It's the French Tennis Federation that "pays", I assume that taxes finance a significant part. It would be difficult to know though as the federations are notoriously corrupt and opaque.tobydawq said:Is it really tax money that would pay for such a roof, though?
frenchfry said:It's the French Tennis Federation that "pays", I assume that taxes finance a significant part. It would be difficult to know though as the federations are notoriously corrupt and opaque.tobydawq said:Is it really tax money that would pay for such a roof, though?
The major tennis tournaments have a "keep up with the Joneses" mentality, they each feel they have to get bigger and more luxurious in order to keep up with each other. Not much different than most other professional sports. I am not a big fan of bigger is better.
Red Rick said:They seriously just renovated Court Philippe Chatrier. 100% bullcrap they didn't opt for a roof on it.
In 2019, aside from a brand-new Chatrier, Roland Garros will also expand its footprint from 850 acres to 1,250 acres, and will debut a new set of courts—including a sunken, 5,000-seat “greenhouse” arena, which will be known as Court Simonne-Mathieu, after the country’s best woman player of the 1930s. In 2020, a retractable roof will be placed on top of Chatrier, and the beloved Bullring court will be razed. In 2021, night sessions—complete with lighting fixtures that also retract—will come to the French Open for the first time; they’re expected to generate 100,000 to 150,000 more in ticket sales over the tournament’s two weeks. In 2024, the site will be the logical host for the tennis competition at that summer’s Paris Olympics.
Hardly.frenchfry said:tobydawq said:Is it really tax money that would pay for such a roof, though?
The major tennis tournaments have a "keep up with the Joneses" mentality, they each feel they have to get bigger and more luxurious in order to keep up with each other. Not much different than most other professional sports. I am not a big fan of bigger is better.
In terms of organisation and fans, it's widely considered the best Slam. It's called the Happy Slam for a reason. Meanwhile Roland Garros and the USO tend to be among the worst crowds in the sport.del1962 said:Isn't insane heat a problem for Australian open, surely that would not make it favourite of every player
Red Rick said:Clay is still Fed's worst surface. He played like 4 dudes who were never in doubt matches, IIRC Mayer was even injured and not certain to play, and Wawrinka is and has always been Federers complete ***, not to mention the entire 'Stanimal is back' thing being totally overblown.
Red Rick said:Yup. Tennis has come such a long way.
Don't get me wrong. Federer is playing about as well as you can expect from a 37 year old playing his first RG in 4 years, but the field is just in absolute shambles right now.
And the hole Stanimal idea is the funniest cause I'm pretty sure he has 0 wins over Nadal or Federer if the latter played well.
It's a bit of both. And it's probably still better than the Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov/Goffin generation.tobydawq said:Red Rick said:Yup. Tennis has come such a long way.
Don't get me wrong. Federer is playing about as well as you can expect from a 37 year old playing his first RG in 4 years, but the field is just in absolute shambles right now.
And the hole Stanimal idea is the funniest cause I'm pretty sure he has 0 wins over Nadal or Federer if the latter played well.
He did win an Australian Open final over Nadal (who, admittedly, was quite injured but stood through the match), and has won three slams in total - and those were definitely not gifted to him.
Also, I think that Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are the three best players to ever have played the game, and that is probably the real reason why the new generation seems so underwhelming.
Red Rick said:Bit of outrage about the schedule tomorrow, as neither women's semifinal is played on PC.
The stupid thing is the men's semi's start at PC at 12.50 while the women's semi's both start at 11 at Lenglen and Court 1.
None of this makes any sense.
Yeah, is the worst surface for him but that still mean that only an handful of players can beat him (and in the past for years only Nadal was able to prevent him from dominating even here) and the route for a QF in maybe even easier because there aren't big servers that in the right day can beat everyone like on fast surfaces. That is a lot far from the depiction of his adepts that say clay is a terrible mud where he shouldn't go for any reason.Red Rick said:Clay is still Fed's worst surface. He played like 4 dudes who were never in doubt matches, IIRC Mayer was even injured and not certain to play, and Wawrinka is and has always been Federers complete ***, not to mention the entire 'Stanimal is back' thing being totally overblown.