Mercedes Cup, Stuttgart Open 2018, ATP 250

[Federberg]

I do find it amusing that some are trying to deny the obvious. Wimbledon isn't even the fastest slam anymore. That alone says it all.

But DF I must disagree with one thing you said. It wasn't changed to get longer rallies. It was changed to counteract the big servers. I think it was the Sampras- Ivanisevic final that was the final straw, and since then they've quietly worked on trending the courts slower. It's crazy though, with string technology now, players have much more reliable returns, they should at least work to ensure that Wimbledon is easily the fastest slam of the year.

 

[Moxie]

I think the general consensus is it has slowed down quite a bit since they changed the surface too. Some things in tennis aren't always going to have articles such as Wimbledon stating they are going to use a heavier ball than prior years. The tournament director clearly has a thing for long rallies and that's why everything was changed to begin with. This article shows a lot of player's thoughts on grass.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-06-20/10022.php

We don't disagree that it has slowed down. The groundskeeper at Wimbledon said they changed the grass in 2001. You say they also changed the balls in 2006, which I think you just made up. As you say above, it doesn't really get written about specifically. From the article you posted above:
Roger Federer on Wimbledon speed (2008):
Well, I don’t think it’s that much of a difference since I played Pete here in 2001 really. So, I mean, it’s not that extreme, you know, to the point where I need to thank anybody, I think, you know.
I think it’s just also the way how players are playing today: more from the baseline, not as much serve and volley, chip and charge. That sort of gives you the feeling that it’s slowed down, as well, you know.
Because 95% of the guys play from the baseline today, whereas before it was maybe 50/50. That is a big change, I think, and that’s happened in the last, let’s say, 10, 15 years.

 

[DarthFed]

We don't disagree that it has slowed down. The groundskeeper at Wimbledon said they changed the grass in 2001. You say they also changed the balls in 2006, which I think you just made up. As you say above, it doesn't really get written about specifically. From the article you posted above:
Roger Federer on Wimbledon speed (2008):
Well, I don’t think it’s that much of a difference since I played Pete here in 2001 really. So, I mean, it’s not that extreme, you know, to the point where I need to thank anybody, I think, you know.
I think it’s just also the way how players are playing today: more from the baseline, not as much serve and volley, chip and charge. That sort of gives you the feeling that it’s slowed down, as well, you know.
Because 95% of the guys play from the baseline today, whereas before it was maybe 50/50. That is a big change, I think, and that’s happened in the last, let’s say, 10, 15 years.

Did you read what Federer said two years later? Athletes can contradict themselves quite often. And I read somewhere that they switched to a heavier ball in 2006, I don't remember if it was some reputable source but given that video of Fed's 2003 vs 2008 serve it is at least possible. Either way I don't make stuff up, when have I ever done that? Again there is a general consensus that it is more than just the surface change after 2001.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The grass court season is my favorite part of the season in terms of tennis, and my least favorite in terms of forums nonsense. It's literally been WELL over a decade since the surfaces have slowed down. Get over it already, Jesus. And there's always ridiculous conspiracy theory talk as to why this has happened (pro Nadal conspiracies are my favorite. Yes, the same guy who hasn't gotten past the 4th round in literally 7 years. So how much is the slowed down surfaces benefiting him really?). Can't we just watch the fucking matches?

And by the way, Wimbledon is still easily the fastest slam when you combine all the elemnts, and that can be determined by merely watching.

 

[monfed]

Look anyone with half a brain can see the conditions have been slowed down across all surfaces and it has been done for money because Nadal had to be propped up on non-clay surfaces as mowgli simply does not have the talent to compete on fast low bouncing surfaces. His results in Wimbledon in the past 5 years speak for themselves. Even in the years he won, he struggled big time in the first week escaping with fake MTOs(2010 against Petchzner) and chokes.

USO and WTF are even bigger abominations. I mean the WTF director literally issued a statement to Bercy to slow their courts down to match WTF court speeds. I mean what more do you need to see?

We saw the AO being slightly sped up in AO 17 and the results were for all to see. We saw USO 17 being turned into a gritty high bouncing surface and we saw the results. Fact of the matter is AO should be medium fast like Rebound Ace speed and USO should be fast like the USO 03-06 versions.

Federer has been totally screwed by the ITF and Nadal has taken full advantage of it like the disgusting weasel that he is.

 

[monfed]

Look at the difference between Cincy and USO. It's like night and day. If USO was like Cincy, Nadal wouldn't have sniffed a USO and neither would faker have ever beaten Fed. The guy can't take a bloody set off Fed in Cincy.

Now OTOH, look at clay. RG plays even heavier than MC. Imagine if it played like Madrid or even Rome, mowgli would've been restricted to 6-7 MAX 8 RGs. That's it. But now it looks like he can win 20 of these. It is so bloody unfair to Fed that it's absolutely revolting.

 

[DarthFed]

The grass court season is my favorite part of the season in terms of tennis, and my least favorite in terms of forums nonsense. It's literally been WELL over a decade since the surfaces have slowed down. Get over it already, Jesus. And there's always ridiculous conspiracy theory talk as to why this has happened (pro Nadal conspiracies are my favorite. Yes, the same guy who hasn't gotten past the 4th round in literally 7 years. So how much is the slowed down surfaces benefiting him really?). Can't we just watch the fucking matches?

And by the way, Wimbledon is still easily the fastest slam when you combine all the elemnts, and that can be determined by merely watching.

I will get over it when RG plays a lot faster and bounces lower. It'd still be the slowest slam and I bet Rafa fans would just LOVE that right?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I will get over it when RG plays a lot faster and bounces lower. It'd still be the slowest slam and I bet Rafa fans would just LOVE that right?

He'd still win it every year, the same Roger has done (more or less) on the slower Wimbledon grass. But thanks for proving that the complaints are strictly because you're a Fed fan.

Also, you should maybe conduct some research, as it's known that the French Open plays faster than it used to.

 

[DarthFed]

He'd still win it every year, the same Roger has done (more or less) on the slower Wimbledon grass. But thanks for proving that the complaints are strictly because you're a Fed fan.

Also, you should maybe conduct some research, as it's known that the French Open plays faster than it used to.

My complaints are due to my preference for faster surfaces and better surface variety. The difference between the French now compared to 15 years ago is not even close to the same scale as what we've seen at Wimbledon.

And good to know that 8 out of 15 is "winning it every year". Doesn't take a genius to see that's barely winning it one out of every 2 years. Also strongly disagree that Rafa would have 11 if you had a drastic change in the speed and bounce of the ball. What exactly are you basing that on?

 

[Horsa]

We also have to consider that since this slam is in England and they will want to slow it down to help Murray who is their darling boy and is also a pusher. So ofcourse they will keep slowing it down.

Excuse me, please! Andy Murray is still British but he's not English. He's Scottish. It annoys me when people use English & British synonymously instead of giving each country of the U.K. credit for what they've done. Examples are some people say Robert Burns who wrote Auld Lang Syne was English but he was Scottish which is still British & some people make Macadamisation (the process of tarmacking) out to be an English invention but that is also Scottish but if you want to call it British, it's fine. I could think of other examples like the telephone, metal detector & anti-septic surgery but don't want to drone on & on. I'm very sorry if someone thinks I'm being too pedantic.

 

[monfed]

Excuse me, please! Andy Murray is still British but he's not English. He's Scottish. It annoys me when people use English & British synonymously instead of giving each country of the U.K. credit for what they've done. Examples are some people say Robert Burns who wrote Auld Lang Syne was English but he was Scottish which is still British & some people make Macadamisation (the process of tarmacking) out to be an English invention but that is also Scottish but if you want to call it British, it's fine. I could think of other examples like the telephone, metal detector & anti-septic surgery but don't want to drone on & on. I'm very sorry if someone thinks I'm being too pedantic.

Murray became English after he won Wimbledon, Ann.

 

[DarthFed]

Excuse me, please! Andy Murray is still British but he's not English. He's Scottish. It annoys me when people use English & British synonymously instead of giving each country of the U.K. credit for what they've done. Examples are some people say Robert Burns who wrote Auld Lang Syne was English but he was Scottish which is still British & some people make Macadamisation (the process of tarmacking) out to be an English invention but that is also Scottish but if you want to call it British, it's fine. I could think of other examples like the telephone, metal detector & anti-septic surgery but don't want to drone on & on. I'm very sorry if someone thinks I'm being too pedantic.

I thought Sir Andy is British when he wins and Scottish when he loses.

 

[Horsa]

Murray became English after he won Wimbledon, Ann.

He was born in Scotland & lived in Scotland all his life therefore he's Scottish though he can choose to be classed as British. The English shouldn't just get the credit for everything Brits do if they're not English Brits say they're Brits from Scotland or Wales. Scotland or Wales should get the credit for what their people do. However, if their people want to class themselves as British they can. Classifying nationality isn't that easy though, genealogical roots, where you're born, bred, brought up, taught & where you decide you belong & live should all play a part.

 

[Horsa]

I thought Sir Andy is British when he wins and Scottish when he loses.

Brits have the right to classify themselves either as a member of the country where their genealogical roots come from, where they were born, bred, brought up, educated & live or as British so it's a matter of choice. Other people may see it differently. So whether he sees himself as British or Scottish is up to him. I classify him as both.

 

[Fiero425]

Murray to play Kyrgios in Queens! TTC is reporting his ranking has dropped to #156; from #1 to #156 is right up there with Wilander back in '89! Obviously nothing will be as extreme as Agassi dropping in satellite and challenger events to get back his mind and body back onto the ATOP tour and getting "back" to #1 years later! :whistle:

 

[monfed]

He was born in Scotland & lived in Scotland all his life therefore he's Scottish though he can choose to be classed as British. The English shouldn't just get the credit for everything Brits do if they're not English Brits say they're Brits from Scotland or Wales. Scotland or Wales should get the credit for what their people do. However, if their people want to class themselves as British they can. Classifying nationality isn't that easy though, genealogical roots, where you're born, bred, brought up, taught & where you decide you belong & live should all play a part.

I'm glad you brought this up because I didn't quite fully grasp the support he got at Wimbledon (besides when he played Fed)? From what I heard there's a bit of animosity between the English and Scots. Or is it Irish? At times he got as much support as Henman who was the darling of Wimbledon.

 

[Horsa]

It's both, actually. The English & Scots had lots of wars in the past because after the Romans invaded Britain & sent the Scots North & built a wall which we call Hadrian's wall because the Roman Emperor Hadrian commissioned the building of it there were many English kings who weren't happy with just ruling England they wanted to rule the rest of Britain too. The worst & cruellest of these was Edward I who had the nicknames, Longshanks & Hammer of the Scots (because of how cruel he was to the Scots). These were known as the Wars of Independence. Though James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 the act of union didn't take place until 1707. Not all English & Scots hate each other. Some have married & get on well & there are lots of English with Scottish blood vice versa. The same goes for the Irish. Scots/Irish history is closely tied. I'm genealogically more Scots/Irish than I am English though I was born, bred, brought up & live in England & have an English accent. I've only got 2 sets of English ancestry compared to 14 lots of Scots/Irish. Most of my ancestors moved to England from Dunoon during the struggles of Argyll. That's why I classify myself as British rather than English because I see my Celtic characteristics & traits & never felt English. I feel more Scottish. Some Brits like myself are patriotic so will always support the British guy.

I'm glad you brought this up because I didn't quite fully grasp the support he got at Wimbledon (besides when he played Fed)? From what I heard there's a bit of animosity between the English and Scots. Or is it Irish? At times he got as much support as Henman who was the darling of Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

My complaints are due to my preference for faster surfaces and better surface variety. The difference between the French now compared to 15 years ago is not even close to the same scale as what we've seen at Wimbledon.

And good to know that 8 out of 15 is "winning it every year". Doesn't take a genius to see that's barely winning it one out of every 2 years. Also strongly disagree that Rafa would have 11 if you had a drastic change in the speed and bounce of the ball. What exactly are you basing that on?

Hold on, it is accepted that Wimbledon was getting slowed down in the early 2000's, and Roger won it in 03. 04. 05. 06. 07 and 09. That's pretty fucking close to almost every year (6 out of 7). Of course you can act that the reason he didn't continue to win it every year after that is because of the surface but we both know that'd be ridiculous since A) Why did he win it 6 out of 7 times if the surface is such an obstacle? and B) We all know he was past his prime, hence losing to guys like Berdych in 2011, Tsonga in 2011, Stakhovsky in 2013 (who served and volleyed in 2014), etc... OF COURSE Roger would prefer even faster grass. That's not debatable. But what you seem to be implying is silly.

 

[ftan]

Can't help you rooting for that. Sorry.

try try, I am sure you can

 

[Moxie]

Did you read what Federer said two years later? Athletes can contradict themselves quite often. And I read somewhere that they switched to a heavier ball in 2006, I don't remember if it was some reputable source but given that video of Fed's 2003 vs 2008 serve it is at least possible. Either way I don't make stuff up, when have I ever done that? Again there is a general consensus that it is more than just the surface change after 2001.

I don't think you make stuff up, but you do occasionally declare things to be facts when they are either wrong, your opinion or debatable, i.e., that Nadal 'came out of nowhere in 2005,' and you've repeated it, even when told you were wrong about that. 2006 as a date for a ball switch is an interesting way that you remember it. Happens to be the same year that Nadal made his first final at W, and then I suppose you think it implies why Nadal won in '08. I'm sure you think you remember reading it somewhere, but I've googled it many different ways and looked on various websites, like Wimbledon site and wikipedia, but nothing to be found about the balls at Wimbledon being changed. So I don't think you should just declare that as a thing, esp. just based on a comparison video of Roger's ball. And I'm not sure what "general consensus" you refer to about more than just the grass changing.

Also strongly disagree that Rafa would have 11 if you had a drastic change in the speed and bounce of the ball. What exactly are you basing that on?

This is a bit rich coming from you, since you're the one that insists that Roger would have 10 Wimbledons and Nadal & Djokovic none, if the the grass were as of old. So you're right about Roger at Wimbledon and Broken is wrong about Rafa at RG?