Comments on: For The Record: Grass

By: forehandshanker

forehandshanker — Thu, 06 May 2010 03:18:47 +0000

Rafa wishes that there were less HC tourneys and more on the softer surfaces (grass & clay), because it’s easier on the body. Sure it may come across as a bit self-serving, but given the raft of injuries that both tours have had, if you cannot reduce the required number of tourneys, it’s reasonable to play on easier surfaces if you want to do a better job of preserving the health of the players.

By: Brodie

Brodie — Wed, 05 May 2010 23:38:12 +0000

But it also heavily favours power over movement. But yeah “the most neutral” I suppose I could live with.

By: TD

TD — Wed, 05 May 2010 23:25:44 +0000

Hardcourts are the most neutral surface. They are the most difficult to win because most players can play on it, unless grass and clay which are specialized surfaces.

By: Federista

Federista — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:24:15 +0000

Grass is such an important part of the tradition of the game and it has been reduced to near XO status (except for the glorious 2 weeks at SW19)

The tour really splits between Halle and Queens – I’d love to see them separated (on the calendar) with the former being a 500 and the latter a 1000.

The problem is that W and RG are so close together and either is difficult to move. Also tough to ask top players to continue on a surface after that season’s slam.

The big question? Does W move back or does RG move up? Either seems impossible.

By: Brodie

Brodie — Wed, 05 May 2010 13:39:11 +0000

Totally agree. It’s why that guy freaked and called him a dickhead. I think what he was trying to do was avoid an uproar by just noticing something, but as he carried on, it was more like “HEY ever notice the lack of grass tournaments? YEAH. JUST SAYIN.’” But sure, he’s better on grass than clay, it’s a little self serving, but nothing really THAT wrong with it. Though there are way more hard court tournaments than clay at the end of the day anyway.

By: rafaholic (@TOtennisfan)

rafaholic (@TOtennisfan) — Wed, 05 May 2010 11:02:14 +0000

Meretricula does have a good argument about Andy. The fact that the comment came out in the middle of clay court season where he hasn’t picked up a racket to play so far and historically has better results on grass than clay makes it seem self serving. But I still think the abundance of clay tournaments between Miami and RG vs. the # of grass before Wimbledon is somewhat skewed in favour of the clay. And this is coming from a diehard RafaKAD and an Andy fan. For the record, when Rafa plays (and wins) MC Barca Rome and Madrid and then complains about the season I think he’s hypocritical too!

By: meretricula

meretricula — Wed, 05 May 2010 05:45:54 +0000

I feel like Andy’s point would carry more weight if he hadn’t come across so damn American complaining about there being too many clay tournaments. yeah, it would be great to have a proper grass season, but it sounds pretty self-serving to bitch about there being three clay Masters (which he sucks at and doesn’t even want to play) when there are six on hardcourt, plus the WTF (where he does pretty damn well for himself). I doubt he’d want a longer grass season if it had to be cut out of the American hardcourt tournaments. (I would love to see this, though. hell, move Cincinnati around in the schedule and play it on grass, nobody likes that tournament right now anyway. it could have novelty going for it, at least.)

By: Brodie

Brodie — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:44:42 +0000

Excellent point. If you’re going to make players bust ass to flip from clay to grass in the matter of seconds, shouldn’t you reward with some points, instead of the weasley “here’s some nice warm-up tournaments to play before. OK, good luck!”

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 05 May 2010 02:13:15 +0000

I hate agreeing with Roddick, but, yeah, he has a point about there being no grass Masters. But as you stated Brodie, there’s no way the facilities qualify Queens (or any of the other grass tournaments for that matter) to be a Masters.

I am totally on board with making it a 500 event though, It’s ridiculous with the quality of players it attracts (everyone who matters usually plays here but Federer) that it hasn’t been upgraded to a 500 yet.

By: rafaholic (@TOtennisfan)

rafaholic (@TOtennisfan) — Wed, 05 May 2010 01:34:08 +0000

I think Andy’s point, in 140 words or less was a good one. The valid question is why isn’t there a “more” important grass tourney before Wimbledon? You have IW and Miami right on top of each other and after the AO so they’re not warmups to anything except the end of the winter hard court season. MC while not optional is still a Masters and with Rome and Madrid that makes 3 Masters in a month before RG plus all the 250s 500′s. Then, Toronto and Cincy before the USO before heading to the part of the season no one cares about. So why shouldn’t there be a grass Masters before Wimby? Logic says RG and Wimby shouldn’t be so close together anyways but the perception becomes even more so that there’s way more clay tournaments than grass. Besides, if grass is important enough to the sport to merit a Grand Slam tournament it should be featured a little more prominently in the week to week.

That all (long winded sorry) being said. Make Queen’s a 500 event. There’s no logic not to. Halle is played the same week anyways so whoever goes to one doesn’t play the other.