SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 1357 Posts

·
Divemaster!
Joined
·
6,680 Posts
You've probably seen then before but...well, just for the heck of it, I'll post a few glimpses of the world's most famous tennis stadiums, at Wimbledon:

















:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
Jack Rabbit Slim - I presume that the third picture down is a render, showing how Centre court would look once capacity is increased (to 15,000?) and a sliding roof installed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
edennewstairs said:
wimbledon might be the most historic and best known but this has got to be one of the best actual stadiums:

arthur ashe stadium, NY, USA:

Great looking tennis stadium. Very impressive.

However, has anyone from this board watched tennis there? I would imagine that it could be quite hard to see the ball from near the top of the upper tier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
JimB said:
Jack Rabbit Slim - I presume that the third picture down is a render, showing how Centre court would look once capacity is increased (to 15,000?) and a sliding roof installed?
I think there are pictures on the Wimbledon website.
There are also plans to rebuild court number 2 to approx 6000 capacity
All part of Wimbledon's long term strategy, including London 2012.
You never know, Maybe Andy Murrey will win by then!

Biggest stadium is Arthur Ashe I think, 19,000
 

·
Divemaster!
Joined
·
6,680 Posts
JimB said:
Jack Rabbit Slim - I presume that the third picture down is a render, showing how Centre court would look once capacity is increased (to 15,000?) and a sliding roof installed?
Yep! Looks awesum don't it? I don't know a lot about the extension, but I think it is said to be aiming for completion in 2009.

While the Arthur Ashe stadium and the Rexall Centre are both nice stadiums, they both look a bit...well...bulky...hard to explain really....it's like they arn't really suited to tennis, like someone decided to build seats around a centre point, then stuck a tennis court in the middle. Imo, neither have very much grandeur, prestige, atmosphere or passion about them like Centre court or Court No 1 at Wimbledon, which look perfectly suited to tennis, and only tennis.

There is also the matter of the court surface itself. Both the US and Australian open have hard courts (Australian open has a synthetic hard court) which, while still being pretty decent, isn't as high a quality as the faster, unique grass courts of Wimbledon. Though even these hard cement courts are better then clay ones (used in the French Open), which are slow, horrible to play on and look at, and mess up you're shoes/socks and clothes somethin awful!

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
Jack Rabbit Slim said:
There is also the matter of the court surface itself. Both the US and Australian open have hard courts (Australian open has a synthetic hard court) which, while still being pretty decent, isn't as high a quality as the faster, unique grass courts of Wimbledon. Though even these hard cement courts are better then clay ones (used in the French Open), which are slow, horrible to play on and look at, and mess up you're shoes/socks and clothes somethin awful!
That's very much a matter of opinion. Some players don't like the variable bounce of grass courts. Nor do they like the speed of the court. Let's face it, a Wimbledon match between two guys serving at 130-140 mph can be very dull indeed, with hardly any rallies. It seems that most players from Spain, South America and France prefer clay court tennis.

Some players prefer hard courts.

And only a few prefer grass courts - though pretty much every player wants to play at Wimbledon.

As to the Flushing Meadow, it may not have the same aura of tradition as at Wimbledon but I'm sure that it still has a unique and exciting atmosphere all of its own.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
edennewstairs said:
wimbledon might be the most historic and best known but this has got to be one of the best actual stadiums:

arthur ashe stadium, NY, USA:

This is the best so far. I'm not interested in history or prestige or atmosphere (fans make atmosphere, not stadiums). I simply want to see what is the most impressive physical structure. Wimbledon is nice, but it is a bit boring for me and too green!! I'm not that keen on green stadiums (nothing to do with celtic, I just don't think green stadiums look pleasant to the eye).

Any more tennis stadiums? Something a bit different with a bit of spice?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
Centre court, Wimbledon is really the best there is. I would say its the best sports stadium of all if looked at what a specific venue does for a sport. It lifts tennis more than any venue lifts any sport, I think, which is great for tennis as ,like all individual sports, it isnt great to watch too often in my opinion though good to play.

The atmosphere is unique. From being able to hear a pin drop before a point to very loud moments after.

Arthur Ashe is poor, I think.
Its just too big for tennis to quote a big american tennis reporter and i think its right. There has to be some sort of connection between the size of the "field" and stands.
It seems people are very detached from the game in the upper sections and the atmosphere is more that of a shopping mall with people just talking through points most of the time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
2zanzibar said:
hang on folks! what about Roland Garros?

It certainly produces the most exciting tennis
Again, that's a subjective judgement. Some people find the long, baseline rallies that are common in clay court tennis to be fascinating. Others find them excessively boring.

Whatever floats your boat.

But I agree that Roland Garros is right up there with Wimbledon and Flushing Meadow for stadiums. What's the capacity of the main court? Looks to be a bit bigger than Centre court. The second and third best courts also look to be quite big. Any more pictures of them? The ones in your link only show the main court properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
rantanamo said:
so basically you guys are saying, cut off the top tier of Ashe and it would be great? or take out the suites?
I can't speak for the others. I only asked a question. The Arthur Ashe court is certainly impressive but, having never been there, I wanted to know what it's like for watching tennis. You can only ever get a rough impression from a photograph but, from the photo on this thread, it seems to me as though it might be difficult to follow the ball from the top tier.
 
1 - 20 of 1357 Posts
Top