ATP 500/250: Rotterdam, San Hose, Sao Paolo

noleisthebest wrote:I don't mind Raonic, but his tennis really leaves me cold. His personality isn't most engaging, either.
Plenty of other players to make up for it, though and good to have a player like him lurk in the draw.

Kind of similar with me; I have no problem with him and it will be good to have him as one of the top guys down the road; but he will never be my most favorite player to root for.

noleisthebest wrote:Me, too. Too much power ant not enough flair.

BTW, this is one of the things that I think makes it tricky for tennis authorities to get the right balance. On one hand, the endless rallies are no fun to watch but on the other hand, servefests are not all that exciting either. In all honesty, it is not quite clear to me what would be a good way to bring more S&V and all-court game back.

summerblues wrote:I find Raonic too boring. Other than his serve, he is not spectacular. Yes, he can hit big and unlike some other big servers he can play decent, but take away that serve and he is nothing special. I doubt that will be enough against the very best players.

Certainly but at least he has a weapon. Take away the legs of Murray Nadal and Djoko and they have even less...even Tsiparevic have better, gutsier shots than them.

summerblues wrote:Raonic has now won four ATP titles - three of them in San Jose. Apparently he has not dropped a set in his three SJ appearances. I am still not sold on him. Let's see how he does over the next few months. We need some of these youngsters to start challenging for the slams properly - like winning them.

This is how court conds can favour a player. If you slow down all slams, you can even have a clay courter win 11 slams...including 2 Wimbies. speed them up and Rao can win as many slams. It's all thin margins.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Me, too. Too much power ant not enough flair.

BTW, this is one of the things that I think makes it tricky for tennis authorities to get the right balance. On one hand, the endless rallies are no fun to watch but on the other hand, servefests are not all that exciting either. In all honesty, it is not quite clear to me what would be a good way to bring more S&V and all-court game back.

yes one or 2 players can make whatever conds extreme.

But regardless of the pace the new strings have made tennis too easy for the shotless players. The only way to compensate for that would be provide harder balls...and slippery surfaces (clay/grass).

To me one of the most interesting slam in the last 6/7 years was FO11. Excellent compromise. Sure Nadal won it but it made it interesting with great matches till the end.

Yes FO 2011 was very memorable and exciting. Shame they didn't repeat the same conditions in 2012.

A slippery surface is very good to limit the long rallies, excellent for joins and should help talented people. I guess something between blue and red clay....brown clay?

I can see how slippery surface shortens the rallies, but how on earth can it be good for the joints?
It's completely the opposite: uncontrolled movement (sliding and slipping) as well as preventive movement in order to stop those is a joint killer.

It's the softness of natural surfaces that's easy on the joints not the slipperiness.

I'm beginning to find it really fascinating how playing with various aspects of any surface can affect the game.

Also, the tournaments seem to have the need to change the same surface almost every year?
Why do they experiment like that and whose idea is it?


Has it always been like this?
I don't remember much of this surface kind of talk in the past.

One learns to play on slippery surfaces. Clay is not much softer than HC. It's simply brick powder on bricks. If clay was soft you'd have a low bounce not a high one. What really hurts the joins is when the ankle/foot is blocked by the grippiness of the courts.

If you can stomach that clip you will see the problem with HC and grippy surfaces. I don;t think the equivalent is happening as often on clay. In my club the worse injuries are when we just repaint the surface and they are slow and sticky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ImXAD_tig

Nadal wants clay cause he can slide without being hurt too much.

Sliding is good. Problem with blue clay or bad clay is when the slide suddenly stops due to soft material base.

Gripping on hard surfaces can be a problem if you lose your footing and twist the ankle, but that does not happen much and regularly, probably due to shoes being made to allow movement without gripping too strongly.

The more serious damage is from pounding that hard surface as our feet were not made to walk on concrete but soft grass, so they absorb the shock and in the long run damage the foot structure. I think a lot of people are not aware of their feet imperfection mainly because they don't run a lot, or play sport so don't aggravate the condition.

I found out about it the hard way, unfortunately.

So, the "roadrunners" will suffer most, but I still don't think hard courts are that bad as Nadal moans about them.

Clay and sliding are natural and that's not the problem, slipping is if the surface beneath the layer of clay does not grip it properly like it was the case in Madrid and "blue clay" last year.
Players were having trouble stopping the slide and I bet tendons suffered a lot there, and not just the ankle and knee ones, but groin and back as well.

Hard court seems to offer endless source of surface variation now, I was amazed how rough it was in O2, it felt like sandpaper, and a rough one!
I always imagined it to be smooth for some reason.

But the gel soles we have in todays shoes largely compensate for the shock of the hard surface itself, certainly makes HC softer than barefoot/grass. That's nothing. The danger and pain for joints is when you have a 80kg body going one way at 15mph and suddenly being stopped and having to run on the opposite direction. That is what really hurts the players.

Marathonians run much more on concrete and do not have that problem you describe.

Tenez wrote:But the gel soles we have in todays shoes largely compensate for the shock of the hard surface itself, certainly makes HC softer than barefoot/grass. That's nothing. The danger and pain for joints is when you have a 80kg body going one way at 15mph and suddenly being stopped and having to run on the opposite direction. That is what really hurts the players.

Marathonians run much more on concrete and do not have that problem you describe.

Next time you wear gel shoes try walking on grass and then the road. Massive difference, still. I agree that stopping, starting and turning is the biggest danger/problem for the joints, I never said it was the running, there is not a lof of it in tennis anyway.

As for marathon runners, Paula Ratliff had the same surgery as me, I know because we had it the same summer (the only difference is that mine was caused by rubbish non-gel shoes I wore on the treadmill).

But clay is hard anyway...and players want it hard, including Nadal. What they do not want is a soft clay where their feet can get stuck.

Tenez wrote:But clay is hard anyway...and players want it hard, including Nadal. What they do not want is a soft clay where their feet can get stuck.

Yes hard, but not slippery like in Madrid. Madrid pre-blue phase was good.

Slippery surfaces are good for joints. Grippy ones are not. It's as simple as that. And that is teh reason why HCs are now more and more trying to allow some degree of sliding.

The problem with grippy surfaces is that when your body tires, muscles cannot bumper shocks as well and that is when bad injuries happen. On slippery surfaces, the slide does some of the muscle job and ligaments are spared.

No-one got injured in that blue clay. The only one I can think off is Federer but I doubt we can attribute that to slipperyness.....and he won on it so surely it was not too bad for him.

Tenez wrote:Slippery surfaces are good for joints. Grippy ones are not. It's as simple as that. And that is teh reason why HCs are now more and more trying to allow some degree of sliding.

The problem with grippy surfaces is that when your body tires, muscles cannot bumper shocks as well and that is when bad injuries happen. On slippery surfaces, the slide does some of the muscle job and ligaments are spared.

No-one got injured in that blue clay. The only one I can think off is Federer but I doubt we can attribute that to slipperyness.....and he won on it so surely it was not too bad for him.

I am not talking about normal clay, I am talking about THE BLUE clay!!!!!!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Slippery surfaces are good for joints. Grippy ones are not. It's as simple as that. And that is teh reason why HCs are now more and more trying to allow some degree of sliding.

The problem with grippy surfaces is that when your body tires, muscles cannot bumper shocks as well and that is when bad injuries happen. On slippery surfaces, the slide does some of the muscle job and ligaments are spared.

No-one got injured in that blue clay. The only one I can think off is Federer but I doubt we can attribute that to slipperyness.....and he won on it so surely it was not too bad for him.

I am not talking about normal clay, I am talking about THE BLUE clay!!!!!!

Well it's certainly not clear in that first post of yours about slipperyness.

I can see how slippery surface shortens the rallies, but how on earth can it be good for the joints?
It's completely the opposite: uncontrolled movement (sliding and slipping) as well as preventive movement in order to stop those is a joint killer.

It's the softness of natural surfaces that's easy on the joints not the slipperiness.

And in any case I don;t think blue clay was dangerous either. No-one got hurt...just the roadrunners went early.

I give up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAESKjNGpiU

Just for Tenez....since he is a Believer in Raonic

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Good win for Delpo and another loss for Benn. Does anyone know what is the record no. of consecutive losses in finals before winning any ATP tournament ?

Just read it was Cedric Pioline. 9 straight final losses.

Tenez wrote:This is how court conds can favour a player. If you slow down all slams, you can even have a clay courter win 11 slams...including 2 Wimbies. speed them up and Rao can win as many slams. It's all thin margins.

Yes, which is sort of what I was alluding to too. It is a relatively thin margin to go from Rafa winning everything to big servers winning everything. And I find both of them to be quite extreme and boring. But that only illustrates how hard it is to find the right conditions to make the game favor more versatility.

I have tried to look at Sao Paulo final from a record and gave up after the second game. That was an unbelievable tennis crap. Everyone must be sick of playing this kind of game even watching this made me sick

paulcz wrote:I have tried to look at Sao Paulo final from a record and gave up after the second game. That was an unbelievable tennis crap. Everyone must be sick of playing this kind of game even watching this made me sick

It was really poor. I think the conds were bad. Clay and noise. .

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:This is how court conds can favour a player. If you slow down all slams, you can even have a clay courter win 11 slams...including 2 Wimbies. speed them up and Rao can win as many slams. It's all thin margins.

Yes, which is sort of what I was alluding to too. It is a relatively thin margin to go from Rafa winning everything to big servers winning everything. And I find both of them to be quite extreme and boring. But that only illustrates how hard it is to find the right conditions to make the game favor more versatility.

Having said that the conds were pretty balanced from 2000/2007...until they started to slow things down further. Look at the USO it was playing ok and then in 2008 and more so in 2010 the bigger balls made it a heaven for the retrievers. If you watch Blake v Federer at teh USO 2007 they are playing 15% faster than 2010.