if all conditions hold true(barring any injuries) Djoker vs Rafa.. it will always be Rafa vs Djoker.. they are the two best tennis players on the Planet..

 

[Kieran]

By the way, Chang is spot on: "Homogenization" is false term. Surfaces are not homogeneous. Clay still plays nothing like grass, and I mean nothing (unless you believe the bandwagon that started labeling it as such once a certain "clay courter" reached the Wimbledon final). Grass has been SLOWED DOWN, which while unfortunate, does not equate to surfaces being "homogenized." What is more or less homogenized is the way tennis is played. In other words, baseline tennis is dominant, and therefore, there doesn't seem to be a big noticeable difference between the way tennis is played at say the Australian Open compared to the US Open.

Well, the term "homogenised" suggests that all surfaces are the same substance, which obviously they're not. Grass isn't clay, and there are differences in how the ball reacts off each surface. But when the term "homogenisation" is used, it's accurate in the sense that the "game has become the same on all surfaces" - more or less. As much as can be without us resorting to just one surface and getting rid of the rest. The differences are far less pronounced than they were. There are variations but they don't stop players rolling through the year playing (more or less) the same game everywhere.

As you say, the styles have become (more or less) homogenised - and this has happened because the one-size-fits-all when it comes to a baselines game and all the surfaces...

 

[Kieran]

You only need to watch about 2-3 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQOVmKmPAAo

Then watch about 2-3 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JInQVyVaAfI

Seriously, the first rally of the second video alone should settle this conversation. I believe these two videos hold more face value than whatever "evidence" a tennis blog presented.

Please don't ever show me them again, right? I couldn't watch either til the end...

 

[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.

No, the joke a random guy on a tennis forum saying Hewitt is stupid for wanting faster courts, thinking he knows Hewitt's own game more than Hewitt himself. The joke is some random guy on a tennis forum ignoring Hewitt's 2 Grand Slam wins on fast surfaces, saying that Hewitt hasn't done anything since, while ignoring that he has NEVER DONE ANYTHING ON SLOWER SURFACES. Don't you realize the stupidity of that argument?

No. He is a grinder who happens to do well on fast(er) surfaces than the others.

He has been blown away on fast courts far more than he has prevailed. Safin blew him away in the final, Federer at the US final, etc. etc. Stop the name calling. You are too aggressive.

 

[Goldenboy]

I think what Broken is trying to say is that Hewitt has even less of a chance against a Federer or a Safin on a slow court than he does on a fast court.

On a slower court Hewitt's serve is nullified and he has never been able to hit 3 or 4 aggressive groundstrokes in a row (although he can do 1 or 2 and then come to the net).