How does homogenised conditions affect tennis popularity?

How does it

I don't have time to read the long story right now, but the answer to the title is, tennis is losing it's main strength: creativity and variety.

Homogenised playing conditions encourage safe percentage play and that is not good.

I believe there will always be a number of players who will be able to overcome them and impose beauty on court.

noleisthebest wrote:I don't have time to read the long story right now, but the answer to the title is, tennis is losing it's main strength: creativity and variety.

Homogenised playing conditions encourage safe percentage play and that is not good.

I believe there will always be a number of players who will be able to overcome them and impose beauty on court.

No it doesn't. I don't see how homogenised conditions encourage safe percentage play.
If we have a specific type of condition- eg slower surfaces- then that can be argued.
As I said this isn't a fast court vs slow court debate- that's for another day

I think the answer to the question is simple. We all would like to have varied courts so we can have different players styles competing on different surfaces and havevaried results and surprises.

But the reality is different cause what fans really want is their favourite player to win at all cost on all surfaces to be recognised amongst all time greats. And that includes you Amri I believe. You woudl not like Nadal to be just another clay courter, so if it takes slowing down the USO, WImby and AO to allow him to win on those surfaces, then so be it. Sure you will say they play differently but the fact is that they all play very similar nowadays with little difference cause on pretty 1-dimensional style can win on all.

So in short fans want varied surfaces as long they hero can win on it. Tournament organisers are not stupid, they know that and this is why subtly but surely they have slowed everything down to make us believe some coudl win on all surfaces when frankly they coudl not have.

Mind you, watching Raonic serve-fest right now is no fun either

Tenez wrote:I think the answer to the question is simple. We all would like to have varied courts so we can have different players styles competing on different surfaces and havevaried results and surprises.

But the reality is different cause what fans really want is their favourite player to win at all cost on all surfaces to be recognised at an all time great. And that includes you Amri I believe. You woudl not like Nadal to be just another clay courter, so if it takes slowing down the USO, WImby and AO to allow him to win on those surfaces, then so be it. Sure you will say they play differently but the fact is that they all play very similar nowadays with little difference cause on pretty 1-dimensional style can win on all.

So in short fans want varied surfaces as long they hero can win on it. Tournament organisers are not stupid, they know that and this is why subtly but surely they have slowed everything down to make us believe some coudl win on all surfaces when frankly they coudl not have.

Interesting Tenez interesting.
I don't know why you have to single out Nadal though.
There are 4 Grand Slams, am I right? In a fair world we would have 2 surfaces slow (like clay), and two surfaces faster (eg faster HC or faster grass). You talk as if the status quo should be 3 fast surfaces, and one slow. Would Federer have won as many Australian Open titles if AO was clay? However if USO and Wimby were faster he could have added even more USO or Wimby titles. It works both ways.

Amritia3ee wrote:
As I said this isn't a fast court vs slow court debate- that's for another day

and what exactly is the difference?

Amritia3ee wrote:
Interesting Tenez interesting.
I don't know why you have to single out Nadal though.
There are 4 Grand Slams, am I right? In a fair world we would have 2 surfaces slow (like clay), and two surfaces faster (eg faster HC or faster grass). You talk as if the status quo should be 3 fast surfaces, and one slow. Would Federer have won as many Australian Open titles if AO was clay? However if USO and Wimby were faster he could have added even more USO or Wimby titles. It works both ways.

If I may answer, because he is not beating about the bush like they do on v2.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
As I said this isn't a fast court vs slow court debate- that's for another day

and what exactly is the difference?

Homogenised conditions could mean all the surfaces are fast, or slow.
Varied surfaces mean both fast and slower surfaces.

I'm talking about varied vs homoegensied (what is better for popularity) not slow vs fast Hope that's a bit clearer.

Tenez wrote:

So in short fans want varied surfaces as long they hero can win on it. Tournament organisers are not stupid, they know that and this is why subtly but surely they have slowed everything down to make us believe some coudl win on all surfaces when frankly they coudl not have.

Yes, I think you have the idea. Look at my article, at the end of the homogenised paragraph. It turns 'stars' into 'superstars'- which I think is good for tennis. However it doesn't guarantee it. Players still have to be very consistent- consistently brilliant! Look at the WTA for the last couple of years, does it have a solid top 4 for last 5 years.

Also I disagree with you on what type of tennis is better. Personally I feel that with slower courts there can be more rallies (which I like) and more breaks, hence more twists and turns in a match! Of course this is my opinion, people have their preferences

[quote="Amritia3ee"]

noleisthebest wrote:
Varied surfaces mean both fast and slower surfaces.

I'm talking about varied vs homoegensied (what is better for popularity) not slow vs fast Hope that's a bit clearer.

As they say, variety is the spice of life.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
Varied surfaces mean both fast and slower surfaces.

I'm talking about varied vs homoegensied (what is better for popularity) not slow vs fast Hope that's a bit clearer.

As they say, variety is the spice of life.

You should read the whole article, when you have a bit of time

The 'variety is spice' line is interesting as I believe many people agree with you there.

Amritia3ee wrote:I don't know why you have to single out Nadal though.
There are 4 Grand Slams, am I right? In a fair world we would have 2 surfaces slow (like clay), and two surfaces faster (eg faster HC or faster grass). You talk as if the status quo should be 3 fast surfaces, and one slow. Would Federer have won as many Australian Open titles if AO was clay? However if USO and Wimby were faster he could have added even more USO or Wimby titles. It works both ways.

1 - I am only singling out Nadal cause it's clearly obvious they slowed courts for him....though I don;t think I am referring to Nadal here. The fact is that he is the "popular" player. They are not going to speed the court up for stepanek, are they? But if another very popular player come along they will facilitate the conds for him too.

2 - It's all relative. You call the USO fast but back in teh 90s it was considered medium and the "fast" AO considered medium too. So we had one fast (grass) one slow (clay) and 2 medium. Now they have slowed everything so much that we consider USO as fast when frankly it isn't by 90s standard.

Tenez wrote:

1 - I am only singling out Nadal cause it's clearly obvious they slowed courts for him....

Really?
I think they slowed down the courts as people hated ace-fests! Tennis was seriously losing popularity with those. See NITB's comment about Raonic on this very thread a bit earlier

Tenez wrote:
2 - It's all relative. You call the USO fast but back in teh 90s it was considered medium and the "fast" AO considered medium too. So we had one fast (grass) one slow (clay) and 2 medium. Now they have slowed everything so much that we consider USO as fast when frankly it isn't by 90s standard.

No, I'm not saying the USO currently is fast. Apologies, I should have been clearer.
I was saying 'if the USO was faster' then Fed would have more USOs.

If AO and FO were slow slow clay; and Wimby was fast grass and USO fast HC then I think Nadal and (possibly) Federer would have more Grand Slam titles.
Nadal, apart from injuries, could pick up around 14-15 titles on the slow surfaces. I don't think Federer would have picked up any on the slow surfaces (unless Nadal was injured) and would rely on Wimby+USO as his source.
If not anything I believe Djokovic would have lost out hugely... he would not be able to topple Fed on fast HC or grass normally (unless in top top form), or topple Nadal on slow clay.

Ace fest are still marginally more interesting than slug fests a la AO 2012 final.

noleisthebest wrote:Ace fest are still marginally more interesting than slug fests a la AO 2012 final.

That's your opinion, of course you are entitled to it

Surprised to how you are describing one of Djokovic's most important victories though

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Ace fest are still marginally more interesting than slug fests a la AO 2012 final.

That's your opinion, of course you are entitled to it

Surprised to how you are describing one of Djokovic's most important victories though

I didn't see the match, bar the last 2-3 points. I was happy Nole won and slew the beast.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Ace fest are still marginally more interesting than slug fests a la AO 2012 final.

That's your opinion, of course you are entitled to it

Surprised to how you are describing one of Djokovic's most important victories though

I didn't see the match, bar the last 2-3 points. I was happy Nole won and slew the beast.

I watched all of it.. gutting for me in the end
So happy, that he took revenge in RG a few months later though (and won 3 times in a row against him!).
(btw if you didn't watch it how did you know what type of match it was. You judged the match quite negatively- was this based on the 2-3 points you saw?
Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic

Amritia3ee wrote:Really?
I think they slowed down the courts as people hated ace-fests! Tennis was seriously losing popularity with those. See NITB's comment about Raonic on this very thread a bit earlier

Wimbledon was slowed earlier Nadal but further for Nadal.

USO was clearly slowed for Nadal (USO 2010 adopted bigger balls).

No, I'm not saying the USO currently is fast. Apologies, I should have been clearer.
I was saying 'if the USO was faster' then Fed would have more USOs.

Maybe, maybe not.

If AO and FO were slow slow clay; and Wimby was fast grass and USO fast HC then I think Nadal and (possibly) Federer would have more Grand Slam titles.
Nadal, apart from injuries, could pick up around 14-15 titles on the slow surfaces. I don't think Federer would have picked up any on the slow surfaces (unless Nadal was injured) and would rely on Wimby+USO as his source.
If not anything I believe Djokovic would have lost out hugely... he would not be able to topple Fed on fast HC or grass normally (unless in top top form), or topple Nadal on slow clay.

Maybe but I doubt. To me 90s fast grass would never have been won by Djoko and Nadal. 90s USO would have been Federer as well most likely. 90s AO between Fed and Djoko and 90s FO of course essentuially Nadal...though I think 90s FO with no synthetic gut woudl have seen Fed winning more often imo.....

noleisthebest wrote:Ace fest are still marginally more interesting than slug fests a la AO 2012 final.

I think it really boils down to the player/style...
I would find an ace fest involving el toro just as boring as I would seeing him slugging a point out

The most exciting tennis for me is when a player out foxes another,like the way Roger stole the 2nd set from Murray at the Wimbledon final,I guess that doesn't have anything to do with surfaces

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Really?
I think they slowed down the courts as people hated ace-fests! Tennis was seriously losing popularity with those. See NITB's comment about Raonic on this very thread a bit earlier

Wimbledon was slowed earlier Nadal but further for Nadal.

USO was clearly slowed for Nadal (USO 2010 adopted bigger balls).

Maybe. Personally I think Djokovic benefited the most- as he is the best mover on hard-courts. Of course the slower the surface the more important movement becomes... and Djokovic moves on hard-courts brilliantly.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:No, I'm not saying the USO currently is fast. Apologies, I should have been clearer.
I was saying 'if the USO was faster' then Fed would have more USOs.

Maybe, maybe not.

I see what you mean.
Federer would be more exposed to huge servers on faster surfaces- and a matter of a few points here and there in tie-breakers could mean defeat for him.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:If AO and FO were slow slow clay; and Wimby was fast grass and USO fast HC then I think Nadal and (possibly) Federer would have more Grand Slam titles.
Nadal, apart from injuries, could pick up around 14-15 titles on the slow surfaces. I don't think Federer would have picked up any on the slow surfaces (unless Nadal was injured) and would rely on Wimby+USO as his source.
If not anything I believe Djokovic would have lost out hugely... he would not be able to topple Fed on fast HC or grass normally (unless in top top form), or topple Nadal on slow clay.

Maybe but I doubt. To me 90s fast grass would never have been won by Djoko and Nadal. 90s USO would have been Federer as well most likely. 90s AO between Fed and Djoko and 90s FO of course essentuially Nadal...though I think 90s FO with no synthetic gut woudl have seen Fed winning more often imo.....

I don't think Djokovic or Nadal would win on fast grass. Federer said on an interview that on faster surfaces big guns are more vulnerable... as big servers can come in and ace everything which gives Federer only a few opportunities to win... and every little error he makes is magnified, so I don't think Federer would have it that easy either.
Clay wise, I think Nadal moves so well on the surface he's difficult to beat when fully fit. On red clay though

I still can't believe el toro won ELEVEN slams....to me he always looked as a footballer lost on a tennis court.

noleisthebest wrote:I still can't believe el toro won ELEVEN slams....to me he always looked as a footballer lost on a tennis court.

He wouldnt have 11 majors to his name without those PRP treatments

Funny, but off-topic.

Anyway Tenez.. we have talked a lot about how surface change would affect the big guns.. but what about the bigger picture?

In general do you think having homogenised surfaces or varied surfaces would increase popularity.
As NITB said some believe 'variety is the spice of life.' But Tenez did point out that having one guy dominating more (whoever it is) will mean there will be more 'superstars' which is possibly even more important for popularity of the game.

What do you think?

Amritia, could you summarize in one or two sentences (max) what's the main argument of your article?

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I still can't believe el toro won ELEVEN slams....to me he always looked as a footballer lost on a tennis court.

He wouldnt have 11 majors to his name without those PRP treatments

Oh, it that case it means his popularity has nothing to do with surfaces or his talent. All to do with ....... (fill in the blank).

Cmon guys, we don't need this to turn into the usual 'Nadal vs anti-Nadal' theme.

At-least if you are going to talk about Nadal try and keep it on topic and relevant, like Tenez did

SR wrote:Amritia, could you summarize in one or two sentences (max) what's the main argument of your article?

Debate is not to do with Nadal (specifically) or fast vs slow surfaces.
I'm seeing how tennis popularity will fluctuate depending on whether the surfaces are homogenised (similar) or varied. I don't actually reach a definite conclusion, just provide both sides of the coin- it's a 50-50 for me.

Homogenised= More superstars as one player can dominate the tour to a greater extent. Superstars bring more fans.

Varied= Has more variation in play across the year, so more types of fans will watch. Means more unpredictability. Big guns will be more vulnerable to surface specialists on a specific surface.

Amritia3ee wrote:

SR wrote:Amritia, could you summarize in one or two sentences (max) what's the main argument of your article?

Homogenised= More superstars as one player can dominate the tour to a greater extent. Superstars bring more fans.

Varied= Has more variation in play across the year, so more types of fans will watch. Means more unpredictability. Big guns will be more vulnerable to surface specialists on a specific surface.

As a tennisfan I will support the varied courts as unpredictability makes the sport more intresting. What is the fun in watching if you know that these players will be in SFs all the time and Nadull will always win over Murray, Fed will awalys win over Djoker etc..

Surfaces. How many of the people know anything about surfaces and how it may affect the play on it. More than 20m following Fed and Nadal on their fb pages. How many of them would actually understand anthing about surfaces. Do they care to know? Of course not. Hence the popularity of tennis has not much to do with whatever happens to the surface. Its a totally different dynamic.

I agree with tenez about fans.

What's amusing is that when Federer won the career slam, everything was made for Nadal to win the career slam. In 2010, the USO introduced 2 sets of balls: for women (same as before) and for men slightly bigger, fluffier than before (I wonder whether this is the case this year still).

Every slam wants its piece of history...which is a shame cause now a career slam doesn't mean anything anymore.

Tenez wrote: In 2010, the USO introduced 2 sets of balls: for women (same as before) and for men slightly bigger, fluffier than before (I wonder whether this is the case this year still).

Is that correct? Was it being discussed by commentators?

I believe NITB sent a link to it.

[quote="Amritia3ee"]

SR wrote:Amritia, could you summarize in one or two sentences (max) what's the main argument of your article?

Homogenised= More superstars as one player can dominate the tour to a greater extent. Superstars bring more fans.

Homogenised conditions means sameness of surfaces, sameness means lack of challenge, lack of challenge means limitations, limitations means boredom. Sub-text: dumbing down the surfaces and making the game easier for superficial stars with limited talents to rise. So how does that affect "tennis popularity"? I'd say a dumbed down game with dumber players will bring more dumb fans. I don't see how that's a positive for the future of tennis.

[quote="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"]Surfaces. How many of the people know anything about surfaces and how it may affect the play on it. More than 20m following Fed and Nadal on their fb pages. How many of them would actually understand anthing about surfaces. Do they care to know? Of course not. Hence the popularity of tennis has not much to do with whatever happens to the surface. Its a totally different dynamic.

Raiders, your wording can be really funny. But I agree with you. Who cares about the surfaces? It's the player's job to deal with the conditions. He needs to show us how he can rise above all the given conditions, not the other way around for the organizers to tailor everything and make it easier for him to do his job.

Personally I would prefer:

Australian Open- Medium Slow Clay (like Rome)
French Open- Slow Clay
Wimbledon- Fast Grass
US Open- Fast Indoor Hard-Court

That would be more variety throughout the year IMO.
Also with that schedule Nadal would have racked up 14-15 Grand Slams by now
Federer would have a similar amount, in-fact I don't think he would be able to win FO or AO unless he avoids facing Nadal.

Amritia3ee wrote:Personally I would prefer:

Australian Open- Medium Slow Clay (like Rome)
French Open- Slow Clay
Wimbledon- Fast Grass
US Open- Fast Indoor Hard-Court

That would be more variety throughout the year IMO.
Also with that schedule Nadal would have racked up 14-15 Grand Slams by now
Federer would have a similar amount, in-fact I don't think he would be able to win FO or AO unless he avoids facing Nadal.

If this is your conclusion, your motivation is clearly Nadal bc he's the focus of your attention and comments. You've been merely moving the surfaces around in an artificial exercise to show how nadal could have won more slams than Fed. Do you realize you mentioned not one word about "tennis popularity" that's supposed to be your main concern? Of course, what popularity? That's just a cover-up for nadal, your hidden subject, the way I see it.

Apologies SR, I strayed off-topic. To be fair my comment was to do with homogensation vs variety in surfaces, but not to do with popularity.

I shall start a thread, discussing this, how it would affect the players.

SR wrote:
If this is your conclusion, your motivation is clearly Nadal bc he's the focus of your attention and comments. You've been merely moving the surfaces around in an artificial exercise to show how nadal could have won more slams than Fed. Do you realize you mentioned not one word about "tennis popularity" that's supposed to be your main concern? Of course, what popularity? That's just a cover-up for nadal, your hidden subject, the way I see it.

Good one SR. . Amritia's real motive behind the article comes out . He is too silly even to be able to conceal it with the cover of surface variations. Well not surprised, he really believes that Nadal and his camp are honest people.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

SR wrote:
If this is your conclusion, your motivation is clearly Nadal bc he's the focus of your attention and comments. You've been merely moving the surfaces around in an artificial exercise to show how nadal could have won more slams than Fed. Do you realize you mentioned not one word about "tennis popularity" that's supposed to be your main concern? Of course, what popularity? That's just a cover-up for nadal, your hidden subject, the way I see it.

Good one SR. . Amritia's real motive behind the article comes out . He is too silly even to be able to conceal it with the cover of surface variations. Well not surprised, he really believes that Nadal and his camp are honest people.

That's a ridiculous comment.
I have already apologised as my comment was off-topic.
If you honestly believe I would go through all of this, write this article, then have a discussion with Tenez to discuss how homogenisation is connected with popularity, just to link it to player performance in more varied conditions then you are wrong.
It's a ridiculous claim. I can post anything on the 'tennis' forum if it is to do with tennis. If I wanted to make a thread discussing how players like differing surfaces, then I would make the thread. I am allowed to, right?
Why would I go through all of this, just to then diverge the topic? It makes no sense.

Amritia3ee wrote:Apologies SR, I strayed off-topic. To be fair my comment was to do with homogensation vs variety in surfaces, but not to do with popularity.

I shall start a thread, discussing this, how it would affect the players.

Apologies accepted.

Good to know that you’re intending to write more. In that case, if you don't mind,
I’d like to suggest a Nadal subject that has not
been dealt with but that has fascinated me for a while. Although I’m not a rafa
fan, I do recognize one aspect that’s truly great about Nadal. It is
the fact that he plays tennis with his left hand while he is naturally right-handed.
Not only did he train to play with the “wrong” hand, he beat most of his peer who
play with their “right” hand! I don’t think any player can make that claim in
tennis history and, imho, that’s the true uniqueness of Nadal you should
highlight simply because it’s an area where no other tennis player could
compete with him for greatness.

Elsewhere, he is great but not greater than Laver, Sampras, RF and a few others. You can’t change the stats or
surfaces and try to argue a case for him to make him look greater than his records say he is. That weakens your argument. But the one rafa quality you can capitalize on is the fact that he overcame what would have been an insurmountable task to play
tennis with so much success with his left/wrong hand. Think it over, just a suggestion.

As fantastic as it sounds, and I admit it may be a good opportunity squandered to up Nadal, your comment is not 100% accurate.

Nadal's never actually had a right handed forehand. Since he was young he always had a double handed forehand, and double handed back-hand. At the end Toni said Nadal should play a one-handed forehand, and a choice had to be made. Nadal said his left hand was more comfortable to play with, and hence they went forward. Toni did not force Nadal to use his left hand, this is a common myth.
I remember a link I posted on v2 a few months ago with a link explaining this in detail, I'll try to find it.


Also I have a friend who writes left handed, but plays tennis and cricket much better right handed, it can be strange.

Edit: I know we have strayed off topic again, I hope ROTLA does not mind
I will write the player vs surface article tomorrow, that could be interesting.

I was taking a risk. I don't know much about that aspect of Nadal's tennis history, although as I said I'm very intrigued by it. So yeah, not 100% accurate. Do let me know when you find that link. Thanks.

SR wrote:I was taking a risk. I don't know much about that aspect of Nadal's tennis history, although as I said I'm very intrigued by it. So yeah, not 100% accurate. Do let me know when you find that link. Thanks.

The telegraphy did a special section by special extracts from his autobiography. Well worth a read

Here is one of them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/8704892/Rafael-Nadal-family-crisis-destroyed-my-body-and-soul.html

I am not impressed by Nadal playing LH despite being RH. Most of the LHers of my generation and more so the previous generation were forced to write with their RH and writing requires a more subtle control than whacking a tennis ball as hard as possible...which is what Nadal does.

Toni took the bet to ask Rafa to play LH cause he knew he would not need Rafa's talent to make him successful. He banked on Rafa's fitness. That 's actually what I find quite fascinating with Toni cause he had a plan to make Nadal successful and that plan was to throw away Nadal's natural talent and make him successful through acquired power and stamina.

This is something his fans are not aware, or don;t want to realise.

I have always understood that Nadal is right-handed and that Toni forced him to play as left-handed.
Does he writ with his left or right hand?

He does everything with his RH...bar playing tennis.

What a weird set-up.
He must have a lot of wiring crossed in his brain. No wonder he's struggling with languages.

Amritia3ee wrote:
Edit: I know we have strayed off topic again, I hope ROTLA does not mind
I will write the player vs surface article tomorrow, that could be interesting.

Sure. Please go ahead.

SR wrote: It is
the fact that he plays tennis with his left hand while he is naturally right-handed.
Not only did he train to play with the “wrong” hand, he beat most of his peer who
play with their “right” hand!

I know of other successful players who changed their natural hand. Carlos Moya is naturally lefty but learnt to play right handed. http://www.tennisperspective.com/2010/08/player-profile-carlos-moya.html

There are more:

Thomas Muster
Navratilova