Would it have helped Fed today, If Rafa had his way with the ATP regarding clay,

[arturohernandez]

Like the rhyme?

It may seem self-serving but Nadal has pushed for more clay courts in professional tennis. I notice that Federer is showing wear and tear on hard courts. Last year he played on clay and made it to the semis of the FO. He made it all the way to the final of Wimbledon. No injuries and was moving and playing very well.

Clay was supposed to be harder for him but it actually did not, as far as I could see, cause any kind of injury issues.

He plays on hard courts and then suddenly his back gives out against Dimitrov and he doesn't quite look right. Every year at the US Open for the last few years he loses. To me the pounding at that point in the season is too much for his body to handle.

Now at the AO we can see that playing long matches on hard courts causes a lot of wear and tear.

Is Nadal kind of right? Would playing on more natural surfaces be easier on the body and lead to fewer injuries?

[stotty]

Yes clay is easier on the body, and a longer clay court season - and grass court season - would be a breath of fresh air as well as easier on the players, not to mention the spectators. I am not sure Roger would opt for the idea as clay is his least favoured surface, though he's no slouch on it I have to say. I think the length of the rallies on clay might be more of a problem to Roger than the jarring effect of the hard courts.

Nothing would have helped Roger today. People expect too much. Two five set matches put pay to any chance of beating Novak. He's a genius but 38 has physical limitations just like anyone else. On top of that he's having to face the best hardcourt baseliner in the history of the game. It was game over as soon as he stepped out on court, I afraid. Even at 5-2 up in the first I still wasn't confident he would win that set. The other bottom line was Roger's second serve does nothing against Novak on that surface, nothing. Once the rallies start Novak looks so much more secure from the baseline. He moves so incredibly well and is technically sublime.

But, yes, good plan. Bring on more clay courts, please, and more grass courts while you're at it...less of these soulless, mind-numbingly boring acrylic courts.

[nytennisaddict]

lol, the rhyme.
i personally find hard courts to be brutal on my body.
my perception (as an older player)... 1.5h on hard courts feels like 3h on clay... and my recovery from hc takes longer (typically joint, not muscle, related).
another thing to keep in mind is that courts like us open feel as slow as clay (nothing like slick public hard courts), with none of the positive cushioning attributes of clay.

so yeah, from a longevity standpoint, would be nice to have more clay court tourneys.

[don_budge]

Interesting how a couple of years ago when Roger Federer was electing to skip the clay court season that I was asking the question about the effects of the courts on the players. I maintained that clay is much easier on the body but was more or less shouted down by the majority who insisted that no...clay was the more demanding surface. More taxing on the body. I didn't see the point in Roger missing the French. I wonder what he thinks of his decision in hindsight. After all he made the semifinals last year after missing for how many years?

The last ten years or so of my tennis playing days I virtually played solely on clay...to practice with the express idea that it was easier on my joints. Nothing has changed my mind to this day.

But the thing is that the hard courts are so slow and play like a velcro surface. In fact...all of the surfaces are playing virtually the same. The grass has been engineered into some sort of "velcro hybrid". But the argument to increase the clay court season is a bad one. At least from a historical perspective and it will just reinforce the modern game and the way that it is being played today.

The real solution would be to significantly speed up the hard court surfaces. This would encourage the players to move forwards and conclude things at the net as the game was played for over a century...instead of dawdling in the backcourt with lengthy, mind-numbing and boring backcourt play. Faster surfaces would encourage quicker points and more movement going forwards instead of the side to side pounding that the players are subjecting themselves to now. Hard courts are always going to be harder on the body but nothing strikes me more strange than these very tall players playing from the backcourt...clay court style.

Three of the four majors used to be played on grass and clay was sort of the historical novelty court. You had clay court specialists and they really weren't much of a factor on the grass. Clay court specialists were largely South American and European. The British, Australian and Americans were generally leading the charge on the hard courts not to mention the grass.

So I understand the argument for more clay courts but I believe it would behoove the game to quicken the other surfaces instead. I think that would have a positive effect on players well being over time. The side to side baseline play is just brutal on the body. Particularly on hard courts when sliding is not the first option in braking.

[arturohernandez]

Three of the four majors used to be played on grass and clay was sort of the historical novelty court. You had clay court specialists and they really weren't much of a factor on the grass. Clay court specialists were largely South American and European. The British, Australian and Americans were generally leading the charge on the hard courts not to mention the grass.

So I understand the argument for more clay courts but I believe it would behoove the game to quicken the other surfaces instead. I think that would have a positive effect on players well being over time. The side to side baseline play is just brutal on the body. Particularly on hard courts when sliding is not the first option in braking.

I am not sure that faster hard courts would shorten the points. But it may reduce the side to side movement. The majority of points are 4 balls including the serve according to our stats man, O'Shaughnessy. Speeding the courts up might lead to ace fests in the men's game. That is partly why they slowed them down.

At some point, Fed might just have a clay/grass going away tour where he plays a bunch of matches on clay and grass during the middle of the season.

But imo, Fed and hard courts are not working out so well as he gets older. Too much pounding.

[don_budge]

It may seem self-serving but Nadal has pushed for more clay courts in professional tennis. I notice that Federer is showing wear and tear on hard courts. Last year he played on clay and made it to the semis of the FO. He made it all the way to the final of Wimbledon. No injuries and was moving and playing very well.

Clay was supposed to be harder for him but it actually did not, as far as I could see, cause any kind of injury issues.

He plays on hard courts and then suddenly his back gives out against Dimitrov and he doesn't quite look right. Every year at the US Open for the last few years he loses. To me the pounding at that point in the season is too much for his body to handle.

Now at the AO we can see that playing long matches on hard courts causes a lot of wear and tear.

Is Nadal kind of right? Would playing on more natural surfaces be easier on the body and lead to fewer injuries?

Would it have helped Fed today, If Rafa had his way with the ATP regarding clay?

So the long of it and the short of it is that...no, in no way does it help Roger Federer if Fafa Nadal gets his way. The way to have helped Federer in the past year or two would have been to significantly speed up the courts. Speed up the courts and a lot of things happen to nullify the fiasco of modern tennis that favours the dull minded tennis that is being played today and hyped as the best thing since toast.

Roger has beaten down Nadal in their last how many meetings...except the one on clay. Absolutely overpowered him. Dominated him. The same goes for Novak Djokovic. Whenever the surface is sped up even incrementally it serves to even their play. As it is Novak has a huge advantage because number one...the courts slow down enabling him to retrieve everything. Number two...the velcro (sand) in the surface makes the ball stand up making net approaches even riskier than they would be under faster conditions. You cannot get the ball to lay down with the excessive sand. Number three...Novak gets another boost on his return game because it holds up the Federer serve and makes it attackable instead of being unplayable. Number four...it most certainly ends the need for Federer to win the long rallies. Rallies of the twenty something variety are what saps the Old Boy. He needs to keep it quick and a faster cement would most certainly abbreviate the points.

Ditto that for the rest of the field against Roger except for maybe Stefanos Tsitsipas who has shown the ability to stay with Federer on faster surfaces. But absolutely not...it won't help Roger Federer to play more clay events. If anything Roger should be targeting the ATP 250 events to rack up enough victories to overtake Jimmy Connors on tournament wins at 109.

[don_budge]

Rafael Nadal is always and foremost self serving. He doesn't even bother to disguise it. I would never give him his way without a battle to the end.

[nytennisaddict]

Interesting how a couple of years ago when Roger Federer was electing to skip the clay court season that I was asking the question about the effects of the courts on the players. I maintained that clay is much easier on the body but was more or less shouted down by the majority who insisted that no...clay was the more demanding surface. More taxing on the body. I didn't see the point in Roger missing the French. I wonder what he thinks of his decision in hindsight. After all he made the semifinals last year after missing for how many years?

i think the issue is with the rest time between FO and W..
ie. let's say there's a 50% chance of winning FO, and an 80% chance of winning W,... but if you play the FO at all, it reduces the chance of winning W to say 50% (due to fatigue/inability to prep/etc...)...
i think they were just going with the odds, and placed their bet on W
side note, IMO there needs to be at least 2mos between all majors... 1mo between FO & W is just not enough.

The last ten years or so of my tennis playing days I virtually played solely on clay...to practice with the express idea that it was easier on my joints. Nothing has changed my mind to this day.

me too, well moving toward the direction anyway.

But the thing is that the hard courts are so slow and play like a velcro surface. In fact...all of the surfaces are playing virtually the same. The grass has been engineered into some sort of "velcro hybrid". But the argument to increase the clay court season is a bad one. At least from a historical perspective and it will just reinforce the modern game and the way that it is being played today.

yeah, gritty hc are brutal on the joints. fantastic for true bounces, and slowing the balll down allowing me to take big swings... but definitely takes a toll on the body over time...

The real solution would be to significantly speed up the hard court surfaces. This would encourage the players to move forwards and conclude things at the net as the game was played for over a century...instead of dawdling in the backcourt with lengthy, mind-numbing and boring backcourt play. Faster surfaces would encourage quicker points and more movement going forwards instead of the side to side pounding that the players are subjecting themselves to now. Hard courts are always going to be harder on the body but nothing strikes me more strange than these very tall players playing from the backcourt...clay court style.

problem with speeding up courts, is the biz side of tennis... i forget the match, but it was basically a serve-bot-snooze fest (from the lay person's pespective. it's even hard for serious tennis fans to appreciate 2 big servers battling it out (a bit like pitchers duels in basebase in a 0-0 game)

Three of the four majors used to be played on grass and clay was sort of the historical novelty court. You had clay court specialists and they really weren't much of a factor on the grass. Clay court specialists were largely South American and European. The British, Australian and Americans were generally leading the charge on the hard courts not to mention the grass.

if i recall the tennis history i've read... southern europe tried to grow grass courts, but it was too hot... so played on clay... i think they were trying to give their clay court tourneys some legitamacy working with the tennis powers that be at the time... but failed... so to spite them intentionally scheduled their tournament just prior to W. or something like that...

So I understand the argument for more clay courts but I believe it would behoove the game to quicken the other surfaces instead. I think that would have a positive effect on players well being over time. The side to side baseline play is just brutal on the body. Particularly on hard courts when sliding is not the first option in braking.

agreed, but arguably can have an effect on the bottom line (eg. less interest = less fans = less $).

[don_budge]

But the thing is that the hard courts are so slow and play like a velcro surface. In fact...all of the surfaces are playing virtually the same. The grass has been engineered into some sort of "velcro hybrid". But the argument to increase the clay court season is a bad one. At least from a historical perspective and it will just reinforce the modern game and the way that it is being played today.

The real solution would be to significantly speed up the hard court surfaces. This would encourage the players to move forwards and conclude things at the net as the game was played for over a century...instead of dawdling in the backcourt with lengthy, mind-numbing and boring backcourt play. Faster surfaces would encourage quicker points and more movement going forwards instead of the side to side pounding that the players are subjecting themselves to now. Hard courts are always going to be harder on the body but nothing strikes me more strange than these very tall players playing from the backcourt...clay court style.

problem with speeding up courts, is the biz side of tennis... i forget the match, but it was basically a serve-bot-snooze fest (from the lay person's pespective. it's even hard for serious tennis fans to appreciate 2 big servers battling it out (a bit like pitchers duels in basebase in a 0-0 game)

The real problem with speeding up the courts is that the professional tennis players would look like fish out of water. I think the skunk Nadal would refuse to participate. Forget about the business angle you point out which I don't believe would be an issue. "Serious tennis fans" are dying for something to change with the endless mind-numbing backcourt exchanges. There is no more serious tennis aficianado (notice how I refuse to say that I am a fan) than myself and I would love to see the courts play at the speed of the U. S. Open in 1984 just to watch the top echelon of players make complete fools of themselves under those conditions exposing them to be what they are. One dimensional...one trick ponies. How hilarious would it be to watch these guys with there hyper strong forehand grips trying to play balls off of their shoe laces. We would see more framed forehands even then we do now. Much, much more as they try to come at that low of a ball from such a steep angle.

After watching a guy like Daniel Evans take down the Russian Howitzer and then giving "The Amazing Mr. Monfils" fits this week...I think Evans would go from being ranked in the 30's to possible top ten elite status. All because he is able to play anywhere on the court. I "seriously" wonder how players like Djokovic, Nadal and all the rest of the baseline players of the modern game would adapt to such a suped up surface. I think it would be number one...comical. Number two...interesitng.

If anything it would create more interest in a game that is at risk of being a permanent snooze fest. The powers that be are looking at some really ridiculous changes to try and create more interest. Would they be doing that if everything was rosy about the bottom line?

The risk of the game turning into a serve-bot-snooze is absolutely real. That is what happened in the first place due to the equipment change that took place in the 1980's. So what you have is a real life Catch-22. You are f'd if you do and f'd if you don't.

[nytennisaddict]

The real problem with speeding up the courts is that the professional tennis players would look like fish out of water. I think the skunk Nadal would refuse to participate. Forget about the business angle you point out which I don't believe would be an issue. "Serious tennis fans" are dying for something to change with the endless mind-numbing backcourt exchanges. There is no more serious tennis aficianado (notice how I refuse to say that I am a fan) than myself and I would love to see the courts play at the speed of the U. S. Open in 1984 just to watch the top echelon of players make complete fools of themselves under those conditions exposing them to be what they are. One dimensional...one trick ponies. How hilarious would it be to watch these guys with there hyper strong forehand grips trying to play balls off of their shoe laces. We would see more framed forehands even then we do now. Much, much more as they try to come at that low of a ball from such a steep angle.

After watching a guy like Daniel Evans take down the Russian Howitzer and then giving "The Amazing Mr. Monfils" fits this week...I think Evans would go from being ranked in the 30's to possible top ten elite status. All because he is able to play anywhere on the court. I "seriously" wonder how players like Djokovic, Nadal and all the rest of the baseline players of the modern game would adapt to such a suped up surface. I think it would be number one...comical. Number two...interesitng.

If anything it would create more interest in a game that is at risk of being a permanent snooze fest. The powers that be are looking at some really ridiculous changes to try and create more interest. Would they be doing that if everything was rosy about the bottom line?

The risk of the game turning into a serve-bot-snooze is absolutely real. That is what happened in the first place due to the equipment change that took place in the 1980's. So what you have is a real life Catch-22. You are f'd if you do and f'd if you don't.

i'm with you,... keep the slow clay courts as is... but leave all the other surfaces "the same as it was", eg... faster.
i'd prefer to see a s&v guy like brown make it far (still would prefer to see fed win it)...
i loved the variety of the surfaces, and the kind of variety in play that it produced... nothing better than seeing polarized styles, battle it out.
an while i do appreciate the benefits modern day racquets give, i do wish there was some kind of standard... can't say where' i'd limit it, but it'd be nice to be able to compare players of old vs. players of today.

and if the courts sped up, while i love nadal, he probably would never win any other slam except french.

love dan evans. i like khach, but was really rooting for dan the underdog evans to win. any bublik fans out there? i like his all court style of play. creative IMO.

not sure how to balance speedier play for variety, while also avoiding serve-bot-snooz-fest.

[don_budge]

i'm with you,... keep the slow clay courts as is... but leave all the other surfaces "the same as it was", eg... faster.
i'd prefer to see a s&v guy like brown make it far (still would prefer to see fed win it)...
i loved the variety of the surfaces, and the kind of variety in play that it produced... nothing better than seeing polarized styles, battle it out.
an while i do appreciate the benefits modern day racquets give, i do wish there was some kind of standard... can't say where' i'd limit it, but it'd be nice to be able to compare players of old vs. players of today.

and if the courts sped up, while i love nadal, he probably would never win any other slam except french.

love dan evans. i like khach, but was really rooting for dan the underdog evans to win. any bublik fans out there? i like his all court style of play. creative IMO.

not sure how to balance speedier play for variety, while also avoiding serve-bot-snooz-fest.

I appreciate the comments and the conversation NYTA...nytennisaddict. Your user name is becoming more and more familiar to me as you develop your online presence. Personality. bottle once thought out loud..."what's in a name?": He was talking about my name of course. He was taking jabs at the new kid on the block at the time. I know the score...I answered in levelled tone. Explaining the rationale behind mine. Reading into yours a bit I detect an unbridled passion for the game of tennis which takes my love for the game to another dimension. My love is conditional. I guess I am more like a cat than a dog. Cats make you earn love whereas dogs give it away unconditionally.

It's a long story and I believe a good one. A bit complicated to be sure but given enough space I can explain myself. I have a more difficult time appreciating the benefits of modern day racquets as I am more from the "ask no quarter, give none" school of thought. When the question was asked many years earlier if a professional golfer named Casey Martin who had a defect in a leg should be allowed to use a cart in professional tournaments my answer was he could crawl first. Of course I wasn't suggesting that he should actually crawl but what I was saying was that while it was unfortunate that he was disabled there is no reason under the sun that anybody gets a pass such as this in life. The definition of existentialism. To be or not to be.

The design of the game was always the standard sized wooden racquet and of course man had to intervene when he started to seek advantages to propel him over the opposition. The nature of the beast is win at all costs. But somehow I saw something more noble in the game. Something that the romance of the history of the game spoke to me. When I was a young man I was lucky to have the fairy tale come true for a young tennis player and I spent two summers in the presence of the great Don Budge. He spoke to me of the years gone by. One thing irritated him though...he had missed out on the big money. I don't think that it preoccupied him so much because he was the personification of tennis etiquette. But nevertheless...he mentioned it to me.

So within all of the implied meanings of the traditional tennis etiquette school of thought is the overriding principle of "Thou shall not seek unfair advantage over your opponent". This was the law. It was written in stone...but then they broke the stone and dashed it into a million pieces and anyone that had the money was given license to do just what the law forbade for all of those years...it allowed other to seek undo advantage. If you can imagine being in this predicament. Torn between a passion for the game that was nearly religious and to see the "fake" tennis being played all in the name of winning.

The comment about the standardising of the racquet is an obvious one...but one that was overlooked in the rush to cash in. So this is the result...human civilisation take note as tennis metaphors life. There should have been some limit put on the professional game. A standard. But there wasn't. Now the game is broken and there is no viable solution. Again...civiization take note. The benefits of the new equipment would have been fine for those not participating in competition but banned for those entering sanctioned events. Nowadays there are those who think that it is ok for men who have transformed themselves to "women" to compete with real women. This is the modern world. It doesn't have the real feel any longer. Sort of a "virtual morality". A word that I made up.

[stroke]

ol bottle, he was something else, just dd not come across as a likeable chap

[don_budge]

ol bottle, he was something else, just dd not come across as a likeable chap

Donald Trump is living rent free in his head from what I understand.

[arturohernandez]

The design of the game was always the standard sized wooden racquet and of course man had to intervene when he started to seek advantages to propel him over the opposition. The nature of the beast is win at all costs. But somehow I saw something more noble in the game. Something that the romance of the history of the game spoke to me. When I was a young man I was lucky to have the fairy tale come true for a young tennis player and I spent two summers in the presence of the great Don Budge. He spoke to me of the years gone by. One thing irritated him though...he had missed out on the big money. I don't think that it preoccupied him so much because he was the personification of tennis etiquette. But nevertheless...he mentioned it to me.

So within all of the implied meanings of the traditional tennis etiquette school of thought is the overriding principle of "Thou shall not seek unfair advantage over your opponent". This was the law. It was written in stone...but then they broke the stone and dashed it into a million pieces and anyone that had the money was given license to do just what the law forbade for all of those years...it allowed other to seek undo advantage. If you can imagine being in this predicament. Torn between a passion for the game that was nearly religious and to see the "fake" tennis being played all in the name of winning.

The comment about the standardising of the racquet is an obvious one...but one that was overlooked in the rush to cash in. So this is the result...human civilisation take note as tennis metaphors life. There should have been some limit put on the professional game. A standard. But there wasn't. Now the game is broken and there is no viable solution. Again...civiization take note. The benefits of the new equipment would have been fine for those not participating in competition but banned for those entering sanctioned events. Nowadays there are those who think that it is ok for men who have transformed themselves to "women" to compete with real women. This is the modern world. It doesn't have the real feel any longer. Sort of a "virtual morality". A word that I made up.

Baseball had a similar issue and banned metal bats. It has not hurt the game one bit. I think the athletes of today with wood rackets would be equally interesting. Not sure how wood and poly would interact. But there was always gut which is supposed to be similar to poly but much more expensive.

In any case, more variety like the old days would be nice. It would make it clearer how hard it is to actually win on different surfaces with different conditions.

Maybe the GS count would not have been inflated as much and the younger players would actually have a chance.

[don_budge]

Interesting comment regarding baseball arturohernandez. John McEnroe made the same comparison in his book..."Serious".

Baseball had a similar issue and banned metal bats. It has not hurt the game one bit. I think the athletes of today with wood rackets would be equally interesting. Not sure how wood and poly would interact. But there was always gut which is supposed to be similar to poly but much more expensive.

In any case, more variety like the old days would be nice. It would make it clearer how hard it is to actually win on different surfaces with different conditions.

Maybe the GS count would not have been inflated as much and the younger players would actually have a chance.

A post from August 17, 2014:

John McEnroe...Ten Recommendations

From John McEnroe's most excellent autobiography..."Serious"...his top ten recommendations for improving tennis in the 21st Century:

"A return to wooden racquets would be a huge improvement for professional tennis. The biggest change in the game in the last twenty five years...the replacement of wood by graphite...has been a bad one. I happen to think that wooden racquets are beautiful aesthetically and purer for the game.

Look at baseball. Kids start with aluminum bats in little league, then move on to Kevlar or whatever in college and then...and only then...if they make it to the majors do they get to use those beautiful wooden bats that require greater expertise for success.

Why not do the same thing in tennis? I think that it looks great to have a little wand in your hand, instead of some ultra thick club big enough to kill somebody with. Wood...to me...has glamour. You need strategy and technique. Tennis, these days, is sadly lacking in all these things.

It's all (as David Bowie says) wham, bam, thank you ma'am." ...the great John McEnroe.

Seconded by the not so great...don_budge.