1. perhaps the portable grass courts are not quite good enough yet, but there is little doubt this will change. An australian company is pioneering this, particularly with the portable cricket wickets.The curator at Adelaide Oval is quoted as saying he didnt think it was possible to create proper portable cricket wickets just a few years ago,now its the future and apparently costs are expected to fall. A wicket can even be brought in and out in one piece, a full 75 sq.meters, surely this will also soon be the case for a tennis half-court which is about 120 sq.mthe guy wrote:a few reasons why neither the Aus nor US open should change surface.
1. temporary grass courts may be able to handle a davis cup tie, but to host a grand slam they would be completely brown and nothing but dirt by the begining of the second week.
2. if the move to clay then we would have multiple grand slams of the most painfully boring variety, the french open is only for those players that cant win a tournament on real mans surface. CLAY SUCKS, the french open is the worst. (why do you think gustavo kuerton never played wimbledon)
3. both the Aus and the US opens are at the beggining and end of the season repectively, so its not surprising that niggling injuries occur after a long schedule and before they get back into full time playing. (they could cut baack on the amount of meaningless tournaments they play).
4. injuries have never been such a problem as they are this year, i think its just a coinsidence that we are seeing so many injuries this year. perhaps the shoe companies need to pay real workers to manufactur their shoes, not porr 5 year old filipino kids working for 10 cents a day. or just desgn better shoes.
when a half-court can be dropped in one piece, a worn surface can be switched in a few hours unlike now, where the many small sections need weeks to bind. Grass is a great surface, when it isnt too fast, which it doesnt need to be. of course its also the most historic surface and who doesnt generally like grass more than plastic.
In fact I see no reason why not to switch to grass in the future, however right now its probably still too expensive and difficult, but eventually I think it will happen.
2. Totally agree. clay tennis is terrible. It could only be considered, if something was done about the surface or the ball, but grass would be better
3. I doubt that has too much to say
4. well perhaps there has been an unusually high number of injuries, but I think its pretty obvious that hard courts will cause much more wear and tear as well as more injuries, why stick with them when alternatives become more easily available
