Every court is medium now and tennis is poorer for it

Slowing the fast surfaces and speeding the slow ones has produced a tour where the same style wins everywhere.

There used to be four genuinely different games. Grass rewarded a player who could serve and get to the net before the ball did. Indoor carpet was a shootout. Clay demanded patience and a sliding defensive base. Hard courts sat in between and varied wildly from one venue to the next.

Now there's basically one game with slightly different backdrops, and I don't think the sport gained anything.

The homogenisation happened from both directions. Grass courts were re-seeded with denser, harder-wearing grass on firmer soil, which makes the bounce higher and more predictable. Hard courts had more sand mixed into the acrylic to slow them down. Balls got heavier and fluffier at several big events, which does more than anything to kill a fast surface, because a ball with more nap has more drag and simply arrives later. Meanwhile clay preparation at some venues got firmer and drier, so the ball skids through instead of sitting up.

Squeeze from both ends and you get medium everywhere.

The tactical effect is real and measurable if you watch how points are constructed. On a genuinely fast court, the server has maybe one shot to be aggressive with and the returner is trying to survive, so points are short and the serve dominates. On a slow one, the returner can get the ball back at depth and the point becomes a physical negotiation. When every court is medium, the winning archetype becomes the same everywhere: a heavy-hitting baseliner with elite movement who can absorb pace and redirect it. Which is a wonderful thing to be, and also the only thing worth being, which is the problem.

Variety used to mean genuinely different champions in June and September. A serve-volleyer who was hopeless on clay could own a fortnight in London. A grinder who couldn't hold serve on a quick court could win a major on dirt. That kind of specialisation made the calendar interesting.

The usual defence is that longer rallies are better television. I'd argue the opposite. What holds attention is contrast: an attacker against a defender, a shot-maker against a wall. Two players hitting the same heavy topspin forehand cross-court for eleven strokes is impressive the first hundred times and wearying the thousandth.

If tournaments want to help, the cheapest lever isn't the court at all. It's the ball. Change the ball and you change the drag, and you change the sport in a fortnight.