Blue Clay

[mrzz]

I think I hate everyone who criticizes blue clay*. I lose nights and nights of sleep thinking of how much I hate these people.

Yes, people can think and like what the hell they want. But I am pretty sure people just say blue clay sucks to:

a) pose as purists;
b) complain because they have mouths and fingers;
c) complain because they found a (wrong) reason to criticize.

And, yes, I know some beloved icons complained too. Well, I do not give flying damn. They complained because they:

a) lost;
b) found a stupid reason to complain.

Before I am bombarded with all the same arguments I already read and now, here they go:

a) blue clay is (too) slippery:

That was the main issue when the thing was happening. I took the time and watched I guess six matches and I COUNTED the times people slipped or lost footing. Then I counted it in some more matches in Rome and Roland Garros. It happened less in Madrid. Case closed.

Additional evidence: two players that year got injured slipping in Monte Carlo (Juan Monaco and someone else). Zero players got injured in Madrid.

Additional evidence II: some players went through the whole tournament without losing their footing.

Additional evidence III: normal clay is slippery.


b) it is too fast:

First, I don't care. Why the hell can't we have a fast clay court? We have (very) slow hards, even slow grass! Why just ONE clay court can't be faster? Second, Madrid was ALWAYS faster than the rest. It got faster? Yes. 200% faster? Hell no.

c) The difference in the viewing experience is not that great:

Yes, it is enormous. It is beyond my ability to put in words. I don't even wanna talk with people who think like that (oh, what an horrendous thing to say...).

d) I forgot, but it was just like the above, and I had a good answer too.

Oh! I remember now! Blue clay is heretic:

YES! I love heretic things! Evolution is heretic, in more than a sense. I want to sacrifice a goat in blue clay to be as heretic and sinful as I can possibly be.


But please remember that I respect everyone's opinion and that I love you all.


P.S. So why it was ditched? Because hordes of boring people screamed as loud as they could to make things worst.


(*) - pretty much everyone

 

[Kirijax]

I have to admit I liked it. It was beautiful and a nice change. It did take some getting to use to. A shame they didn't continue it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

All I can say is visually, it was stunning and a pleasure to watch.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The problem that year was that they did not allow enough time for the clay to set in on top
of the concrete or whatever stuff they have. Unfortunately, the blue color caught the eye and
every one (including Rafa and Novak) objected to blue clay. The conditions would have been
the same in Madrid no matter what was the color of the clay. It was the preparation of the
grounds that was at fault and not the color of the clay.

 

[Federberg]

^Yes I agree with this. It's a shame they didn't work to make it better. To just ditch it was weak in my opinion

 

[Kieran]

I detest heretics and roast them like a stuck pig for dinner for the birds.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, it's gimmicky and it reminds me of the predicament of the bloke who went colour blind and they gave him a plate of gorgeous food and it looked like a dollop of vomit and sh!te. Not appetising at all. But regardless, even without this, there would have to be a reason for having blue clay, and while we have reasons to hate its upstart hole, we haven't seen any reasons for it, other than low level ones like, "I'm bored, try a new colour."

Oh, and what GSM said too. They presented it badly...

 

[Riotbeard]

I detest heretics and roast them like a stuck pig for dinner for the birds.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, it's gimmicky and it reminds me of the predicament of the bloke who went colour blind and they gave him a plate of gorgeous food and it looked like a dollop of vomit and sh!te. Not appetising at all. But regardless, even without this, there would have to be a reason for having blue clay, and while we have reasons to hate its upstart hole, we haven't seen any reasons for it, other than low level ones like, "I'm bored, try a new colour."

Oh, and what GSM said too. They presented it badly...

I liked it. If enough people liked it that's as good of a reason as anything. I definitely would not want it at Monte Carlo, Rome or RG, but Madrid as clay is a very new ms1000. The temporary nature of the court means it already plays unconventionally for the surface. It did look really fun, which is as good of a reason as anything. The contrast is better for television.

Also plenty of things are gimmicky. Wimbledon's nineteenth century sensibilities are a gimmick. It's dumb that people have to wear white, but the idea of tradition makes people love it, when everyone knows dress codes are silly. Every tournament tries to sell itself. Madrid is a tournament (like the USO or Indian Wells) that sells itself as BIG, larger than life. Monte Carlo, Queens, Wimbledon, all try to sell themselves as understated and aristocratic. Miami it's latin, it has the latin crowd.. Roland Garros, the vocal parisian fans. Aesthetics are selling points and it's what sets tournaments apart. Without blue clay all Madrid is a mandatory events with crappy clay that most people don't want to play, but have to.

 

[Federberg]

^Agreed Riot. Needless to say, if certain players had done rather better on that court, we wouldn't be hearing these complaints! Absolutely nothing wrong with a new clay masters series event trying to do something to differentiate itself. This is an entertainment industry after all. At least they tried

 

[tented]

If they can figure out how to make all things equal, but in two different colors, then I'm for it. I thought it was much easier to see the ball on the blue clay.

GSM makes a great point about the problematic engineering of the Madrid courts, but that has always been the case with their low-quality clay courts, regardless of color.

But if, say, Rome or Barcelona could develop blue clay courts which play the same as red clay, go for it.

 

[Riotbeard]

If they can figure out how to make all things equal, but in two different colors, then I'm for it. I thought it was much easier to see the ball on the blue clay.

GSM makes a great point about the problematic engineering of the Madrid courts, but that has always been the case with their low-quality clay courts, regardless of color.

But if, say, Rome or Barcelona could develop blue clay courts which play the same as red clay, go for it.

One of the issues that I think gets forgotten is that they said were late that year to lay the clay, so it was never clear that color was the cause of the problems. I fully admit novak was as big a whiner as Rafa on this.

 

[Kirijax]

And why stop at blue? Purple would make a nice contrast. Or red even. Maybe someday we'll have a setup where when you turn on the TV to watch a match, you can choose the color of the court you want to watch and whatever court they are playing on will have the color of your choice on screen.

Black clay with florescent pink balls. It's the future, baby!

 

[Carol]

It's the first time that I read something about Madrid and 'their low-quality clay courts' unless if we talk about that blue clay which was very fast elaborated and with so bad results

 

[Riotbeard]

It's the first time that I read something about Madrid and 'their low-quality clay courts' unless if we talk about that blue clay which was very fast elaborated and with so bad results

Before the blue clay, the courts were only temporary, relaid every year for the tournament, which caused them to behave differently than traditional courts. I think now the courts are permanent (even though they obviously re-laid them red.

Found this article with Moya talking about the courts as being made slippery by using the wrong type of salt to combat moisture.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2012/05/moya-on-madrid-salt-made-blue-clay-slippery/36028/#.VT_yoWYhw-9

 

[tented]

It's the first time that I read something about Madrid and 'their low-quality clay courts' unless if we talk about that blue clay which was very fast elaborated and with so bad results

Before the blue clay, the courts were only temporary, relaid every year for the tournament, which caused them to behave differently than traditional courts. I think now the courts are permanent (even though they obviously re-laid them red.

As far as I know, this is not the case, hence their low quality. The venue is used for multiple purposes (other sports, concerts, etc.), with the Madrid Open being only one of them. This is why the courts have to be relaid every year, and aren't traditional clay courts. Fedfan nicknamed them clard courts, describing them as cinnamon sprinkled over cement. An exaggeration, I know, but kind of funny.

 

[Kirijax]

It's the first time that I read something about Madrid and 'their low-quality clay courts' unless if we talk about that blue clay which was very fast elaborated and with so bad results

Before the blue clay, the courts were only temporary, relaid every year for the tournament, which caused them to behave differently than traditional courts. I think now the courts are permanent (even though they obviously re-laid them red.

As far as I know, this is not the case, hence their low quality. The venue is used for multiple purposes (other sports, concerts, etc.), with the Madrid Open being only one of them. This is why the courts have to be relaid every year, and aren't traditional clay courts. Fedfan nicknamed them clard courts, describing them as cinnamon sprinkled over cement. An exaggeration, I know, but kind of funny.

:laydownlaughing

 

[Riotbeard]

It's the first time that I read something about Madrid and 'their low-quality clay courts' unless if we talk about that blue clay which was very fast elaborated and with so bad results

Before the blue clay, the courts were only temporary, relaid every year for the tournament, which caused them to behave differently than traditional courts. I think now the courts are permanent (even though they obviously re-laid them red.

As far as I know, this is not the case, hence their low quality. The venue is used for multiple purposes (other sports, concerts, etc.), with the Madrid Open being only one of them. This is why the courts have to be relaid every year, and aren't traditional clay courts. Fedfan nicknamed them clard courts, describing them as cinnamon sprinkled over cement. An exaggeration, I know, but kind of funny.

That's what I thought, but if you that interview from Moya (admittedly 3 years old) you get the impression they changed that. Also I know with at least with some hockey arenas, they are able to keep the ice but cover when not in use, so the arena can be repurposed, why not madrid?

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

now that Novak pulled out of Madrid (apparently) and Rafa is not the top clay dog (yeah, right ) - maybe they could switch back to blue? after all, a hasty move now, just spray-painting the red or something, would seem about as professional as their first attempt.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

oh how we chuckled when rafa n djoko moaned about the evil blue meanies..err I mean blue clay.

..then threatened to boycott Madrid in future if the dreaded colour scheme was retained. lolz.

 

[Fiero425]

oh how we chuckled when rafa n djoko moaned about the evil blue meanies..err I mean blue clay.

..then threatened to boycott Madrid in future if the dreaded colour scheme was retained. lolz.

I don't understand why Tiriac didn't just explain to the guys that by the following year, the texture and surface would have been settled? Someone said that the color had little to do with it; more a problem with how late the court was laid down! Just a guess! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[mrzz]

No, no, no... you have to DISAGREE with me... what's wrong with these people????

P.S. Good point about the little time for the court to settle, GSM. That really closes the case.