Evo ti i primjere za brže turnire gdje se vidi razlika zadnju deceniju, znači ne možeš negirati činjenicu da spora podloga paše više određenim teniserima, da brža određenim, ali eto mi pravimo neke mitove
US Open 2009: Faster courts. They were painted with less grit (silica). Perhaps the young del Potro found that faster surface a paradise for his godly forehand.[1]
Roland Garros 2011: in a one-off thing, the lighter-and-faster-than-usual Type 1 Babolat balls made it easier for attacking players to make dents into clay players. In this tournament, John Isner, the Great American Serve Machine, became the first man to take Rafael Nadal to five sets at Roland Garros. Roger Federer, another attack-minded player like Isner, found the depth and the shot-speed to knock Novak off his 43-match winning streak, even pushing Nadal in the final, harder than he did in 2006, 2007, and 2008, as a younger man.[2][3]
Australian Open 2014: Again, faster balls. Most of the women thought so too. Stan outhit Novak in the QF, and was responsible for making Rafa ruin his back in the final—a victory by sheer brutality of shot-speed. Mjollnir was reunited with the Swiss Thor, and it was slightly helped by the balls. [4][5]
Australian Open 2017: Faster, tight-wound balls and a faster-than-usual court. The tight-wound balls took a longer time to fluff up, leaving them faster for a longer time, while the Plexicushion courts helped attackers and took away slight benefits from the defenders, especially the tournament’s two best players in the last 5 years—Djokovic and Murray. The 35 year-old Federer won his first slam final over the Nadal in 10 years, when, before, the Spaniard had always got the better of the Swiss at the same venue. The conditions helped Federer, but it also makes one wonder at the underrated adaptability of Nadal—in both instances when the AO was sped up, he reached the final, pouring cold water over those people who pigeonhole him as a “slow court player.”[6]
