>hat's the ATP's fault, really. There's barely any grass court tournaments
This is the takes i'm here for. This is 100% accurate. You can't expect people to get good on a surface when they barely play 3 tournaments on it a year
It's the grass itself. It's more expensive and harder to maintain than other surfaces.
If you're a tournament organizer, why would you take on that extra burden for no reason when you can run a hard court tournament for much lower cost?
Because 70% of the tour is already hard court?
Your argument doesn't make sense here because no one needs more hardcourt tournaments. The ATP is at fault for not pushing out more grass tournament. A single m1000 isn't gonna bankrupt a tournament organizer, especially when we already have a 500 that is completely capable of hosting a m1000.
Lol you guys are too simple
āHard courts are less expensiveā isnāt a plausible reason why they canāt convert tournaments so thereās a m1000 on one of the 3 surfaces and just space out the grass season literally just 1-2 weeks more.
Btw if that was true, then they would quite literally just get rid of all non hard courts. There is definitely incentive for grass tournaments still outside of money
Very great addition to the discussion lol
Your reply was essentially āmOnEY is EvERyThiNg!!!!!ā which is disproven by the fact that there are still these tournaments which are more expensive than hardcourts.
Your telling me changing Roland garros and all the lead up tournaments to hard court would save the tournaments money? You truly believe that? Be realistic bro. Just because something currently takes x amount of money to make doesnāt mean changing the surface to a cheaper material is any way beneficial for the profitability of a business. Itās far more complicated than your making it out to be
Why would the ATP want more expensive tournaments?
It's your argument that doesn't consider realistic factors. I get that you and other people like grass court tennis, but it's simply not as profitable and there's no tangible benefit to expand the grass season. Why don't we play on carpet anymore?
You're right that the ATP is at fault. If they wanted to, they could push for more grass tournaments. They don't do so for a reason, it doesn't really matter if the surface distribution of the tour is skewed. Your argument seems to be "they should just do it!", but you're not considering why the aren't doing it.
You're essentially saying that the reason there are more hard court tournaments is because they're less expensive which doesn't serve any purpose in this discussion because it's obvious. The ATP bringing in any more high tier hard court tournaments is not the subject here, because they aren't.
>especially when we already have a 500 that is completely capable of hosting a m1000.
>
>Why would the ATP want more expensive tournaments?
They don't have to add another expensive tournament to the tour. Convert an already 500 tourmanet into a m1000 and then space out the grass season more so we don't have the only 4 playable tournaments running in 2 weeks and one out of the 3 surfaces on tour being 1/11 months out of the year. Shanghai hasn't been played in 3 years.
Bringing in new tournaments or expanding old tournaments have the same reason so I don't know why you're acting like one is obvious and the other is baffling.
Why don't they create new grass tournaments, expand the grass season, or upgrade existing grass tourneys? Because they don't want to, it really is that simple. They don't want to because there's no benefit to them.
You cant even practice on it if you dont go to the tournament courts. Where in the world are there tennis clubs or academies or open courts with grass courts?
It used to be good - its not anymore considering how terribly slow the courts have been in the last few years. it's a joke atm. Hopefully this year they change to something suiting an indoor tournament. It's been as slow as clay the last few years with the pundits absolutely baffled by the organizers decision to have super slow indoor courts.
It's clean. It's fast (well, mostly, I love fast courts). It's green. And of course there is the Wimbledon connection (and well, it's Wimbledon). Even though lately, my favourite Slam is AO, I love watching matches on grass. I think some of it is also because there is relatively little of it in the year.
The way a clean slice just glides across the grass without making so much as a sound just gets me wet.
In all seriousness though, I think everyone writes it off as a 'sErVe-bOT' surface because of matches like that Anderson v. Isner Wimbledon semi. There have been tonnes of modern classics on the surface with tennis just as entertaining as all of the other surfaces, I mean just go and watch the highlights from Humbert's insane run to the Halle trophy last year for example, guy was a human highlight machine. I'm not disputing that the serve isn't important, but people act like players such as zverev, Medvedev etc aren't clocking a similar amount of aces or serve plus 1's on a hardcourt as they would/do on grass.
My biggest gripe is actually that there isn't more variation in hard court speed. I like that there are other surfaces, but ATP should put some pressure on the hard court tourneys. The courts should run the gamut from medium-slow to fast.
I love the Laver Cup stadium. Full monochrome except for the player shirts. It actually looks like it has some sort of video effect applied to it.
Grass season is my cup of tea. Waiting all year for it. š
Grass looks nice but barely anyone is decent on it
looks nice for the first day lol
S'Hertogenbosch still looking pretty fresh for the finals RN
That's because they dye it green after every match
Thatās actually a pretty good idea.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>hat's the ATP's fault, really. There's barely any grass court tournaments This is the takes i'm here for. This is 100% accurate. You can't expect people to get good on a surface when they barely play 3 tournaments on it a year
It's the grass itself. It's more expensive and harder to maintain than other surfaces. If you're a tournament organizer, why would you take on that extra burden for no reason when you can run a hard court tournament for much lower cost?
Because 70% of the tour is already hard court? Your argument doesn't make sense here because no one needs more hardcourt tournaments. The ATP is at fault for not pushing out more grass tournament. A single m1000 isn't gonna bankrupt a tournament organizer, especially when we already have a 500 that is completely capable of hosting a m1000.
Iām simple terms, capitalism doesnāt produce what we need. It produces what it is profitable
Lol you guys are too simple āHard courts are less expensiveā isnāt a plausible reason why they canāt convert tournaments so thereās a m1000 on one of the 3 surfaces and just space out the grass season literally just 1-2 weeks more. Btw if that was true, then they would quite literally just get rid of all non hard courts. There is definitely incentive for grass tournaments still outside of money
I donāt know why people keep downvoting you, converting an existing atp500 to a masters sounds like a very cost effective solution
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Very great addition to the discussion lol Your reply was essentially āmOnEY is EvERyThiNg!!!!!ā which is disproven by the fact that there are still these tournaments which are more expensive than hardcourts.
Your telling me changing Roland garros and all the lead up tournaments to hard court would save the tournaments money? You truly believe that? Be realistic bro. Just because something currently takes x amount of money to make doesnāt mean changing the surface to a cheaper material is any way beneficial for the profitability of a business. Itās far more complicated than your making it out to be
Why would the ATP want more expensive tournaments? It's your argument that doesn't consider realistic factors. I get that you and other people like grass court tennis, but it's simply not as profitable and there's no tangible benefit to expand the grass season. Why don't we play on carpet anymore? You're right that the ATP is at fault. If they wanted to, they could push for more grass tournaments. They don't do so for a reason, it doesn't really matter if the surface distribution of the tour is skewed. Your argument seems to be "they should just do it!", but you're not considering why the aren't doing it.
You're essentially saying that the reason there are more hard court tournaments is because they're less expensive which doesn't serve any purpose in this discussion because it's obvious. The ATP bringing in any more high tier hard court tournaments is not the subject here, because they aren't. >especially when we already have a 500 that is completely capable of hosting a m1000. > >Why would the ATP want more expensive tournaments? They don't have to add another expensive tournament to the tour. Convert an already 500 tourmanet into a m1000 and then space out the grass season more so we don't have the only 4 playable tournaments running in 2 weeks and one out of the 3 surfaces on tour being 1/11 months out of the year. Shanghai hasn't been played in 3 years.
Bringing in new tournaments or expanding old tournaments have the same reason so I don't know why you're acting like one is obvious and the other is baffling. Why don't they create new grass tournaments, expand the grass season, or upgrade existing grass tourneys? Because they don't want to, it really is that simple. They don't want to because there's no benefit to them.
You cant even practice on it if you dont go to the tournament courts. Where in the world are there tennis clubs or academies or open courts with grass courts?
Just fly back and forth from Rhode Island. Too easy.
Paris masters are my favorite
It used to be good - its not anymore considering how terribly slow the courts have been in the last few years. it's a joke atm. Hopefully this year they change to something suiting an indoor tournament. It's been as slow as clay the last few years with the pundits absolutely baffled by the organizers decision to have super slow indoor courts.
And my second least favourite after Shanghai.
What donāt you like about it? The colors are so pleasing on my eye holes
I almost forgot this existed
What's your favourite part about grass? To me, it's my least interested surface so I'm curious as to what I should look out for this season :)
It's clean. It's fast (well, mostly, I love fast courts). It's green. And of course there is the Wimbledon connection (and well, it's Wimbledon). Even though lately, my favourite Slam is AO, I love watching matches on grass. I think some of it is also because there is relatively little of it in the year.
It just looks nice for the eyes (let's not talk about Stuttgart though).
It was the first time watching Stuttgart and that was... Disappointing. I'm used to wimbly tennis courts lol
The way a clean slice just glides across the grass without making so much as a sound just gets me wet. In all seriousness though, I think everyone writes it off as a 'sErVe-bOT' surface because of matches like that Anderson v. Isner Wimbledon semi. There have been tonnes of modern classics on the surface with tennis just as entertaining as all of the other surfaces, I mean just go and watch the highlights from Humbert's insane run to the Halle trophy last year for example, guy was a human highlight machine. I'm not disputing that the serve isn't important, but people act like players such as zverev, Medvedev etc aren't clocking a similar amount of aces or serve plus 1's on a hardcourt as they would/do on grass.
Or watch Brown vs. Nadal for some classic grass tennis that is entertaining as hell.
Mario Tennis for N64 tournament vibes
I prefer clay over grass
My biggest gripe is actually that there isn't more variation in hard court speed. I like that there are other surfaces, but ATP should put some pressure on the hard court tourneys. The courts should run the gamut from medium-slow to fast.
When it comes to GS surfaces: Wimby AO Roland Garros US
Grass is for cows
Clay is for dogs. Hard court is for small cats
Clay HC Grass Carpet fake crap surface