Martina Navratilova recently spoke out about this. She said when the Australian Open changed surfaces from grass they consulted the players about which surface they wanted - she said the players didn't want Rebound Ace but the Australian Open ignored them. She also said the Rebound Ace Surface had actually been a factor in her stopping playing the Australian open after 1989. She described Rebound Ace as "awful" and talked about how she burnt her knee once when bending down for a low volley, because the surface held so much heat.
The consistency of your content is really impressive. I love finding a channel that I can trust to always be worth the time and attention. I learn something new on every video. Keep up the great work!
It would have been cool if the Aussie Open was the only Grand Slam to use the three main surfaces on a three-year rotation. To me, it's too similar to the U.S. Open.
When Djokovic was injured.... Federer couldn't beat Djokovic at at slam since Federer was only 30. he literally had zero impact on stopping him winning any slam since then. on the fast hardcourts of the ATP Finals same story - lost 3 finals out of 3 to Djokovic, just like Wimbledon.
Fact of the matter is blue playing surfaces are really good in contrast with those bright yellow balls. The most attractive ones are the color schemes at Indian Wells or Miami, the color wasn't the issue it's the speed of the courts that dramatically changed the outcome for top players. Federer was nearly unbeatable on the fast green Australian Open courts, as soon as they significantly slowed the court Djokovic, Nadal started winning there. (Mostly Djokovic)
@@janjan55555 I'll take your point about Indian Wells... blue on green would be an improvement. That said, I don't think people have a such a problem with Wimbledon - and I don't think people switch off in the second week when it's way worse. It's not like TV is the same as it was when I started watching tennis in the mid 80s!
@@har234908234 I must admit the tennis court in AO pre 2008 was difficult for a live viewer to watch, just being really really honest here! The blue was totally different, sadly they f'ed up AUSTRALIAN OPEN as soon as they changed the speed of the court. They should have never touched it.
@@janjan55555 they didn't change the US Open and Federer wasn't able to win there since many years ago but was able to win in Australia when Djokovic was injured.. Djokovic just surpassed him. The Australian Open has been the fastest hardcourt slam surface all along. on the fast hardcourts of the ATP Finals same story - lost 3 finals out of 3 to Djokovic, just like Wimbledon.
@@huzcer Did you read what I typed... I said they changed the surface type in Australia instead of the typical rebound ace court to the much heavier plexicushion.
I liked the rebound ace, the tennis was different to the US Open. Other than Edberg, most attacking players like Sampras and Becker were prepared to play longer rallies in addition to short points. Clay court players also did well. But if the players complained then understandable. Personally I find tennis played on bland plexicushion not very interesting at all.
@@BaselineTennis Its an interesting juxtaposition. They don't want short points, they want long rallies instead even if neither player goes for winners. Meanwhile they don't want matches too long either for scheduling reasons.
I don't think you really answered the question though. They wanted to get "ahead of the curve" by switching to hard courts - But why? What about hard courts made this better for players? And why does the same not apply to wimbledon?
$$$$$. That's the answer. They realized that the USTA made most of its money off of advertising for one tournament and realized they had to take it out of the country club. Wimbledon is just tradition and little else. Roland Garros too. The US Open and the AO went for the big money., but also a level playing field. Depending on how you look at it, this leveling either makes Fed at sw19 & Rafa in Paris greater, or kind of just a spectacle of specialization. If there are only literally a couple of tournaments with the surface of the French Open than it cannot be a major anymore IMO, same with Wimby. Rafa's wins are sorta silly, they're as meaningful as all of Fed's indoor wins. US Open & AO have showed that Nole is probably the best.
@@lexluthor9779 "Rafas wins are sorta silly" =====> I am not sure if you trolling or plain ignorant of the stress gravel creates on your body! Unlike hard court, you're FORCED to play strategic and can't just "Ace blast" your way to the finals! You're constantly switching rhythm, constantly trying to bait the opponent to the net, and constantly keeping the ball low so your opponent gets so much stress in his lower back. Also getting your opponent off balance is key on gravel.
@@ABC-ABC1234 Trolling ? Ignorant ? WTF ? There are a total of two tournaments with a surface like Roland Garros. That makes Rafa's run silly. And your assertion that one must play some arguous style to play on clay is completely destroyed by the fact that every retirement community has clay since it's easier on the body. You are allowed to go to the net on clay. Both Becker and Federer were great clay court players. Gravel ? Where are you playing bro ? Stop trolling people and being ignorant.
@@lexluthor9779 What 2 tournaments are you talking about? Let's start there. If Clay was so easy we wouldn't have the same person winning it every damn year. It's so satisfying to see those serve robots suddenly crash and burn as soon as the clay season starts...
Grass is a specialty surface, Clay is a surface many pros make their living on and forgo bigger events on other surfaces. As far as outdoor events go clay is only a few shy of hardcourt, hardcourt is played indoors so the the stadiums can be changed from one sport to the next. Indoor hard is more of a specialty that doesn’t have a major than clay. Grass has been marginalized which I do not see as a good thing.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Martina Navratilova recently spoke out about this. She said when the Australian Open changed surfaces from grass they consulted the players about which surface they wanted - she said the players didn't want Rebound Ace but the Australian Open ignored them. She also said the Rebound Ace Surface had actually been a factor in her stopping playing the Australian open after 1989. She described Rebound Ace as "awful" and talked about how she burnt her knee once when bending down for a low volley, because the surface held so much heat.
The consistency of your content is really impressive. I love finding a channel that I can trust to always be worth the time and attention. I learn something new on every video. Keep up the great work!
Great topic! Very, very interesting what with all the talk this year on the quicker pace of the courts. 👍
Love how neat and informative these videos are. Great work. Just keep going and the subs will come 👍🏽
Those video essays are just amazing!
yall need more subscribers
Very interesting content. It's a shame you don't have more subscribers considering you're really trying.
Great video!
yeah, once plexicushion was installed, saw tons of players sliding more often.
Great Tennis Tips!
-Jade Sawyer
It would have been cool if the Aussie Open was the only Grand Slam to use the three main surfaces on a three-year rotation. To me, it's too similar to the U.S. Open.
Not a surprise that Federer won on fast Aussie courts in 2017 and 2018.
When Djokovic was injured.... Federer couldn't beat Djokovic at at slam since Federer was only 30. he literally had zero impact on stopping him winning any slam since then. on the fast hardcourts of the ATP Finals same story - lost 3 finals out of 3 to Djokovic, just like Wimbledon.
Djokovic sends his regards.
Blue playing surfaces are awful - save that colour for pools. Green was much more easier on the eyes.
Fact of the matter is blue playing surfaces are really good in contrast with those bright yellow balls.
The most attractive ones are the color schemes at Indian Wells or Miami, the color wasn't the issue it's the speed of the courts that dramatically changed the outcome for top players. Federer was nearly unbeatable on the fast green Australian Open courts, as soon as they significantly slowed the court Djokovic, Nadal started winning there. (Mostly Djokovic)
@@janjan55555 I'll take your point about Indian Wells... blue on green would be an improvement. That said, I don't think people have a such a problem with Wimbledon - and I don't think people switch off in the second week when it's way worse. It's not like TV is the same as it was when I started watching tennis in the mid 80s!
@@har234908234 I must admit the tennis court in AO pre 2008 was difficult for a live viewer to watch, just being really really honest here! The blue was totally different, sadly they f'ed up AUSTRALIAN OPEN as soon as they changed the speed of the court. They should have never touched it.
@@janjan55555 they didn't change the US Open and Federer wasn't able to win there since many years ago but was able to win in Australia when Djokovic was injured.. Djokovic just surpassed him. The Australian Open has been the fastest hardcourt slam surface all along. on the fast hardcourts of the ATP Finals same story - lost 3 finals out of 3 to Djokovic, just like Wimbledon.
@@huzcer Did you read what I typed... I said they changed the surface type in Australia instead of the typical rebound ace court to the much heavier plexicushion.
Why dont they change the Aussie Open to clay court?!?
Bc they'll just dye it blue
@@DarkAngelEU that will be good
I liked the rebound ace, the tennis was different to the US Open. Other than Edberg, most attacking players like Sampras and Becker were prepared to play longer rallies in addition to short points. Clay court players also did well. But if the players complained then understandable. Personally I find tennis played on bland plexicushion not very interesting at all.
Why fast courts dont appeal to broadcasters ?
Not enough long points (drama).
@@BaselineTennis thats rare, i suppose that an agressive style of play is more enjoyable than an infinite baseline play that wait for unforced.
@@ignaciolopez-fu4mo we believe the different styles will benefit tennis. We’d prefer more court surfaces and different court speeds.
@@BaselineTennis Its an interesting juxtaposition. They don't want short points, they want long rallies instead even if neither player goes for winners. Meanwhile they don't want matches too long either for scheduling reasons.
I don't think you really answered the question though. They wanted to get "ahead of the curve" by switching to hard courts - But why? What about hard courts made this better for players? And why does the same not apply to wimbledon?
$$$$$. That's the answer. They realized that the USTA made most of its money off of advertising for one tournament and realized they had to take it out of the country club. Wimbledon is just tradition and little else. Roland Garros too. The US Open and the AO went for the big money., but also a level playing field. Depending on how you look at it, this leveling either makes Fed at sw19 & Rafa in Paris greater, or kind of just a spectacle of specialization. If there are only literally a couple of tournaments with the surface of the French Open than it cannot be a major anymore IMO, same with Wimby. Rafa's wins are sorta silly, they're as meaningful as all of Fed's indoor wins. US Open & AO have showed that Nole is probably the best.
@@lexluthor9779 "Rafas wins are sorta silly"
=====> I am not sure if you trolling or plain ignorant of the stress gravel creates on your body! Unlike hard court, you're FORCED to play strategic and can't just "Ace blast" your way to the finals! You're constantly switching rhythm, constantly trying to bait the opponent to the net, and constantly keeping the ball low so your opponent gets so much stress in his lower back. Also getting your opponent off balance is key on gravel.
@@ABC-ABC1234 Trolling ? Ignorant ? WTF ? There are a total of two tournaments with a surface like Roland Garros. That makes Rafa's run silly. And your assertion that one must play some arguous style to play on clay is completely destroyed by the fact that every retirement community has clay since it's easier on the body. You are allowed to go to the net on clay. Both Becker and Federer were great clay court players. Gravel ? Where are you playing bro ? Stop trolling people and being ignorant.
@@lexluthor9779 What 2 tournaments are you talking about? Let's start there. If Clay was so easy we wouldn't have the same person winning it every damn year. It's so satisfying to see those serve robots suddenly crash and burn as soon as the clay season starts...
Grass is a specialty surface, Clay is a surface many pros make their living on and forgo bigger events on other surfaces. As far as outdoor events go clay is only a few shy of hardcourt, hardcourt is played indoors so the the stadiums can be changed from one sport to the next. Indoor hard is more of a specialty that doesn’t have a major than clay. Grass has been marginalized which I do not see as a good thing.
Awesome
No hard court should be faster than grass end of
To be fair Wimbledon also deliberately slowed down their grass courts at some point.
Volume is too low