Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I got a random question for you, why when I look at google street view do most tennis courts in Australia not have wind nets. And why does the nets go all the way to the ground?
Growing up in the 80's there were plenty of wind nets, they seem to be a thing of the past now.
Same too with nets going all the way to the ground, these are only a recent phenomenon, and related to getting rid of wind up nets.
Back in the day, it was not unusual to play Saturday comp in a backyard tennis court, often clay court - which are quite rare now.
There were many hard courts back then too, mainly local government (Council) run.
You still see some farm/ rural properties that have such courts, but many are dilapidated and disused.
My local courts - East Maitland and Rutherford, are now all the artificial grass surface, with a only a couple of hard courts now left.
As stated, most courts now are council owned and they want low maintenance and low cost courts, ie the artificial grass courts meet this criteria - and probably don't want the risk of injuries and being sued.
Australia still produce good quality tennis players though, Sam Stosur won the Women's US Open a couple of years ago, and has been Runner Up at the French Open as well. Bernard Tomic made it to the 4th Round of Wimbledon this year, and is our great hope in the Men's game, provided he can stay focussed and keep his head in the right place.
Never player on artificial grass, how does it play? Faster than hard court? Must also be easier on joints.
Here in north America all you see is hard courts with wind nets and full nets.
Artificial grass is a strange beast.
It's been so long now since playing on hard court or clay, that it has become increasingly harder to compare.
The surface plays relatively fast, rewards good serving, but also rewards good drop shots as well.
Since I am now in my 40's, I prefer playing doubles to singles now anyway.
Probably iit is easier on joints, but you can still slip over when the sand is light and/or you don't have good footwear.
Not sure why they are so popular, when no major tournaments are played on it.
Maybe carpet is similar?
Coaches like Connors, and fellow 8 Grand Slam winner Ivan Lendl, do not need the money.
That's not saying that many other coaches, who may have been journeyman type players themselves, do need it and it is their primary career.
Guys like Djokovic's coach for instance, or even Sampras's former coach Gullikson (Tim or Tom?), and Australia's Darren Cahill have carved out their primary careers as coaches.
The point is that they (Connors and Lendl) see it as a challenge for themselves and their player, and can pass on their advice having been there at the highest level.
Connors came from a ""Golden Era" of tennis, with genuinely fierce rivals in the form of Borg, Vilas, McEnroe and Lendl et al, and still held his own and then some. He has plenty to offer in the mental side of the game.
I am not asking if they NEED the money or not, I am asking how much and how they get compensated as coaches.
I am not asking if they NEED the money or not, I am asking how much and how they get compensated as coaches.
I don't know to be honest, but probably 10 percenters like horse trainers and jockeys, rather than 5 percenters of player managers.
There would be some sort of incentives too, depends on what is in the contract.
Players can fire their coach at any time as well, or so it seems, so it is not a stable job.
How will it be a MAJOR upset if Ferrer is there instead of Tsonga?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timing2012
Because US Open is hard court, not clay court. Ferrer is good at clay, Tsonga is good at hard surface. Which part of different court don't you understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72
At this point I would pick Djokovic to win in New York, just because he's always done very well there (3 straight finals and 4 overall, 6 straight semifinals), even if he's only won the U.S. Open once.
IMO, Nadal should be a strong third-favorite at the U.S. Open not far behind Djokovic and Murray. Nadal did do very well in the pre-clay court season hard court events he played in this year. I'd also rank del Potro ahead of Federer in terms of odds of winning in New York after Delpo's very strong showing at Wimbledon. (Of course, I also said Tsonga was a dark horse at Wimbledon after his surprisingly strong showing at Roland Garros and where did that get him?)
The hard court Slams, especially the U.S. Open, generally are the most wide-open IMO because all the top players (not only the Big Four but also the Second Four and many of the other players in the top 20 below the top 8) are good hard court players. Del Potro has won the U.S. Open, and both Ferrer and Berdych have been semifinalists there. (Tsonga has never advanced past the quarterfinals in NYC, the only Slam in which he has not reached the semifinals at least once, but I definitely think he has the ability to do so.)
I think this why some people think your logic at giving Tsonga better odds than Ferrer at the U.S. Open is a little suspect, Timing2012.
Incidentally, Ferrer has actually been a semifinalist at Flushing Meadows twice.
Coaches like Connors, and fellow 8 Grand Slam winner Ivan Lendl, do not need the money.
That's not saying that many other coaches, who may have been journeyman type players themselves, do need it and it is their primary career.
Guys like Djokovic's coach for instance, or even Sampras's former coach Gullikson (Tim or Tom?), and Australia's Darren Cahill have carved out their primary careers as coaches.
The point is that they (Connors and Lendl) see it as a challenge for themselves and their player, and can pass on their advice having been there at the highest level.
Connors came from a ""Golden Era" of tennis, with genuinely fierce rivals in the form of Borg, Vilas, McEnroe and Lendl et al, and still held his own and then some. He has plenty to offer in the mental side of the game.
I think Andy Roddick did up his game a bit when Connors was his coach, but unfortunately for Roddick, it still wasn't enough. (IIRC, Connors was Roddick's coach when Roddick lost that classic final to Federer at Wimbledon in 2009; I think that's as close as Roddick ever came to beating Federer at a Slam during Federer's period of dominance.)
I think Andy Roddick did up his game a bit when Connors was his coach, but unfortunately for Roddick, it still wasn't enough. (IIRC, Connors was Roddick's coach when Roddick lost that classic final to Federer at Wimbledon in 2009; I think that's as close as Roddick ever came to beating Federer at a Slam during Federer's period of dominance.)
Roddick had a match point put-away overhead and he missed it. Can't get any closer to that.
I don't quite remember, but I guess if he made that overhead he would of had match point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
