My personal theory about why carpet courts were abandoned is that they had to be vacuumed after every single event, and the vacuuming team consistently told their management about how much it sucked.
Interesting thing about Wimbledon changing it's grass surface composition a year after Goran Ivanisevic won it as a total outsider. He accepted a wildcard invitation to the tournament as his ranking had fallen to something like 127 in the world, but with his serve and volley style he goes and wins the entire thing beating Rafter in an epic 5 setter. I guess the organizers didn't like the idea of this happening again, as that style of play has all but seemingly disappeared from the game, at least among the elite.
@@THICCTHICCTHICC I don't agree - what you are removing is a style of play - the serve volley - as a threat to non-serve volley players. Also, by making rallies longer, you are lowering the odds of a 'shock result' - thus favouring the higher ranking players.
@@shadowside8433 it’s not just favoring higher ranked players. Changing all surface to behave more homogeneous inevitably hurts some playstyles more than others. Players that could have the potential to be top players are thus removed from the potential pool of top player candidates. This hurts the game imo as it makes playing styles more homogeneous as well
He should’ve lost in the semi. Only to be saved by the rain(maybe light) I can’t fully remember. Got to recharge and then go again the next day, he was on the ropes.
Lemme get this straight. Federer could not only control the surface, but also the type of surface at a Masters tournament? Damn these tournament directors are really after the money.
All Federer did was boycott the tournament, right? It was the guy in charge of that tournament who was all obsessed about getting him to stop boycotting, come back *and win*.
So basically everyone was sucking Federer because he brought the viewers and the money. And they made it so he wins. And this sport is a "fair competition"? Why do people even follow pro sports. Its all a scam to the bone. Its roman gladiators or Wrestling in a nutshell. It's fake story's for the amusement of the commoners.
@@AlexanderKrivacsSchrder Yeah that's right. Federer did nothing wrong. He's allowed to request things from tournaments. What was messed up was the tournament directors choosing their marketability over tennis. Imagine if a director made the US Open Clay or the French Open an indoor hard. That director would be crucified alive.
Well, apparently he also told them which he prefers and suddenly snap he won. I'm a Fed Fan but that's def weird. I don't get why he didn't like it. It's fast as grass 💁♂️
Tennis has always been corrupt. The statement “the organizer wanted Federer to win the title once” is an absolute disgrace and is as bad as match fixing
I feel like pro tennis would be a lot more interesting if the tours encouraged the roughly equal use of all different surfaces and court speeds. Would force players to adapt and give different playstyles more of a chance to shine. Though carpet in particular would have to be altered to give slightly better traction and held to higher standards for stability for it to ever return in force I think.
I grew up on clay but there were (and still are a few surviving today) some carpet courts in our neighborhood. Quite frankly, looking back I see more upsides than downsides - virtually zero maintenance, consistent bounce, by definition never any line problems unlike on clay, as far as movement for me the surface didn't slip but didn't lock hard either, best of all balls last twice as long. What I disliked about the ones that were outdoor was how poorly they drained. Sometimes we would find them still soggy 48 hours after a rain storm.
They changed our clay courts to clay/carpet and they stayed quite similar in basic playability. We didn’t have the problem with drainage though, and were often back out there quicker after a rain than the people who preferred our hard courts. The biggest drawback was also water for us, with excessive wear and the constant need for top watering. We couldn’t keep them from drying out. In a couple years there were already slippery places where the carpet had been ground smooth by dry grains under shoes. We thought it was in large part because of the lack of added expensive clay, too thin, so didn’t hold much water.
I played on indoor carpet courts a lot in high school. Loved how much grip they had as the spin on your ball would greatly affect the bounce. A slice serve could jump several feet to one side after bouncing and really throw people off
They should consider bringing them back. It would be interesting to have 4 Grand Slams on 4 different surfaces. I really hate how all the surfaces are slowly beginning to feel the same. Clay courts are feeling faster, Grass is getting slower, and even though Hard courts are versatile with their speed and composition, they're all beginning to feel so bog-standard by comparison. If they are all going to be the same, than what is the point of even having the different surfaces?
Yeah, makes tennis more boring. I remember McEnroe making the finals of the French with his serve and volley game. That was masterful. I can't think of anyone else ever doing that.
I freaking loved carpet. The sound of the ball hitting the surface was very distinct. I bet a lot of people assumed Nadal was the player who requested its removal. Not sure what Federer was thinking.
Probably because he always had problems with his knees, and the cheaper carpet variants were not good for them? That's how I would imagine it, at least.
I loved the carpet too. The one I played on had low and fast bounces, a lot of half-volleys. Per the video, Fed did not specifically requested taking out the carpet. It was the tournament director's decision in his attempt to entice Fed to keep coming back.
I just realized now, that back when I was playing tennis, I actually mostly played on indoor carpet and I loved it more than clay, gras or hard surfaces. It was very cozy in a way and not as rough as clay for example. I also really liked that you have better grip on the carpet and don't slide around that much.
I never got the opportunity to play on carpet but it sounds like it would be very easy to injure yourself when sliding or changing direction abruptly. Curious to hear your thoughts
@@musajaved7278 Well it depends on how you play and what you are used to. I didn't have problems because I was used to more grip but if you aren't used to it and go all in there might be a risk, yea.
Me and my dad have always agreed that one of the w hard court slams should've been made to be carpet. It would make all 4 distinctly different and if you won all 4 it would show who is the best overall. I know AO and USO have different versions of hard court, but it's still hard court...
I am amazed the quality of this video production - first the content and talking points, then the footage/images/graphics/glyphs used to illustrate, music and voice over, then edits and transitions. All in all, a top tier studio quality production.
In the vein of weird surfaces: - I recall some tennis courts being hardwood on major tournaments in the 60s and 70s, also very fond of Davis Cup heroics for Paraguay in the 80s. I don't know if they have things in common with the plywood black surface from the NY open and the Laver cup. - Are there professional tournaments played on turf/artificial grass? It is more common in amateur game (easy to install and mantain), and became the standard on Padel tournaments for some time now.
i doubt , paraguay was fired of Davis cup mainly because of this surface i am sure ! to say , no one today could play on it, it was toooo fast and so low bond ! nothing to see with what is on the tour today really. 4 shots was an absolute record on it !
I grew up learning tennis in the winter months on carpet . I absolutely loved it and still do , a good slice is deadly and the slice serves win a lot of points . Not sure at all why Federer's game wouldn't suit that. I do agree about the " dead " spots though , there are times when the ball doesn't seem to bounce at all ..
I used to enjoy watching carpet tennis (and still play on it) but never really looked into why and how it was permanently removed. Great informational video.
This is actually pretty damming stuff. That chart of the average rally length is astonishing. No wonder Federer's not been able to win more as the years have gone on. While it's certainly good to have a bit more consistency and longer rallies are generally better than one shot serve volley plays, variety is also key. Moreover, super long five hour games are just as boring in many ways - the interest comes from the crunch points, not the endless baseline back and forth.
I've played once on an indoor hardcourt, and many times on indoor carpet. As an amateur, you can't really slide on either, and in terms of ankle stability both are vastly inferior to clay. But I'd still prefer carpet to hardcourt, since it feels a bit softer and doesn't squeak.
I vaguely remember wood courts. Probably team handball or badminton courts set up for tennis in the winter season. I think depending on the lacquer, shots with heavy backspin would slide almost horizontally
@@themountain3461 Oh yeah, I played on that a few times. We call it Parkett in Germany. Not a great surface, and the ones I played on had a lot of dead spots where the ball wouldn't bounce.
I really appreciate the content! Every time a video is posted, it's always at my "watch later" for when I'm free because watching this is a top priority. 😆 I've known that carpet surfaces exists because of Virtua Tennis (I just know that it exists and nothing else haha) but I absolutely love that your content delves into lesser known facts about the matter and tennis itself! Keep up the astounding work!
I pretty much grew up on indoor surface, and like it to this day. Never even played hardcourts until 2 years ago. Think it's a shame, a (proper build) carpet could bring a new spin to the game. But then again, I absolutely detest the trend towards slower surfaces, so that might be a reason why I like it.
The ATP should reconsider. You need faster and slower surfaces throughout the year to bring variety in the game. Otherwise, the courts play too similarly and the approach to the game do not sufficiently change across tournaments.
Agree'd. In hindsight, Ancic and Tsonga's complaints were justified. The game *HAS* gotten too slow, and now there really aren't different playstyles anymore, everyone is a Defensive baseline grinder these days because the slowness of todays game facilitates that style.
Gotta love all the work put into these videos. They're stellar. And yes, tennis isn't that big of a sport that they can get the luxury of gatekeeping fans by region locking the matches. There should be a central hub to watch everything from anywhere for a reasonable price.
Another masterpiece of a video! I've always wondered about why carpet tennis were removed, Seeing highlights of old matches, the courts were too fast with barely any rallies. Keep up the incredible work my man!
Similar to carpet courts, Omni courts are quite popular here in Japan where apart from hard courts, other surfaces are very few. Here is some information about this type of court.
In Germany pretty much all indoor courts still have carpet, sometimes with granules to imitate clay courts a bit. Always funny to switch from clay to carpet, takes a session to get used to but after that i dont see a problem with it. You can fuck up your ankles just as much on hard court or grass.
70% of all injuries on the ATP Tour happen on Hard Courts even to this day, ironically the most common surface in the world. So I don't believe the part about Carpet Courts facilitating injuries.
I remember the Toronto Open. Was a one time thing in the SkyDome where the Toronto Blue Jays play. Was tournament in winter, and was to test the waters as a continuing event, while Canadian Open was summer outdoor event.
Good video, I enjoyed it. But in your list of surfaces on which the game has been played, you left out wood. In fact, the US National Indoor Championships used to be played on wood at the 7th Regiment Armory in New York City. I attended for a few years. Chuck McKinley played the tournament, and, as I recall, won it at least once. I also played on wood for a few winters when I was young. And if you think grass or carpet is fast, well, you haven't played on wood.
Not many people talking about how big of a scandal is that a tournament director changes the surface of a tournament not once but twice just to fulfill the wishes of a player since he wants him to win... and that it's Federer and his team who tell the tournament director which Austrian company he needs to contact to build the court since they use a specific resine he fancies. As soon as Federer gets the court he exactly wants, he wins the tournament, his only title in Paris Bercy.... I mean lol this is corruption.
I disagree with the idea that Carpet was overwhelmingly good for servebots and bad for counterpunchers The best tennis players on carpet in this last years of the 2000s were people like Safin or Nalbandian, it was the best surface for baseliners with flat groundstrokes like Jiri Novak or Karol Kucera who didn't necessarily have big serves. Look at the results in Basel and Paris from say, 1998 on until they stopped being on carpet.
@@leaderofnoone9087 They haven't. The simply haven't banned modern materials for rackets, and with carbon fiber frames and poly strings you are left with two only options: make the surfaces slower and bouncier, or let tennis be only about serving (not even serve-and-volley; just serve alone).
Outdoor synthetic (fake grass) are still hugely popular in Australia, we basically only have hard courts and outdoor carpet over here, I love the synthetic courts, so much fun to slide on
I wish we still had the fast/low bounce grass, slow/high bounce clay, medium/medium hard, and fast/high bounce carpet. The sport is truly missing the diversity of playing styles it that we used to have and I believe the slowing down of court surfaces is the biggest culprit. The loss of carpet entirely as a surface is definitely part of that issue.
I love how well-written this guy's videos are. It's clear he has a way with words, irrespective of what he's saying. UA-cam's algorithm hasn't yet figured out that now that Federer has retired, I don't care about tennis anymore so they keep recommending tennis videos to me that I'll never watch, but I'll make an exception for this channel because the quality of the prose you hear in this channel is so good.
The racquets and strings have totally changed. You can’t just talk about the surface without talking about the equipment. Servebot tennis is beyond boring. No thank you
Carpet is a fun beginners surface as it massively slows down the ball, but the grippy surface can be hell on the ankles, and there’s absolutely zero sliding that you get with clay to compensate.
@@rafagoat575Seems like it’s the tournament’s fault. The tournament staff don’t have to listen to Fed’s requests. Madrid didn’t keep their blue clay after Federer won it the only time (it was on blue clay) in 2012.
@@RunRecoverRallyYou don't need to wonder what happened lol You can go ahead and read an interview in L'Equipe with Jean-François Caujolle, Paris-Bercy tournament director back then Lol He was a Federer fan and he wanted Federer to play and win.. Federer wasn't playing because didn't quite like the surface. So they contacted him, and he told them the exact Austrian company they had to contact to build the court... made with a resine he liked. And they did lol... but once it was finished, Federer didn't like it 100%, so you know what they did? Build it again.... and now yes, Federer loved it, he won that year and it was his only title lol. This is corruption. The blue clay was a scandal, top players didn't want it, even FEDERER was against it. It was slippery and dangerous. But the owner Ion Tiriac didn't give a fuck, thought it was cool and they made it. But after seeing how players were constantly falling and confirming it was dangerous, they didn't make it anymore. That wasn't about Federer or any other player, it was about Ion Tiriac.
Its sad different surfaces come so close. Whats even the point then? And since they came up material technology was ready to make the stated problems disappear. What a shame.
It makes the most sense to me for the court to be in the dead center or as close as possible between fast play and slow play, and then that being the universal standard for all courts
I've played on both indoor and outdoor. Indoor in Men's Open and outdoor with sand (Omni Court) in the USTA juniors. Actually made it to a final on Omni Court in 18 and under. That surface was really fun, image playing on a surface with a bounce like modern grass court but you slide into your shots like on Clay because of the sand.
Grass courts don't use traditional topsoil, they use a blend of soils, sands, clay and silt to form an extremely compacted layer which allows the ball to bounce, albeit less than on a more traditional "hard" surface.
This video is oriented, the carpets were all very different, often of poor quality. It cost less, players have suffered too many times!!! As for Federer, he simply did not like that of Bercy, too slow and in which we blocked our feet. Honestly, the disappearance of tennis carpets has done a thousand times more good than harm.
Interesting video. Bit strange you keep using Sampras v Becker images from 1996 ATP final as an example of carpet tennis 09:14 The ATP finals were played in Frankfurt from 1990 to 1995 on carpet (taraflex) but when they moved to Hanover from 1996 to 1999, the players already voted to change the surface to plexicushion. The surface mainly used indoors right up to today.
People that complain all the time about surfaces being slower vs the 90s forget that hard court and grass matches were on average much boring and monotonous vs today (of course, there are still some cherry-picked awesome matches by the some of the greatest players in history, but I am talking about the average). In the 90s, women's tennis was by far more popular than men's since the matches were far more "playable" and the points weren't so short. WB 2001 was the deciding point where we saw a final without any single rally.
Slowing the courts down took away the variety of play styles. How was that good for the game? Before the homogenization of court services, a S&V had just as good a chance at winning as a baseliner. The player that could make their play style work on the given surface the best would win. And that made it a level playing field for everybody. Now with all courts playing the the same speed, they all favor baseliners. Hence, the new crop of players coming up only know how to slug it out from the baseline? They don't know how to transition to net to put away a point, and instead stay in a long grinding rally waiting for the error. And simply making balls and waiting for the other guy to miss is boring tennis. And as a result of courts almost playing the same, players don't need to adapt their games. They can play the FO the same way they play Indian Wells or Wimbledon. What Borg did in winning the FO and Wimbledon back to back for five years was amazing. He had to go from playing baseline tennis with a lot of rallies on the slow clay in winning RG to playing aggressive and attacking the net to win at Wimbledon. He couldn't afford to play the same way at both slams and win. So he had to adapt. Today, nobody has to adapt.
@@pomerlain8924 Your argument that players don't have to adapt is wrong, lets look at some examples Thiem -76% win percentage at clay -45% win percentage at grass Kyrgios -71% win percentage at grass -50% win percentage at claly Medevev -79% on hard courts -67% on grass -54% on clay Wawrinka -73% on clay -56% on grass If the players didn't have to adapt, they would have the same win% in all surfaces but we can't see that's not the case. Also, by far the biggest argument i can use if Feder-Nadal matches between 2006 and 2008. Matches on clay: 9-1 nadal matches outside clay: 4-2 Federer Explain me this massive difference between both surfaces fi they are the same according to you?
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 3 players in a span of 13 years completed a career slam. Djokovic has the time to slide on grass, as if he's playing on clay at RG. Nadal can get the heavy topspin because the soil beneath the grass is hard. He doesn't have to worry about his ball not getting enough jump. And if those guys had to constantly adapt to different surfaces at slams, like slow as molasses RG to lightning fast Wimbledon, why is it that since 2005, they've won 59 of the last 71 played, which equates to 83%. Out of the 153 Masters events that were played since 2005, those 3 players alone have won 98, which equates to 64% Variable surfaces ==> different winners Similar surfaces ==> the cream of the crop will almost always win That's why prior to the homogenization of surfaces, why you all may have complained about the game being boring, you had different winners. Sampras wasn't winning everything with his S&V game. Agassi wasn't winning everything with baseline game. Becker wasn't winning everything. Courier wasn't winning everything. Edberg wasn't winning everything. The homogenization of the surfaces protected those 3 guys, as it benefited the baseline style. The serve & volley style doesn't even have chance at flourishing today and being on even terms with baseline play like before when court surface speeds actually did differ.
@@pomerlain8924 Completly right, that´s what made it much more interesting, watching tennis in the 90´s, the variations of playing-style have been much bigger. Today, this endless groudline-rallies are so lame... saying this as an tennis-coach...
@5:00....This helps illustrate how great Jimmy Connors was. A surface that he won 45 of his "record 109 ATP Singles titles" was geared to the success of big servers, not counter punchers.
He was good, but really had no chance against Big servers/volley-Players like Edberg, Becker, Stich, Samspras , they started a complete new and much faster area of tennis...
Tennis courts everywhere are too similar now made the game less interesting. Some were too fast 25 years but it’s too far the other way now, the 2000s had the right sweet spot imo miss that era
Change of grass in Wimbledon courts happened in 2001, before the tournament... not after. Though due to heavy rain during that particular British summer the effects were yet to be seen till next year. Also, as many have already pointed out, Roger had very little to gain from changing the carpet to hard surface, especially looking at his record on carpet in his prime years. It would have made more sense if the claim was that he requested/influenced the change during his waning days, but surely not in 2007. O/w the video is pretty neat.
Just because you love Roger doesn't change the facts... he hates carpet so they changed it... he didn't like the new surface so they changed it again...
Fantastic video...Not all carpeted courts were the same. There were variations in speed and bounce though it was on the lower side and medium to medium fast. But rallies were definitely possible because of a consistent bounce and some of the best all court matches I've ever seen including powerful serving, explosive returning, long baseline rallies and spectacular winners were on carpet. In every way, far superior to Wimbledon grass which was over hyped. 1. Lendl vs Becker 1988 master's Finals 2. Becker vs Sampras 1994, 1996 ATP FINALS 3. Becker vs Sampras ATP Stuttgart 4. Becker vs Agassi 1989 Davis cup semi finals
We have a turf tennis courts near by my work. I play on it at least once a year since we don’t have any grass near us. I will say it is tougher on the legs than Clay, need to compare it to grass but haven’t had that chance yet.
in german speaking countries (germany / switzerland/ austria) we play indoors on carpets during the whole winter season... carpet courts are the norm and its extremely difficult to find hard courts
So the Paris Masters 1000 director changed the surface from carpet to hard court in 2006 because he wanted Roger to win at the tournament and still it took more 5 years for that to happen 😅
Such a shame. I got to play on some of the green carpet that they used to use at the WTA indoor event in Zurich. It really was beautiful underfoot - really cushioned like an actual plush carpet. The bounce was great too.
I loved it back in the late 90's when I watched a lot of tennis, then I went on a big hiatus of more than 15 years without playing and watching and was shocked that it was banned. As a brazilian and huge Guga Kuerten's fan I vividly remember when Brazil played France away on Davis Cup and they chose carpet as the surface, which was a disaster to our non-Guga players, specially Meligeni who was pretty bad playing out of clay, I think it ended 0-5
Nadal changed it. Federar was invincible...until Nadal came. Nadal was better, but not in grass where Federer dominated (5 years without losing) in synthetic the two were even I think....I imagine this is why Federer became pickier about the surface to get a little more edge. I never saw a carpet court in Brazil where I live clay is preferred in almost all places except synthetic for international games, but I imagine carpet is or was intermediary in speed between synthetic and grass.
Carpet is not one surface, there is a great variety of suppliers who produce different types with slightly different characteristics. There is an argument that many of the problems, chiefly players falling, were more common on certain types principally used at the tour level. If instead you were to use a different carpet surface, you could bring carpet tournaments back at this level, and have a faster surface yet again. Also worth remembering carpet has never been removed completely, it's still used at challenger and ITF level, and the WTA had a carpet tournament until 2018.
Because you want to give the biggest star of the game the best experience possible. Roger didn't ask him to change it, the organizer itself realize its best to do for their own good.
@@youngsuit The director wants to lure Fed in. Changing the court is one step to that, plus the fact that its an outdated surface. Its just a great decision overall.
@@edgarpanganiban9339 it was good to change the surface overall. it's good to bring star players in to bring funds in for the event for sure. just depends, there's eventually a limit to accommodating to the point of it being unfair
People always say "Djokovic thinks hes above the rules bla bla bla". No he doesnt, but federer does. Federer was a spoiled a*s person. He didnt like the court play and made them change it 3 times JUST FOR HIM. Federer will never get on Djokovics level, period.
I’m sorry I know it’s very unpopular especially now to say it but this is a side to Federer I don’t like. This confirms the “what roger wants roger gets” conspiracy has always been true in reality. I’m sure people will be angry at me but the fact he not only demanded the end of carpet In Paris but then said he wasn’t happy with the hard courts either is a joke, it’s literally fixing a tournament to make him win.
He didn't "demand" anything. When asked why he did not come to Paris, he simply stated his honest preference. He did not like carpet surfaces so did not play on them that simple. It was the tournament director who wanted to change the surface to appeal to Federer- but this does NOT mean that he "demanded" anything. In the end, if a surface has a higher risk of injury to players, that is enough reason to ban it.
Lol Roger didn't request anything, the organizers did it cause its common sense you want to give the biggest tennis star at that time the best experience as much as possible. Paris Open is played late in the calendar year, plus an "outdated" surface with high chance of injury and unpredictable bounces due to "rare" surface itself. Not surprise Roger is skipping the tournament before.
Tennis is a business. Which is why Federer or Djokovic will have 2 rounds finished at rainy 2016 Wimbledon, while other players weren't finished with 1 round. Which is why Federer plays a lot of night matches at the Australian Open and US Open. Which is why all of Serena Williams's matches at this year's Us Open were at night (even though Serena was way past prime). Tournament organizers want to make money, and the easiest way is to get the star players to play.
Removing all the carpet in my house so Roger will want to come and visit
hahahaha
😂😂😂
Spicy!!!
mitch for president!
You’re a hoot, good one. 😂
My personal theory about why carpet courts were abandoned is that they had to be vacuumed after every single event, and the vacuuming team consistently told their management about how much it sucked.
Okay tbf sucking is exactly what a vacuuming team should be doing
Ayyyyyy
Unless the website blocks the well know VPN sites IPS!
That had to be intentional. Otherwise it sucks.
Impossible, since when has a manager actually made changes when something at work was a strain on those under him/her lmao
Interesting thing about Wimbledon changing it's grass surface composition a year after Goran Ivanisevic won it as a total outsider. He accepted a wildcard invitation to the tournament as his ranking had fallen to something like 127 in the world, but with his serve and volley style he goes and wins the entire thing beating Rafter in an epic 5 setter. I guess the organizers didn't like the idea of this happening again, as that style of play has all but seemingly disappeared from the game, at least among the elite.
Pretty pathetic really that tennis will straight up change the meta of the sport to either suit or crush a single person for basically no reason
@@THICCTHICCTHICC I don't agree - what you are removing is a style of play - the serve volley - as a threat to non-serve volley players. Also, by making rallies longer, you are lowering the odds of a 'shock result' - thus favouring the higher ranking players.
All your doing is favoring a less creative way of playing.
@@shadowside8433 it’s not just favoring higher ranked players. Changing all surface to behave more homogeneous inevitably hurts some playstyles more than others. Players that could have the potential to be top players are thus removed from the potential pool of top player candidates. This hurts the game imo as it makes playing styles more homogeneous as well
He should’ve lost in the semi. Only to be saved by the rain(maybe light) I can’t fully remember. Got to recharge and then go again the next day, he was on the ropes.
Lemme get this straight. Federer could not only control the surface, but also the type of surface at a Masters tournament? Damn these tournament directors are really after the money.
Nah, that's just "conspiracy theory"
All Federer did was boycott the tournament, right? It was the guy in charge of that tournament who was all obsessed about getting him to stop boycotting, come back *and win*.
So basically everyone was sucking Federer because he brought the viewers and the money.
And they made it so he wins.
And this sport is a "fair competition"?
Why do people even follow pro sports. Its all a scam to the bone. Its roman gladiators or Wrestling in a nutshell. It's fake story's for the amusement of the commoners.
@@AlexanderKrivacsSchrder Yeah that's right. Federer did nothing wrong. He's allowed to request things from tournaments. What was messed up was the tournament directors choosing their marketability over tennis. Imagine if a director made the US Open Clay or the French Open an indoor hard. That director would be crucified alive.
Well, apparently he also told them which he prefers and suddenly snap he won. I'm a Fed Fan but that's def weird. I don't get why he didn't like it. It's fast as grass 💁♂️
Tennis has always been corrupt. The statement “the organizer wanted Federer to win the title once” is an absolute disgrace and is as bad as match fixing
How about the Aussie Open final indoors at night to suit Federer.
@@diggler2002 Still crying about that?
Did you even watch the video? It was so he could play, not so he could win.
@@Al-ji4gd uh, did YOU watch the video, he says pretty clearly the organizer wanted Federer to win.
@@LDK447 No, it isn't.
I feel like pro tennis would be a lot more interesting if the tours encouraged the roughly equal use of all different surfaces and court speeds. Would force players to adapt and give different playstyles more of a chance to shine. Though carpet in particular would have to be altered to give slightly better traction and held to higher standards for stability for it to ever return in force I think.
I grew up on clay but there were (and still are a few surviving today) some carpet courts in our neighborhood. Quite frankly, looking back I see more upsides than downsides - virtually zero maintenance, consistent bounce, by definition never any line problems unlike on clay, as far as movement for me the surface didn't slip but didn't lock hard either, best of all balls last twice as long. What I disliked about the ones that were outdoor was how poorly they drained. Sometimes we would find them still soggy 48 hours after a rain storm.
Outdoor carpet is fine because it's a permanent installation. My dad liked it because it played slower than hard courts due to the sand content.
They changed our clay courts to clay/carpet and they stayed quite similar in basic playability. We didn’t have the problem with drainage though, and were often back out there quicker after a rain than the people who preferred our hard courts.
The biggest drawback was also water for us, with excessive wear and the constant need for top watering. We couldn’t keep them from drying out. In a couple years there were already slippery places where the carpet had been ground smooth by dry grains under shoes. We thought it was in large part because of the lack of added expensive clay, too thin, so didn’t hold much water.
@@nachobroryan8824 outdoor carpet, do you mean " false grass" ??
@@antoinev9733 Yes, synthetic grass. The actual brand was Omnicourt.
I played on indoor carpet courts a lot in high school. Loved how much grip they had as the spin on your ball would greatly affect the bounce. A slice serve could jump several feet to one side after bouncing and really throw people off
yeah I played on carpet when I was 13/14 and I loved it!!!
The editing is so under-appreciated, it’s absurd. Love the videos, can’t wait for the next.
They should consider bringing them back. It would be interesting to have 4 Grand Slams on 4 different surfaces. I really hate how all the surfaces are slowly beginning to feel the same. Clay courts are feeling faster, Grass is getting slower, and even though Hard courts are versatile with their speed and composition, they're all beginning to feel so bog-standard by comparison. If they are all going to be the same, than what is the point of even having the different surfaces?
AO should be carpet 😂
@@jonathanchen1026 No, the US Open should. That way they can brag about the US Open being competed on all 4 surfaces.
Carpet was never used at the majors. From 1975 - 1977 the USO was played on green clay, which is a bit faster than red clay.
It's like people dont see the videos or something, the risk of injury is so much higher on a carpet surface
Yeah, makes tennis more boring. I remember McEnroe making the finals of the French with his serve and volley game. That was masterful. I can't think of anyone else ever doing that.
I freaking loved carpet. The sound of the ball hitting the surface was very distinct. I bet a lot of people assumed Nadal was the player who requested its removal. Not sure what Federer was thinking.
I don't know what Federer was thinking, he had a pretty good record on Carpet too.
Probably because he always had problems with his knees, and the cheaper carpet variants were not good for them? That's how I would imagine it, at least.
I loved the carpet too. The one I played on had low and fast bounces, a lot of half-volleys.
Per the video, Fed did not specifically requested taking out the carpet. It was the tournament director's decision in his attempt to entice Fed to keep coming back.
Fed was the best carpet player in the world during his run.
I think carpet is still used in Japan on their indoor courts
I just realized now, that back when I was playing tennis, I actually mostly played on indoor carpet and I loved it more than clay, gras or hard surfaces. It was very cozy in a way and not as rough as clay for example. I also really liked that you have better grip on the carpet and don't slide around that much.
I never got the opportunity to play on carpet but it sounds like it would be very easy to injure yourself when sliding or changing direction abruptly. Curious to hear your thoughts
@@musajaved7278 Well it depends on how you play and what you are used to. I didn't have problems because I was used to more grip but if you aren't used to it and go all in there might be a risk, yea.
who waited for 2 months for his new video eagerly
No one...
I wouldn't say eagerly, but considering I'm not subscribed I did find myself checking a week ago if a new video is up.
Me and my dad have always agreed that one of the w hard court slams should've been made to be carpet. It would make all 4 distinctly different and if you won all 4 it would show who is the best overall. I know AO and USO have different versions of hard court, but it's still hard court...
Agree. Hard courts are brutal on the body too.
Yes but it isn't that bad considering it isn't the same hard court has you said but probably with 4 different court will be more interesting
How about wood?
@@Justanoldrunner like a basketball court? Might work, but it would be rapid...
@@levdiniho12 Yes, the US nationals used to be played on wood courts. I think it was in the 1930s
I am amazed the quality of this video production - first the content and talking points, then the footage/images/graphics/glyphs used to illustrate, music and voice over, then edits and transitions. All in all, a top tier studio quality production.
He only lied to spare us from the truth
I always love how high quality these are! Keep up the Work Cult Tennis
In the vein of weird surfaces:
- I recall some tennis courts being hardwood on major tournaments in the 60s and 70s, also very fond of Davis Cup heroics for Paraguay in the 80s. I don't know if they have things in common with the plywood black surface from the NY open and the Laver cup.
- Are there professional tournaments played on turf/artificial grass? It is more common in amateur game (easy to install and mantain), and became the standard on Padel tournaments for some time now.
Do you know more bout the artificial grass..? I'm interested in build a court in future, with this surface..
THANKS ! i was doubting !
Victor Pecci was recieving in Ascuncion on parquet floor ! :)
i doubt , paraguay was fired of Davis cup mainly because of this surface i am sure !
to say , no one today could play on it, it was toooo fast and so low bond !
nothing to see with what is on the tour today really.
4 shots was an absolute record on it !
@@pedropaivalemos there is a small club in France using it. maybe tou could email them ??
" Saint seurin sur l'isle tennis club" good luck 😁😁😁
I grew up learning tennis in the winter months on carpet . I absolutely loved it and still do , a good slice is deadly and the slice serves win a lot of points . Not sure at all why Federer's game wouldn't suit that. I do agree about the " dead " spots though , there are times when the ball doesn't seem to bounce at all ..
Honestly, great vid!! Also that editing was very impressive
Really like your videos.
Please make a big video on Roger Federer his whole timeline his ups and downs in one video .
Would love that
I used to enjoy watching carpet tennis (and still play on it) but never really looked into why and how it was permanently removed. Great informational video.
we have carpet courts in our town, always enjoyed playing on them, a nice contrast to the slow clay courts we have.
Thanks for replying to my editor submission, I hope yall found a great fit! Great vid btw!
Crazy seeing you here!
This is actually pretty damming stuff. That chart of the average rally length is astonishing. No wonder Federer's not been able to win more as the years have gone on. While it's certainly good to have a bit more consistency and longer rallies are generally better than one shot serve volley plays, variety is also key. Moreover, super long five hour games are just as boring in many ways - the interest comes from the crunch points, not the endless baseline back and forth.
Yeah it’s pretty sad, the grindy baseline rallies are incredibly boring in my opinion.
Federer wasn't able to win at the ATP Finals since he was 30. It's normally the fastest surface of the year.
@@womp6338 Nah those are the most interesting, players get to show off a lot of amazing returns and strategy.
Would be nice to have a video on wood surface! I know there were some tournaments way back in the day that played on wood.
The US indoor nationals
Why Serve and Volley become a thing of the past....
Worth the wait. Real quality content.
Actually a well used surface at clubs in UK/Europe is Astro turf so would love to know more about that, also Artificial Clay
Astroturf is extremely popular in Australia.
Another amazing video! I had no idea carpets were used as a court surface. My knees and ankles are hurting just thinking about it!
I've played once on an indoor hardcourt, and many times on indoor carpet. As an amateur, you can't really slide on either, and in terms of ankle stability both are vastly inferior to clay. But I'd still prefer carpet to hardcourt, since it feels a bit softer and doesn't squeak.
I actually learned tennis on an outdoor carpet court. It was fun.
I vaguely remember wood courts. Probably team handball or badminton courts set up for tennis in the winter season.
I think depending on the lacquer, shots with heavy backspin would slide almost horizontally
@@themountain3461 Oh yeah, I played on that a few times. We call it Parkett in Germany. Not a great surface, and the ones I played on had a lot of dead spots where the ball wouldn't bounce.
On the contrary, I have no idea carpets were banned. Thought many of the indoors ATP matches were on carpet before watching this video.
Absolutely top tier content as usually. Fantastic work!
I really appreciate the content! Every time a video is posted, it's always at my "watch later" for when I'm free because watching this is a top priority. 😆 I've known that carpet surfaces exists because of Virtua Tennis (I just know that it exists and nothing else haha) but I absolutely love that your content delves into lesser known facts about the matter and tennis itself! Keep up the astounding work!
Those Becker-Sampras carpet matches were incredible. The surface was a huge part too.
I pretty much grew up on indoor surface, and like it to this day. Never even played hardcourts until 2 years ago. Think it's a shame, a (proper build) carpet could bring a new spin to the game. But then again, I absolutely detest the trend towards slower surfaces, so that might be a reason why I like it.
The ATP should reconsider. You need faster and slower surfaces throughout the year to bring variety in the game. Otherwise, the courts play too similarly and the approach to the game do not sufficiently change across tournaments.
Agree'd. In hindsight, Ancic and Tsonga's complaints were justified. The game *HAS* gotten too slow, and now there really aren't different playstyles anymore, everyone is a Defensive baseline grinder these days because the slowness of todays game facilitates that style.
Gotta love all the work put into these videos. They're stellar.
And yes, tennis isn't that big of a sport that they can get the luxury of gatekeeping fans by region locking the matches. There should be a central hub to watch everything from anywhere for a reasonable price.
this should be the case for ALL sports but likely not possible bc of capitalism lol
Another masterpiece of a video! I've always wondered about why carpet tennis were removed,
Seeing highlights of old matches, the courts were too fast with barely any rallies.
Keep up the incredible work my man!
Just as a side note, kudos for the smoooooth segue to the ad read. You made the sponsor's product directly relevant to tennis.
Similar to carpet courts, Omni courts are quite popular here in Japan where apart from hard courts, other surfaces are very few. Here is some information about this type of court.
Where? I think you forgot to include a link.
@@johnanderson9765 it is basically an astroturf court
Dude, your videos have such a high production value, it is ridiculous. Besides that they are informative and entertaining. Keep up the work.
in germany almost every amateur tennis hall (which is mainly used during winter) has carpet courts.
Great job holding attention. Your transitions and foreshadowing are elegantly utilized to really effectively maintain interest.
In Germany pretty much all indoor courts still have carpet, sometimes with granules to imitate clay courts a bit. Always funny to switch from clay to carpet, takes a session to get used to but after that i dont see a problem with it. You can fuck up your ankles just as much on hard court or grass.
70% of all injuries on the ATP Tour happen on Hard Courts even to this day, ironically the most common surface in the world. So I don't believe the part about Carpet Courts facilitating injuries.
@@666kingdrummer And what percentage of matches are played on hard courts? More or less than 70%?
I remember the Toronto Open. Was a one time thing in the SkyDome where the Toronto Blue Jays play. Was tournament in winter, and was to test the waters as a continuing event, while Canadian Open was summer outdoor event.
Good video, I enjoyed it. But in your list of surfaces on which the game has been played, you left out wood. In fact, the US National Indoor Championships used to be played on wood at the 7th Regiment Armory in New York City. I attended for a few years. Chuck McKinley played the tournament, and, as I recall, won it at least once. I also played on wood for a few winters when I was young. And if you think grass or carpet is fast, well, you haven't played on wood.
Perfect job on the Nord ad. Very relevant to the content. 👍
Not many people talking about how big of a scandal is that a tournament director changes the surface of a tournament not once but twice just to fulfill the wishes of a player since he wants him to win... and that it's Federer and his team who tell the tournament director which Austrian company he needs to contact to build the court since they use a specific resine he fancies. As soon as Federer gets the court he exactly wants, he wins the tournament, his only title in Paris Bercy.... I mean lol this is corruption.
I agree completely it’s a little crazy how no one seems to care
I heard about this but it was just rambling, but man, how he corrupt that is, if he was benefitted that time, then how many more?
I think it has to do with wanting him to compete in his tournament. That´s completely normal since he was the number 1
Did you clowns no watch the video? Jesus. Are all Nadal fans illiterate?
facts
Waited for a new video for a while and it was worth it! Great video as always!
I disagree with the idea that Carpet was overwhelmingly good for servebots and bad for counterpunchers
The best tennis players on carpet in this last years of the 2000s were people like Safin or Nalbandian, it was the best surface for baseliners with flat groundstrokes like Jiri Novak or Karol Kucera who didn't necessarily have big serves. Look at the results in Basel and Paris from say, 1998 on until they stopped being on carpet.
I know this is unrelated, but I don't like how far tennis has tried to make the game easier for return is, if I'm being honest.
@@leaderofnoone9087 They haven't. The simply haven't banned modern materials for rackets, and with carbon fiber frames and poly strings you are left with two only options: make the surfaces slower and bouncier, or let tennis be only about serving (not even serve-and-volley; just serve alone).
Even if it was true, my response every time is "So what?".
Great to see a new video from cult tennis
Outdoor synthetic (fake grass) are still hugely popular in Australia, we basically only have hard courts and outdoor carpet over here, I love the synthetic courts, so much fun to slide on
Not in Vic. Most clubs are clay court
@@DanTuber oh wow find that surprising, I'm in NSW, just assumed it was similar in other states, my bad
I wish we still had the fast/low bounce grass, slow/high bounce clay, medium/medium hard, and fast/high bounce carpet. The sport is truly missing the diversity of playing styles it that we used to have and I believe the slowing down of court surfaces is the biggest culprit. The loss of carpet entirely as a surface is definitely part of that issue.
I love how well-written this guy's videos are. It's clear he has a way with words, irrespective of what he's saying. UA-cam's algorithm hasn't yet figured out that now that Federer has retired, I don't care about tennis anymore so they keep recommending tennis videos to me that I'll never watch, but I'll make an exception for this channel because the quality of the prose you hear in this channel is so good.
The racquets and strings have totally changed. You can’t just talk about the surface without talking about the equipment. Servebot tennis is beyond boring. No thank you
2:15, this sounds like how old school astroturf was set up in multi-sport stadiums before field turf entered the picture
lmao seeing the title of the video I instantly thought of our university's indoor carpet court, and then there it is, clip at 0:24 is at my uni :D
You mean at 0:24 ?
@@NadiaTennis damn you're right, flipped the numbers
I've been waiting for a video on carpet courts! As always, was a great video!
Carpet is a fun beginners surface as it massively slows down the ball, but the grippy surface can be hell on the ankles, and there’s absolutely zero sliding that you get with clay to compensate.
It’s actually lightning fast and very low bouncing.
McEnroe and Connors are the Carpet Goats
Early! Thank you for the hard work as usual, Cult Tennis Production!
Keep up the good work ! Amazing and consistent tennis content !
Now that's the influence and power grip that Fed had (still has) on this game. 😳
You can call it influence and power, or you can call it corruption lol
@@rafagoat575Seems like it’s the tournament’s fault. The tournament staff don’t have to listen to Fed’s requests. Madrid didn’t keep their blue clay after Federer won it the only time (it was on blue clay) in 2012.
@@RunRecoverRallyYou don't need to wonder what happened lol You can go ahead and read an interview in L'Equipe with Jean-François Caujolle, Paris-Bercy tournament director back then Lol He was a Federer fan and he wanted Federer to play and win.. Federer wasn't playing because didn't quite like the surface. So they contacted him, and he told them the exact Austrian company they had to contact to build the court... made with a resine he liked. And they did lol... but once it was finished, Federer didn't like it 100%, so you know what they did? Build it again.... and now yes, Federer loved it, he won that year and it was his only title lol. This is corruption.
The blue clay was a scandal, top players didn't want it, even FEDERER was against it. It was slippery and dangerous. But the owner Ion Tiriac didn't give a fuck, thought it was cool and they made it. But after seeing how players were constantly falling and confirming it was dangerous, they didn't make it anymore. That wasn't about Federer or any other player, it was about Ion Tiriac.
@@rafagoat575 ah alright you got me. I made assumptions and I was wrong. Good stuff
Its sad different surfaces come so close. Whats even the point then? And since they came up material technology was ready to make the stated problems disappear. What a shame.
Ooooo yes, always wondered why carpet courts disappeared before I stated watching tennis 👀
I love carpet...played lots of it in Italy and Spain...grass carpet is also awesome, my favorite...
There’s other surfaces that you did not mention. The US indoors used to be played on wood. In India, some tennis courts were on cattle dung.
I have played on wood in the 80:s. By far the fastest court. I loved indoor carpet (Bolltex) installed on wood. Best court of all-time 😄
It makes the most sense to me for the court to be in the dead center or as close as possible between fast play and slow play, and then that being the universal standard for all courts
I've played on both indoor and outdoor. Indoor in Men's Open and outdoor with sand (Omni Court) in the USTA juniors. Actually made it to a final on Omni Court in 18 and under. That surface was really fun, image playing on a surface with a bounce like modern grass court but you slide into your shots like on Clay because of the sand.
Great video!
This is such a highly quality documentary. Well done!
i mean, the clip where that temporary carpet peels off and makes the guy fall is enough to make me agree with the decision. wtf was that?
Grass courts don't use traditional topsoil, they use a blend of soils, sands, clay and silt to form an extremely compacted layer which allows the ball to bounce, albeit less than on a more traditional "hard" surface.
I thought it would be Nadal who requested the removal of the carpet. Very surprised it’s Federer. If Federer doesn’t like it, it must suck.
or it simply doesn't suit his game, like stated in the video
This video is oriented, the carpets were all very different, often of poor quality. It cost less, players have suffered too many times!!!
As for Federer, he simply did not like that of Bercy, too slow and in which we blocked our feet.
Honestly, the disappearance of tennis carpets has done a thousand times more good than harm.
Interesting video. Bit strange you keep using Sampras v Becker images from 1996 ATP final as an example of carpet tennis 09:14 The ATP finals were played in Frankfurt from 1990 to 1995 on carpet (taraflex) but when they moved to Hanover from 1996 to 1999, the players already voted to change the surface to plexicushion. The surface mainly used indoors right up to today.
There are also wood courts!
HOLY CRAP HE POSTED
People that complain all the time about surfaces being slower vs the 90s forget that hard court and grass matches were on average much boring and monotonous vs today (of course, there are still some cherry-picked awesome matches by the some of the greatest players in history, but I am talking about the average). In the 90s, women's tennis was by far more popular than men's since the matches were far more "playable" and the points weren't so short. WB 2001 was the deciding point where we saw a final without any single rally.
Slowing the courts down took away the variety of play styles. How was that good for the game? Before the homogenization of court services, a S&V had just as good a chance at winning as a baseliner. The player that could make their play style work on the given surface the best would win. And that made it a level playing field for everybody. Now with all courts playing the the same speed, they all favor baseliners. Hence, the new crop of players coming up only know how to slug it out from the baseline? They don't know how to transition to net to put away a point, and instead stay in a long grinding rally waiting for the error. And simply making balls and waiting for the other guy to miss is boring tennis. And as a result of courts almost playing the same, players don't need to adapt their games. They can play the FO the same way they play Indian Wells or Wimbledon. What Borg did in winning the FO and Wimbledon back to back for five years was amazing. He had to go from playing baseline tennis with a lot of rallies on the slow clay in winning RG to playing aggressive and attacking the net to win at Wimbledon. He couldn't afford to play the same way at both slams and win. So he had to adapt. Today, nobody has to adapt.
@@pomerlain8924 Your argument that players don't have to adapt is wrong, lets look at some examples
Thiem
-76% win percentage at clay
-45% win percentage at grass
Kyrgios
-71% win percentage at grass
-50% win percentage at claly
Medevev
-79% on hard courts
-67% on grass
-54% on clay
Wawrinka
-73% on clay
-56% on grass
If the players didn't have to adapt, they would have the same win% in all surfaces but we can't see that's not the case. Also, by far the biggest argument i can use if Feder-Nadal matches between 2006 and 2008.
Matches on clay: 9-1 nadal
matches outside clay: 4-2 Federer
Explain me this massive difference between both surfaces fi they are the same according to you?
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960
3 players in a span of 13 years completed a career slam. Djokovic has the time to slide on grass, as if he's playing on clay at RG. Nadal can get the heavy topspin because the soil beneath the grass is hard. He doesn't have to worry about his ball not getting enough jump.
And if those guys had to constantly adapt to different surfaces at slams, like slow as molasses RG to lightning fast Wimbledon, why is it that since 2005, they've won 59 of the last 71 played, which equates to 83%.
Out of the 153 Masters events that were played since 2005, those 3 players alone have won 98, which equates to 64%
Variable surfaces ==> different winners
Similar surfaces ==> the cream of the crop will almost always win
That's why prior to the homogenization of surfaces, why you all may have complained about the game being boring, you had different winners. Sampras wasn't winning everything with his S&V game. Agassi wasn't winning everything with baseline game. Becker wasn't winning everything. Courier wasn't winning everything. Edberg wasn't winning everything.
The homogenization of the surfaces protected those 3 guys, as it benefited the baseline style. The serve & volley style doesn't even have chance at flourishing today and being on even terms with baseline play like before when court surface speeds actually did differ.
@@pomerlain8924 Completly right, that´s what made it much more interesting, watching tennis in the 90´s, the variations of playing-style have been much bigger. Today, this endless groudline-rallies are so lame... saying this as an tennis-coach...
@5:00....This helps illustrate how great Jimmy Connors was. A surface that he won 45 of his "record 109 ATP Singles titles" was geared to the success of big servers, not counter punchers.
He was good, but really had no chance against Big servers/volley-Players like Edberg, Becker, Stich, Samspras , they started a complete new and much faster area of tennis...
Tennis courts everywhere are too similar now made the game less interesting. Some were too fast 25 years but it’s too far the other way now, the 2000s had the right sweet spot imo miss that era
I find it hard to believe that slower courts and 6 hour matches are what today's notorious attention span demands.
Change of grass in Wimbledon courts happened in 2001, before the tournament... not after. Though due to heavy rain during that particular British summer the effects were yet to be seen till next year.
Also, as many have already pointed out, Roger had very little to gain from changing the carpet to hard surface, especially looking at his record on carpet in his prime years. It would have made more sense if the claim was that he requested/influenced the change during his waning days, but surely not in 2007.
O/w the video is pretty neat.
Just because you love Roger doesn't change the facts... he hates carpet so they changed it... he didn't like the new surface so they changed it again...
The editing is amazing. What software or app do you use?
Fantastic video...Not all carpeted courts were the same. There were variations in speed and bounce though it was on the lower side and medium to medium fast. But rallies were definitely possible because of a consistent bounce and some of the best all court matches I've ever seen including powerful serving, explosive returning, long baseline rallies and spectacular winners were on carpet. In every way, far superior to Wimbledon grass which was over hyped.
1. Lendl vs Becker 1988 master's Finals
2. Becker vs Sampras 1994, 1996 ATP FINALS
3. Becker vs Sampras ATP Stuttgart
4. Becker vs Agassi 1989 Davis cup semi finals
We have a turf tennis courts near by my work. I play on it at least once a year since we don’t have any grass near us. I will say it is tougher on the legs than Clay, need to compare it to grass but haven’t had that chance yet.
Many of Federer’s best matches of his career were on carpet. This is some startling info here.
Every video is better and better! Great stuff!
So now that Roger is retired, will carpet make a comeback?
in german speaking countries (germany / switzerland/ austria) we play indoors on carpets during the whole winter season... carpet courts are the norm and its extremely difficult to find hard courts
So the Paris Masters 1000 director changed the surface from carpet to hard court in 2006 because he wanted Roger to win at the tournament and still it took more 5 years for that to happen 😅
Such a shame. I got to play on some of the green carpet that they used to use at the WTA indoor event in Zurich. It really was beautiful underfoot - really cushioned like an actual plush carpet. The bounce was great too.
I loved it back in the late 90's when I watched a lot of tennis, then I went on a big hiatus of more than 15 years without playing and watching and was shocked that it was banned. As a brazilian and huge Guga Kuerten's fan I vividly remember when Brazil played France away on Davis Cup and they chose carpet as the surface, which was a disaster to our non-Guga players, specially Meligeni who was pretty bad playing out of clay, I think it ended 0-5
Great video you do so much research and have a great voice lol. Keep up the good work
Roger even said in an interview that his favourite surface is indoor carpet. Why the change?
Nadal changed it. Federar was invincible...until Nadal came. Nadal was better, but not in grass where Federer dominated (5 years without losing) in synthetic the two were even I think....I imagine this is why Federer became pickier about the surface to get a little more edge. I never saw a carpet court in Brazil where I live clay is preferred in almost all places except synthetic for international games, but I imagine carpet is or was intermediary in speed between synthetic and grass.
Great video mate!!!❤
(5:13) Foot fault!
Carpet is not one surface, there is a great variety of suppliers who produce different types with slightly different characteristics. There is an argument that many of the problems, chiefly players falling, were more common on certain types principally used at the tour level. If instead you were to use a different carpet surface, you could bring carpet tournaments back at this level, and have a faster surface yet again.
Also worth remembering carpet has never been removed completely, it's still used at challenger and ITF level, and the WTA had a carpet tournament until 2018.
Imagine having a tournament director accommodate you that much
Because you want to give the biggest star of the game the best experience possible. Roger didn't ask him to change it, the organizer itself realize its best to do for their own good.
That is called corruption
@@edgarpanganiban9339 sure, it makes sense but it's still insane though to have a director give you that much
@@youngsuit The director wants to lure Fed in. Changing the court is one step to that, plus the fact that its an outdated surface. Its just a great decision overall.
@@edgarpanganiban9339 it was good to change the surface overall. it's good to bring star players in to bring funds in for the event for sure. just depends, there's eventually a limit to accommodating to the point of it being unfair
Make more videos. Underrated UA-camr
1st I love you cult tennis
I was first
No you weren’t
@@Benwatts18 change it to newest first and check
@@Benwatts18 I beat you by two seconds lol
You probably did beat me, but for some reason when I look at newest first you aren’t there. idk tho
Your videos are great man. Awesome work!
People always say "Djokovic thinks hes above the rules bla bla bla". No he doesnt, but federer does. Federer was a spoiled a*s person. He didnt like the court play and made them change it 3 times JUST FOR HIM. Federer will never get on Djokovics level, period.
There is a Challenger Tournament coming up near Munich (Ismaning) and they play indoors on carpet. I go every year. The surface is really fast.
I’m sorry I know it’s very unpopular especially now to say it but this is a side to Federer I don’t like. This confirms the “what roger wants roger gets” conspiracy has always been true in reality. I’m sure people will be angry at me but the fact he not only demanded the end of carpet In Paris but then said he wasn’t happy with the hard courts either is a joke, it’s literally fixing a tournament to make him win.
He didn't "demand" anything. When asked why he did not come to Paris, he simply stated his honest preference. He did not like carpet surfaces so did not play on them that simple. It was the tournament director who wanted to change the surface to appeal to Federer- but this does NOT mean that he "demanded" anything. In the end, if a surface has a higher risk of injury to players, that is enough reason to ban it.
Lol Roger didn't request anything, the organizers did it cause its common sense you want to give the biggest tennis star at that time the best experience as much as possible. Paris Open is played late in the calendar year, plus an "outdated" surface with high chance of injury and unpredictable bounces due to "rare" surface itself. Not surprise Roger is skipping the tournament before.
Tennis is a business. Which is why Federer or Djokovic will have 2 rounds finished at rainy 2016 Wimbledon, while other players weren't finished with 1 round. Which is why Federer plays a lot of night matches at the Australian Open and US Open. Which is why all of Serena Williams's matches at this year's Us Open were at night (even though Serena was way past prime). Tournament organizers want to make money, and the easiest way is to get the star players to play.