First yeah!!!!

To answer the question, not very stringent. Sometimes I will say to my opponent take 2 because sometimes you really do not see where the ball landed. Sometimes if the ball is on the baseline or the sidelines, I just give them the point. I find that at my club, whenever I do a truly bad serve (which is very likely), like hit it into the net or it bounces on the ground before going into the net, then I will usually get 2 serves by my opponent. I have really bad arthritis and I have to be bandaged from head to foot, so my opponents usually take pity on me, so in fairness, if I do not see where the ball landed I will give up the point.

You're referencing the doubles by-country ranking list whereas in singles, Kaia Kanepi is the highest-ranked Estonian: http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/singles_country.asp?code=EST&country=Estonia

If question:
I'd prefer to just correct my opponent's call if I can. It is too much work to
1) hit the ball
2) track it to see where it landed
3) remember that I owed him a call and return the favour
4) Over turning the call after ruling it out will only lead to awkwardness and probably offend your opponent. See Connors incident in this link http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3325571

Pete, absolutely on classic apparel, though all black once in a while is fun. But those safari pants Roger was wearing at AO have got to go and they even seemed to restrict him.

This Video is just too painful for me to watch.

As far as the Wimbledon surface playing slow, and heavy, people were saying, J-Mac for one, that it was behaving more like clay than hard, because so much of the grass is worn away by the second week.

Roger did not have match points in Shangai against nalbandian but was 2 points away from victory when serving for the match at 6/5 30/0.

Justice is justice, no revenge even if your opponent is a cheater. As the proverb says "nobleza obliga" ... If a ball is out it is out and vice versa when it is in.

I agree that Ferrer is the hero of the week like Serena in the WTA. Kolya could have been the hero but once again he was afraid of beating TMF.

Syd: it's Ed McGrogan writing, not Pete.

I remember those last few matches at Monte Carlo 2005 very well, especially as it was Rafa's first Masters Series title. After his win over Federer in the final set tiebreak of the QF, Gasquet went on to play Rafa in the semifinal, took the first set with some very aggressive play, and had numerous chances against him before finally going down in the third set with one leg cramping up. Rafa looked very nervous that day - failed to serve out a set three times, I think.

Rafa also suffered a terrible loss of concentration in the third set of the final against Coria, and got bagelled before eventually winning the fourth.

Gasquet was the other highlight of the tournament, however. And the crowd just loved him.

Gasquet´s final backhad winner in that match is one of the best shots I´ve ever seen, it is an instant classic. Hope Montecarlo inspires him to play his best tennis and forgets about all the criticism he received for his Davis Cup participation. There is always a chance to redeem yourself, it would be interesting if he uses it in Roland Garros.

Federer did not have a match point in that match against Nalbandian in the Final of the '05 YEC. He was serving at 30-0 6-5 in the 5th but got broken and eventually beaten 7-3 in a the tibreaker.

"As the speed of grass courts has slowed in recent years, the surface has lost some of its identity. Many players seem to agree with Tim Henman’s assessment that grass is “increasingly slow, heavy and high bouncing.” That sounds like a slow hard court to me. It also means that all of the surfaces, aside from clay, play similarly. ... Clay is a unique surface in today's game ..."

Couldn't disagree more.

If I substituted the word clay for grass in front of the phrase "increasingly slow, heavy and high bouncing," I'd think you'd be talking about a clay court ... and for good reason.

I think the differences between all surfaces in tennis, even with clay, have been virtually eliminated in the current game. Really, there's not a huge difference in the way the game is played on medium paced hard courts and clay. Same amounts of bashing from the baseline of which I don't have a real problem, but the strategy isn't a whole lot different. That said, I'd say the footing is more slippery, but that's about it.

Nice post overall, though.

I'm fairly confident when I make a call. For better or worse.

If I see my serve is definitely long and my opponent doesn't call it, I just assume they didn't see it well enough, aren't confident enough to make the call, or maybe my vision really sucks.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

I'm so very happy to see Serena winning again. It takes me back.

Now I just hope she can keep it up....

Ed McGrogan my sincere apologies! I am always doing this. I think it's Pete's visage staring down at me as I write. sorry.

Rosangel: Thank you.

I don't know if watching Roger losing on clay is exactly the video I needed to see right now, ack! Mirka definitly learned to conceal her nerves better over the years.

I so wouldn't mind seeing Richard making a decent run here, I like the kid, make me want to give him a hug.

Hernandez, 30, turned pro in 1998, and plays almost exclusively on clay. [ten years with only one victory on a hard court]

That sentence jumps out as the main reason I feel that clay court tennis is such a farce. While we hear moans that there are too few clay tournaments, it appears there are enough to sustain someone who literally cannot win anywhere else.

It is true that the players and rackets have become so strong that clay court tennis is bearable. I just watched Agassi's 1999 FO win and remembered that I had not watched the French until Federer's quest for all the majors made it intriguing. I did not see any of Sampras' efforts there and only a bit of the Agassi finals in the early 1990's. Until the last few years, clay court tennis was unwatchable especially women's matches.

When you watch players hit glorious shot after penetrating shot and the point remains at neutral many exchanges into the point, you begin to wonder why you are watching. The ball is simply slowed down too much to reveal problems in strokes, footing is difficult and the bounces are erratic. Ironically, I can now onlyh play on clay due to knee problems.

And, one more thing, checking the mark can be misleading. Yes, I use marks myself on clay for most points, but there are many times when people cannot agree on which is the mark for that point. Furthermore, it is possible for a ball to slide off the tape and leave a mark outside the line. Does not matter that much for us club players, but the majors and masters series need Hawk Eye on clay as well. I think the broadcasts have shown that the marks are not always correct indicators.

One could make much the same argument against the vagaries of grass courts the way they used to be. Now,
a) there are only a handful of grass tournaments and
b) the grass has changed as indicated above and many times.

I would be happy if the clay courts were speeded up which they can be almost everywhere but Hamburg. I admit there are some interesting points in most clay matches, but I feel that tennis is at its best when penetrating shots provide that player with some advantage. This is too often not the case on clay.

By the way, I have not seen anyone mention the ranking points that have gone away for MC a week before that tourney is played this year. It appears to not matter that much at the top, but it could have made a difference for one week only if Roger, Rafael, and Novak were closer in points. Things will be okay again after this week except that Rafael will lose his Barcelona points for a week before that tourney. Roger won 175 points and lost points and Rafael did not play and lost points (almost the 500 from MC last year, but not quite so I don't see the exact equation).

aww, Baby Fed's coming out party...

Watching Roger lose on clay is par for the course right now...he did say he's looking at the big picture...then again he also said he's not looking for QFs anymore but Fs and winning tourneys...

So what exactly does that mean, he was satisfied with his showing in IW & Miami???

All I want is a date with Fat again Dave, and of course hopefully the fat one and him both play well, should be some cracking tennis...onwards to his 2r match...

On the if question: you always play to The Code.

You call your own side of the court fairly, which means giving the opponent the benefit of the doubt at all times.

If you clearly and unambiguously see your own ball out on your opponent's side of the court, you can tell him/her you thought your ball was out. Your opponent is likely to be grateful. But you shouldn't repeatedly call your opponent's lines, even in their favor.

Close calls are benefit of the doubt, but anything that's clearly out is out.

Service calls are almost impossible to make from the server's side of the court, but you get lots of arguments about "aces" on the T. The combination of distance and server angle may make a ball that clearly landed out look in.

So long as both players are honest, it usually goes pretty well. I confess that I do look favorably on an opponent who makes a call which looks close in my favor, and I'm much more likely to be absolutely scrupulous about the margin for "benefit of the doubt."

Robin (ff) -- the odd change in ranking points was discussed in the other Monday thread.

Maedel,

Thanks. I missed that thread.

Malisse - Safin will be interesting to watch, who is more likely to loose his head first? Probably Malisse because clay is not his fav. surface ....

Really good stuff, Ed. Completely agree on clay-court and the mental investment in a battle that tests wills, strength, and physical abilities, and I too found the back stories in Houston to be refreshing.

Not sure if anyone saw this, but there was an interesting comment from Jimmy Arias in the latest issue of Tennis magazine (from the article on his forehand). He said that while the athletes are better today, he said there is less strategy employed. I believe he attributed this to the homogenization of the surfaces.

I'm not a big fan of making the surfaces more similar in speed than they used to be. I can understand wanting to slow down Wimbledon somewhat after the way things were during the 1990s. But when I watch Wimbledon nowadays, it doesn't really feel like I'm watching a grasscourt tournament.

Sam,

That was exactly the point I was making earlier.

Thank you.

In regards to the WTA, I'm really sick of people ignoring Justine. I don't see her name mentioned above and yet she has been the world's #1 for 114 weeks, longer than any current player. And please when has Sharapova ever been the Queen of the WTA. It has always been Justine with her consistent results over the last 2 years. You can't just look at results for just 2-3 months. Clearly Justine has been the world's best for longer than both Serena and Sharapova.

robin wrote : "While we hear moans that there are too few clay tournaments, it appears there are enough to sustain someone who literally cannot win anywhere else."

sorry to disagree, but how many wins has roddick on clay in regular tournaments, out of DC ? a few more than poor hernadez, i guess... i can go and check, but like someone labelled him yestuerday is cloddick ! no ofense ;)
if we balance points between clay ond hard, many players would lose plenty of their ranking due to their reccord on one specific surface, rafa would lose plenty but hc players like blake would lose even more.

i don't think than hitting master serves to get a weak return and then get a clean killer shot proves you have more skills than clay courters... they are different, and it's fine and the very best clay courters can adapt much better on hc than hard courters do on clay, fed being the ultimate versatile player.

maybe you won't like my comparision but as far as i'm concerned hard is for fast food tennis, clay is for tennis gourmets like french ;) and grass being caviar like ;) it's a bit exagerated, but from a euro viewer it makes a lot of sense.
.
i agree with ed, playing clay, is like playing chess, you need to think 3, 5 or 10 shots ahead, even before starting the serve... some rallies last more than 20 shots, and you just cannot play the same kind of shots everytime, you need the other guy keep guessing all the time if the shot is going to go more wide, with less spin, with more pace, etc

on hard, it goes too damned fast to keep on thinking what to do in a rally... it's a win or die minut shot, sometimes i feel like players hit the shots with their minds in blank appart put the ball in...

on clay you cannot afford not to think about strategy, winning sequences, player weaknesses... santoro is the name coming to my mind for that purpose.

we are so lucky to get so many different kinds of surfaces to see how players do on them... even clay has many differences, MC, rome and RG are quite fast, hamburg is slower. so in the end if the clay season is not your cup of tea, well it doesn't last that long... tks to mr EdV this year.

In my opinion, clay and grass are good if you play on them (low impact; easier on the knees and cause fewer injuries) but not so much if you're a spectator. I remember Wimbledon before the grass and balls were changed and I hated the S&V matches. I appreciate Sampras' achievments today, but growing up I fervently prayed for him to lose to Agassi because his serve-heavy game was unappealing (and so was his personality).

On the other extreme Roland Garros matches can be really boring when neither player on court wants to take the initiative to end the point, choosing instead to let the other make a mistake. Sure, there are exciting rallies and points to be had anytime world-class players meet regardless of the surface, but as far as surfaces go, I think hardcourts are the best.

A medium-fast hardcourt allows for a mix of both styles. It rewards baseline grinding as well as power and aggression. There is a predictability to how the surface behaves and there are no gotchas like a ball skidding of the tape or a weird bounce. On clay the ball can jump too high and on grass the ball can stay too low. Hard courts are visually more appealing as well - as such they can be colored so the ball stands out.

Quadruple Bagel: Great minds think alike. ;-) I hadn't even read your post when I wrote mine.

Ed - I really enjoyed your piece this week
Particularly enjoyed the clip of the Gasquet /Fed match
how good to see him look happy on a court and like he was having fun
That has not been to evident in Gasquet's game of late
I hope he can find that joy again - maybe a good win or two would help

as for the if question - I would never take a make up call - I have been known to question my opponent if I disagreed - and I will call for linespeople if the questionable calls become the norm - but I always try to make my calls based on what I see. I do not want to win , if I have to cheat to do it.

Mariej,

FYI Roddick has won the Houston red clay tournament at least twice beating Grosjean in one final. He beat Michael Chang at Roland Garros in his first FO although he has stumbled quite a bit lately. He has won a couple of key DC matches on clay within the past year including over Berdych and against Austria this year. Even Sampras won three points against Russia on clay in 1995 DC and the Italian open once. So, the top players can play on all surfaces as you see with Nadal and Ferrer, and, of course, Federer and Djokovic. And Corretja beat Sampras in DC on grass in Houston. And Karlovic won Houston on clay last year. Go figure.

BAck in the day, there were grass court specialists who had nothing but a serve, some volley, and a chip return of serve. Many of the Spaniards used to boycott Wimbledon along with some other notables early in their careers such as Agassi and Lendl.

Now almost all the players have all court games in part due to training, partly to rackets, partly due to courts and balls. Many are able to play clay court tennis on grass and hard court tennis on clay (some courts).

As for tennis on clay being chess that may be an interesting analogy, but tennis is not chess by any means. At most levels, someone can win on clay with the most mindless game if he or she is fast and consistent and patient. If you like the slow unfolding of an athletic contest, you must consider golf a feast. Plenty of time to savor the drama as someone looks a putt from 18 angles. The same argument used to be made about baseball but it is losing favor in the US over basketball and US football--like watching paint dry even though it was my first love and is played by some of the best athletes in the world. Same is true of soccer. I often see a series of absolutely astounding moves made as the ball moves down field only to be negated by some slight imperfection. It is simply too hard to score in soccer (futbol) and the same is true on slow clay.

I think if you look at the records (where are you, Sam?) from the start of Open tennis to let's say 2000, you will see more champions from the now clay slams winning other slams and tournaments than the FO winners. There really used to be clay court specialists until the outstanding Spanish development programs starting producing all court players.

Plus as has been said several times today, the ball is harder to follow on clay courts on television. I simply think that the best tennis is played where the vagaries of the court are not such factors (grass and clay). Both require considerable upkeep to remain half way playable. The Har-tru at my club has great days and horrible days depending on weather and grooming. I still am amazed that no one has developed some composite court materials that mimic grass and clay at their best. One of the growing problems here for clay is that we are in drought conditions and restricted water usage means almost unplayable clay courts. As far as I can tell, water shortages are getting worse world wide.

thank you for your honest answer robin, but american clay has nothing to do with european clay, can we agree on that ? and i said i put DC aside for the particular specifics of that competition... but at RG, roddick reccord is really bad, and in the long term view of a carreer, minor clay trophys won't weight the same, roddick is still due to get to the 2nd week of RG...

the analogy with chess is that you need to think your moves before you make them... i'm not enough interrested in golf to compare it with it. they cut me the miami final for a kind of tier 2 golf tourney and all that you see is people hitting a shot for 1mn and then they walk slowly to their mini cars to move on and walk again slowly to get to the next hole... arrrggghhh... simply unbearable to me, if they could just sum up all the shots in one sequence it could be more fun... but it's like driving behind someone driving too slow because it's sunday morning and it's cool to drive in the fast lane !!!

as for wimby, spaniards used also to boycott because they were denyed their ranking position as well... of course for many years the grass season was bank holidays for many players, including guga, it's nice to see some changes... i liked the edberg-becker back to back finals... sampras left me cold, i allways prefered rafter, and even goran at times, at least i'm warming to fed more than before thanks to rafa ;)

*FYI Roddick has won the Houston red clay tournament at least twice beating Grosjean in one final*
i thought this is the first year houston is played on red clay? i seem to remember that it was always the US green clay there in the past years...
and i´m really not sure if you a point is proven by comparing andy roddick´s clay accomplishments to hernandeze´s hc results anyway.
the questions is more like - are players out there with similar careers like hernandez but who make all their careers and all their year round results on hc only and have won 1 match or so in their careers on clay?
it wouldn´t surprise me.

the comparison of golf and clay tennis isn´t very apt either imo.
in the few minutes of my life in which i have seen golf on tv i have seen lots of old/fat (compared to other sports) men in this sport. *athletic* was really the last word which came to my mind.

and what is your point about football(soccer), Robin? it is the sport with the most fans worldwide and isn´t losing favour anywhere as far as i know. if people in the US don´t like it cuz they prefer higher scoring games, well, it is their loss... (but i always read that football(soccer) is becoming bigger n bigger recently in the US? is that false?)

Football ( soccer) is definitely gaining in popularity here in the US , Bissy .
Youth leagues are all over the place - and as these kids learn more about the game , they are taking more of an interest in the game at the professional and world cup level.

as for athletic golfers - well the pros these days are looking more fit than they used to - but I am not so sure that it is the golf that is getting them in that shape.

"L...acking the usual firepower of the Williams sisters and Lindsay Davenport (as well as quarterfinal hero Ashley Harkleroad), the U.S. Fed Cup team will be comprised of Madison Brengle, Liezel Huber, Vania King, and Ahsha Rolle. They travel to Moscow next week to face Russia in the semifinals."

How about a big Thank You to the girls who DO show up to play for their country? I wish them well...

Bissy, when JJ was talking about soccer at my parents' house and asked about how soccer can be so popular among kids, but then doesn't seem to translate into being fans in adulthood, my dad told him it's because they grow up and move on to better things. :-) (My dad is not a soccer fan). I actually think my age group and younger are the Americans who really "grew up" with soccer and the interest in soccer in terms of being a fan has increased. Although, I truly think the quality of play in the U.S. professionally needs to increase for a real fandom to start here.

I will make a clay tennis/soccer comparison...to me both of these sports played at the highest levels of competition reveal athleticism at its finest...skills are put on display, physical, mental, emotional, etc. I think soccer and clay court tennis played at lower levels of competition are painful to watch...the lack of skill/talent is glaringly exposed for everyone to view, and contests can just drag on with seemingly no point.

Ed,
In retrospect, that match could have been the worst thing for Richard at that time. Even though it was his biggest win at the moment, expectations for him went up quickly. Since that match, he has not climbed the rankings like the French expected him to do.

catch you tomorrow robin et all to discuss some more clay skills ;)

"Clay court tennis may not be the most attractive mode of the sport." ?? Au contraire, I think it is the most aesthetic.

>In my opinion, clay and grass are good if you play on them (low impact; easier on the knees and cause fewer injuries) but not so much if you're a spectator.

In my opinion those are the best surfaces for spectators. I could do without hardcourts entirely, in terms of watching the sport.

Ed: Thanks for posting that Gasquet-Federer clip. At the time, I hadn't heard about Gasquet and was pissed that he beat Fed. Then I saw that backhand on match point and have been a fan ever since.

"Plus as has been said several times today, the ball is harder to follow on clay courts on television"

Robin: Another reason to have more tennis in HD. ESPN showed some of last year's FO in HD, and the ball never looked so clear on a clay court.

Robin: A few quick stats that I have handy. Over the past 30 years, the following FO winners did not win or at least reach the final of another Slam - Muster, Gaudio, Costa, Gomez, Noah. During the same period, all of the Wimbledon winners aside from Krajicek reached another Slam final (Stich got to the USO and FO finals, Ivanisevic reached 3 other Wimbledon finals). For the USO during the same period, all of the winners at least reached another Slam final (Roddick is the only one who did not win more than one Slam).

In terms of being least interesting to watch, these are at the top in my book:
1) Long, unimaginative rallies
2) Servefests (not serve AND volley)
For me, #1 is worse because it's boring and takes a long time. At least #2 is over quickly.

I love watching attacking players playing well on clay - Edberg, Stich, Rafter stand out to me in that regard.

Bismarck, I'm pretty sure that the Westside Tennis Center in Houston had red clay courts as well. I remember reading somewhere that they brought in clay from Paris in order to simulate the Roland Garros surface as much as possible.

Sorry to be late to the party...

Ed, nice post, but I cannot understand for the life of me why an intelligent, thoughtful person such as you would be so enamored of Richard Gasquet. Please, someone give this kid a brain and some guts. Okay, so he had a great win over Fed in the 2005 Monte Carlo Masters. I'm just not convinced he's got the inner goods to put it all together for any sognificant strecth of time.

Robin, as usual you share some great insights. This one -- "And, one more thing, checking the mark can be misleading. ... Furthermore, it is possible for a ball to slide off the tape and leave a mark outside the line. Does not matter that much for us club players, but the majors and masters series need Hawk Eye on clay as well. I think the broadcasts have shown that the marks are not always correct indicators." -- hit home with me. I've actually read some of what Hawk-Eye's inventor has said about the art and science of calling lines, and having played this game for as long as I have (competitively and otherwise), I can say unequivocally that a mark is not always a mark is not always a mark, on clay or composition. It is possible, as you posit, for a ball to touch/nick the edge of a line yet leave a mark only outside that line. Even barring the possibility that the line may be raised a centimeter above the surface, it takes a certain amount of pressure for a ball to leave a mark on the court. This is due to the compression of the ball and the friction the two surfaces make as they come into contact with force. It is very possible, even probably, that some part of the ball will first make contact with the court some small distance before any significant compresso=ion or friction occurs, thereby leaving no discernible evidence of its touching. In a purely philosophical vein, it makes making accurate line calls an exercise in folly. That said, we do the best we can, and on the soft surfaces of red clay and composition/Har-Tru, we often go to the mark to make pur case. Still, a very good linesperson can more often than not make a good call. And the Chair Umpore has no business making 99.9% of calls, IMO.

thanks beth and AmyLu for the insights into the american soul re "soccer". ;)

Jenni,
*I'm pretty sure that the Westside Tennis Center in Houston had red clay courts as well*
was that the site where the tourney was played in the past years? if so i still think they played on green clay cause i just remembered a final between haas and roddick in houston a few years ago and i would be very off if it wasn´t on green clay.
made a quick google search and this sentence was written by the bbc in 2002:
*Americans Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick will look to build on their recent good form on the green clay of Houston.*
i admit i didn´t watch houston every year in the past but i never saw any matches on red clay there before this year.

Sam, as always I enjoy your comments. And you always come up with some great data, like the FO winners who never reached another Slam final. Very interesting. Maybe we could come up with a new phrasae for it; something like "he pulled a mooster" (in honor of Thomas Muster, of course.

I also agree 100% with your notion of the two most insipid kinds of matches and players. I, too, loved seeing Edberg, Stich and Rafter make their sales pitches on the red clay, even knowing that it was an improbable sell. Their self-belief (or was it a lack of any alternative?) knocked my socks off.

Bismarck,

Yes, it was held at Westside Tennis and Fitness Center until this year. I found an article detailing Westside's switch from Red to Green Har-Tru in April of 2007. Maybe they were green before they went to red (and subsequently back to green)? I am going to keep looking.

Robin: Can't say much positive about Roddick on red clay, but Sampras had some decent results on that surface during the first half of his career - the 1995 Davis Cup, as you mentioned, 1996 FO SF, 1992-1994 FO QF (lost to Agassi, Bruguera, Courier), 1994 Rome. After 1996 he fared poorly at the FO.

Sam, I see you're back lobbying for Hi-Def TV for tennis matches. Keep on truckin' baby! I'm in your corner. That said, I wish they'd simply go to a dark ball (black or eggplant would do). I'm actually NOT kidding.....

I seem to recall that Roddick won the U.S. Clay Court Championship a couple or three times, when it was held in Indianapolis and perhaps somewhere in Florida. Sam, I'm counting on you to correct me, as I know only you can. LOL!!!

Syd: No problem - I'm flattered you even confused Pete and I in the first place.

"Clay makes the ball harder to see" comments: Completely agree. Today's Tennis Channel telecast from Monte Carlo (especially when the sun was at full force) was painful to watch at times.

Slice-n-Dice: I think the up-and-down nature of Gasquet is one of the reasons I like to follow him. I'm a Federer fan too, but for the most part, I know what I'm going to get when I watch him. Not so much with Richard.

His matches are also some of the most captivating that I've seen since I've really starting following tennis seriously:

- Monte Carlo '05 vs. Federer
- US Open '05 vs. Galimberti (because I had a front row seat behind the baseline)
- US Open '06 vs. Hewitt (five-setter, the cramps at the end/miracle shots)
- Wimbledon '07 vs. Roddick (stunning turnaround)

I realize that he fits the "microwave" description, which Steve T. called him on an ESPN post (i.e. he can heat up in an instant). And yes, he probably won't be able sustain the level of play thats required to win on a very consistent basis. I just think it's interesting to watch unfold.

*Plus as has been said several times today, the ball is harder to follow on clay courts on television.*

Can we agree that this argument is a little silly? Not being able to see the ball today, while extremely vexing, is a problem that the video technicians should be able to deal with. It's certainly not a reason to do away with clay tournaments.

Bismarck: I agree that Americans tend to like high-scoring events. I think it's linked to the way this product-oriented culture values results: the more the better, the quicker the better.

It takes a different mindset to appreciate a soccer match--or a tennis match on clay, where plays and points are carefully constructed. The joy is in the process--seeing superb athletes work their craft.

AmyLu, I understand your point about the tedium of watching beginners or amateurs. But there's no shortcut to excellence, as far as I know.

Slice-n-Dice: Like my favorite player, I'm stubborn. ;-)

yes, that seems possible that they switched a couple of times.
apparently then i only paid attention/got coverage in the "green" years, jejeje.

Ed - someday I hope we can see a Gasquet match together
I am not ready to discount him just yet, either
When he is on , it is simply terrific stuff
doesn't hurt that he is cute - and a very sweet kid on top of it ,

Oh, Maedel, I don't think I phrased my point properly -- I meant more along the lines of watching the EPL as compared to MLS. EPL is of wonderful quality, and MLS is like its watered-down cousin that I find incredibly tedious. Similarly watching Rafa on clay as compared to Alberto Martin. Does that make more sense? I would never mean to disparage or complain about beginners/amateurs in anything.

Ed: Interesting thoughts regarding Gasquet, and I agree.

" Their self-belief (or was it a lack of any alternative?) knocked my socks off."

Slice-n-Dice: In the case of Edberg and Rafter, I don't think they had much choice. Stich had a better backcourt game, especially in 1996 when Sven Groenveld (sp?) cleaned up his forehand. Always loved Stich's fluid serve and backhand.

"Ed - someday I hope we can see a Gasquet match together "

Beth: What am I, chopped liver? ;-)

I like how tennis is almost a different game on clay. My personal preference is fast courts, because I feel they require more finesse and timing from the players to hit powerful and accurate shots, and I also like the fast pace, but the clay season is refreshing because of the difference, it nicely reveals players weaknesses on certain areas of the game, such as fitnesse and consistency. lol(here I am again posting away like I know anything about tennis anymore)

Robin, I admire your reasoning on Richard, and can certainly see why you like him. Great strokes, flashy-brilliant at times, never know what to expect, etc. I guess I just like a guy with a little more fight/tenacity in him. I'll see your points and raise you one!!!

Sam, stubborn as a mule. Or a Federer, I suppose! LOL!!! And before you snitch on me, I was wron about Roddick, it appears (a la Wikipedia). He did win Houston a number of times. And Memphis. But not Indianapolis, which is on Hard anayway. My memory is really failing me these days......

But I still think he's got decent game on the red stuff -- Roddick, that is. Just not good enough to go very deep on the European variety. It's like the difference between the grass at the All-England Club and in Philadelphia, or nearly any U.S. lawn tennis and cricket club. The U.S. grass courts are much much "quicker" in that the bounce is much much lower. The U.S. grass is typically a wide-blade grass and the soil beneath is softer and richer. It used not to always be this way. But somewhere along the way (about the tme Agassi and Hewitt won their titles, I believe), the Wimbledon committee decided to change the grass mixture (more rye now) and to pack the soil down so that it responds more like a dirt, or clay, court. A real shame, IMO.

And, Maedel, you more eloquently put what I was trying to phrase. I should have stuck with trying to make that point instead of making a comparison. :-)

Slice-n-Dice: Regarding Hi-Def for tennis broadcasts - I love the sport and want it presented well. Plus I think showing more HD tennis could help increase the popularity, since there are some people that will stop to watch almost anything just because it's broadcast in HD.

Sam - I am sorry - I would love to see a Gasquet match with you, too !
you are most certainly not chopped liver
My companion for the last few of his matches I saw was not interested in speaking to me
She was too involved and nervous for her man to speak

Slice-n-Dice: Agassi actually won his title in 1992 on the faster grassl, and had some other good results there. But Hewitt won in 2002 when the grass changed. I knew something was up when we had a Hewitt-Nalbandian final. ;-) It just saddens me to see so little net play on grass.

Sam, are feeling well tonight, my friend? Seem a bit serious... of course I agree with you on the Hi-Def TV for tennis platform. No question it would improve the watchability tremendously. And that, in turn, would greatly increase viewership, I believe. Just look what it's done to hockey. Remember when it got so bad the networks started using that glowing/streaking puck? Looked like Haley's Comet or some danged thing. Or like you were trippin' on acid. Not good. Now, they don't need it. See the puck just fine, thank you. No more psychadelics necessary.

Oh SAM!! You CAN'T have liked Michael " I am dull AND nasty at the same time" Stich!! I forgive you because you must have been so very young at the time.

My bad. Yes, Hewitt-Nalbandian final... at Wimbledon, on grass!!!! You can't make this stuff up. Truth IS stranger than fiction.

CL: Stich may not have had a great personality, but I loved his game.

Slice-n-Dice: Speaking of hockey, I am watching it now. Unfortunately the Flyers lost their second straight game and the series is now at 3-all. UGH.

I just watched the rerun of Roddick and Grosjean from Houston at least two years ago and it sure looked like red clay to me.

I am a bit color weak but not that much.

Several years ago, I remember that the Westside Tennis Club went out of its way to import all the courts of all the majors as they were then (AO on rebound ace). Of course, grass in a different climate is not the same, but I think they brought in the Queens Club superintendent (I think many thing Queens Club has better grass courts than Wimbledon or maybe they simply get less use and thus get less beat up as there are fewer players in their event).

I have played on red clay while in high school and there are red clay courts in various upscale sites in California and some other places. Yes, most of what we call clay courts in the US are har-tru like the women just played in Charleston and Amelia Island, but there have always been red clay in the US. They used to have the US National Clay courts near Chicago where I saw Ralston and McKinley play while I was in school. I think most of them were real clay and not the crushed brick used at Roland Garros, but similar. As we know, the clay in Europe and South America differ from place to place (Rome vs. Hamburg).

Apparently I either did not write it well or someone did not read it, but I was responding to the point that Roddick could not play on clay. I think I provided evidence that he has even though his French Open results have been poor. That is all--just that he is still a player on clay (although as Rosangel has pointed out his ranking would certainly drop on clay).

By the way, the clay Austria put down for the DC was abominable. They just got it down right before the tie and the bounces were worse than one would get at public courts where the courts are not rolled or swept very often. Even though Roddick, Blake, and the Bryans pulled through, what the Austrians did was unacceptable in world-class tennis. Remember how the ball bounced (or did not) on that grass side of the clay-grass exo last spring? It takes a lot of work and quite a while for either grass or clay courts to mature. Hard courts about three days if properly installed.

Even though it is interesting to see a playoff game in the NFL played in weather that is rainy or bitter freezing, it rarely showcases the best in the sport. I simply believe that bad bounces should not be a major factor in the most important matches in our sport. I remember watching grass tennis in the early days where players aimed for a certain spot in the service box because hitting it guaranteed a point due to a ball that did not bounce. I have played on clay courts where mediocre serves varied between kangaroo bounces and serves that hit the dust only to disappear and bounce about ankle high the next time. That does not lead to good tennis. I always gave grass courts a pass as long as the L was still in ILTA and USLTA (tredition), but tennis has gone way past the snobby country clubs (except at Monte Carlo this week and Wimbledon--smile) and hard courts simply give us the most representative champions. They can be made fair to players of all styles. This does not mean that we should not have various surfaces, but I feel that people's favorites are biased by both how their favorite players fare and what they grew up playing on.

As for soccer, people in Canada get excited about curling. Most of the world gets excited about 5 day cricket matches. When you get down to it, all sports can be presented or described in ways that make them seem pointless. If you have a rooting interest and money riding on the outcome, anything becomes exciting. As magnificent as thoroughbred horses are, the sport of kings would not exist without gambling.

No question youth soccer is big in the US. Has been for three decades now. But pro soccer cannot draw flies. I could care less one way or the other, but have not been convinced that getting rid of the offsides would destroy the sport instead of opening it up. Just shows what a heathen I am. I think I would rather live in Europe for all reasons except the sports pages and television. Otherwise, I feel Europe is much more enlightened than the US. For one thing, I don't think any other country subjects its populace to a two year presidential campaign. But I digress.

LOL Bismarck. I just can't figure out why they changed surface three times in six years.

Watching that clip of Gasquet, I was struck by the fist pump of joy at the end. I've never seen that kind of positive emotion from him, but then again I don't think I've ever seen him win a big match. In fact, I think the happiest I've ever seen him was when he lost to Tsonga at the AO. He's a lot more enjoyable to watch when he's having a good time, and he seems like a nice guy, so I hope he figures out what it is that he enjoys about playing.

Robin - while most American cities cannot draw a crowd to soccer games
Here in LA ( I thought you were in this area - anyway ) They fill the coliseum routinely for games, and the Home Depot center
Of course, we have a huge Mexican - American population here

Sam - cheer up. They could paint the ice green and play 'grass' court tennis on it. Hockey is just wrong in April....unless you are living at one of the poles.

Also, I did read, somewhere way back when, that they are at least going to change the balls at Wimby to increase the speed a hair. But I agree, it ain't like the olden day.

Jenni - I agree it has been too long since Gasquet looked that happy on a court
Last time was Wimbledon when he beat Roddick
He fell on his back and screamed in triumph , I believe
while Roddick crossed the net to congratulate him

michael stich nasty? don´t remember him like that.
but i´d second the dull.

getting rid of the offsides in football(soccer)? oh my.

Robin, my God are you off.

If anything, soccer is more akin to jazz music, if it were played by two bands against each other, looking for that ultimate, sacred note that solves everything.

Of course, people who can't stand jazz complain all day how it's basically an educated way of fiddling with instruments. They're completely unaware of the underlying structure, and the underlying goal of it all.

And there is nothing in all of sports that compares with a goal in soccer. Nothing at all. To be watching the endless variations, the fraction-of-a-second decisions, the brilliant tactics and the wordless communication between people who sometimes don't even speak the same language, and see it all come together is something that is beyond words to describe.

Lastly, if you understood soccer, and even had the faintest affection or respect for it, you wouldn't even consider asking for offsides to be repealed. So yes, heathen you are.

Plus, if you don't like clay tennis, please avoid the convoluted explanations as to why you have such an aversion to it. I think it's very simple: clay doesn't reward winners like other surfaces, hence I don't find it appealing.

However, to watch two people who can actually play on clay go at it is truly hypnotic. Defies all logic, and a big part of gravity.

Juan Jose - you are gonna love New Orleans , when you get to go someday with Amylu
Now that she is armed with her list of great restaurants and good jazz clubs
you will really enjoy yourself

I will stay out of the soccer discussion - I do not follow the sport at all

Clay is an awesome surface. It is a true test of fitness and temperament. You have to want it to win on clay.
Besides, what other surface could you play 3 MS tournies in the space of 4 weeks with hardly any of the players complaining about it.

Beth, as a long-time fan of Ignatius J. Reilly, I've always wanted to go to New Orleans and explore it all. So some day, we will be very thorough with your list.

I also have to say, as a known clay-hater, that it's absolutely the best surface for the amateur player. Your body feels just like new after you grind hours on it. Try doing that on a hard court.

However, if every single tournament is played on hard court surfaces that range from Indian Wells to the US Open, I wouldn't mind one bit. If I'm watching the pros, I'd rather they be on something hard and fast.

JJ - well hypnotic can be either a positive or a ngative and between the two the clay meets the road. And besides, I would say that, relatively speaking, over the past dozen years or so, clay DOES reward winners...or at least aggression. Don't know why...maybe strings, rackets, fitness, phase of moon, all of above. It hasn't changed as much as grass but at least the way of playing on it has evolved....thank heavens...or more acurately, thank Guga.

You may as well ask basketball to repeal goal tending rules and the 3 second rule.
Or American Football to repeal the forward pass rule.

Bismarck - you may well be right about the lack of nasty... I may be getting Stich mixed up with Kraijeck(sp?), though actually I don't even remember him as being nasty either...at least not while he was actually playing. Maybe its just ME!!!

Juan Jose - I just know you are gonna want to go back many , many times
New Orleans is like that - either you love it or you hate it
there is no in between .

CL: You were probably too busy staring at Edberg's legs to notice. ;-)

Beth: Kinda like Confederacy, no? I've always been fascinated by the responses to that book.

CL: I'd say that clay at the highest level involves hitting about 4 to 6 winners just to win one point. I'd much rather have the thing end by the second or third winner, and I think that with the level of hardcourt D we're watching these days we already get that.

But that's just me.

And please, SOMEONE tell the idiots at Monte Carlo that it's hardly worth it to televise their tournament if the friekin' ball is invisible! All they have to do is bring the camera lower!!!

How can you be so rich, so aristocratic, and yet so idiotic?

Wait, don't answer that.

Well, just my quick two cents.

1. I enjoy clay tennis, as long as there is an ounce of aggression to it, and not just guys whacking it back and forth forever, as MrsSanta said on the other thred.

2. Sorry to all, but soccer drives me nuts. I've played it a lot, and enjoy that, but watching it is tedious to me. I don't need a lot of scoring. I really enjoy pitchers duels in baseball. But I do enjoy the threat of scoring. In hockey, the threat is there constantly. Baseball, with every pitch. Soccer, not so much.

Sam - when Edberg's legs came out to play... as the saying goes.... I didn't notice much of ANYTHING... well other than that silly little dance he did while waiting to receive serve and those glorious backhand volleys.

"How can you be so rich, so aristocratic and yet so idiotic?" Er... is this the perfect example a question that answers itself? Or whatever the opposite of an oxymoron is.

I have this great charity fund raising idea I posted on the other thread...I'm gonna drag it over here...be right back.

Hey, I just had a great idea, kids. I was pondering my Repellant Dave hateration and wondering how I could turn all this negative energy to good. I think that the ATP and the WTA should offer plush bobble heads....sort of squishy weebles.. of all the top players and you could purchase one...money to go to players' fav charity... and stick pins in it or drop kick it or fling it at the tv when said person plays. And it can't just be like Fed fans abusing a Rafa or Djoker doll..or vice versa... just cause they pose a threat to your fav's perch. it hasn't to be based in completely irrational dislike. I mean Mrs. Santa alone would have a closet full. Think of the money we could raise!

So the battle of the surfaces turns out to be merely "each to his own." We have our preferences.

What I don't like about hard courts is that the surface disproportionately rewards "The Serve." . That = boring. Goran, Sampras, Roddick, come to mind. If Roddick had grown up on any other surface, a) maybe he would have chosen another sport b) he wouldn't be such a boring player.

Tennis was invented to be played on grass. It was called "lawn tennis." If that makes me a Luddite so be it. I prefer the subtleties of grass. After that clay, over the manmade stuff.

Except of course when Roger wins on any surface.