By Happypal 
Alexander Zverev, the world No. 3, dropped a blunt critique of modern tournament conditions when he accused organisers of slowing court speeds to favour the sport’s two hottest names, Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. Speaking after a hard-fought match, Zverev said he believes some tournaments are preparing surfaces to create longer rallies — conditions that reward the playing styles of the current top two. His comments have reignited a wider debate among players, experts and fans about fairness, stylistic diversity and how the tools of tournament management shape tennis outcomes.
The remark that set off headlines
Zverev’s comments were not casual. After his match he suggested tournament directors had a preference for marquee outcomes and that court preparation had been moving in one direction — toward slower surfaces. He said he disliked the sameness and argued that variety in court speed is important so different styles have a chance to flourish. Those words struck a nerve because they went beyond ordinary post-match complaints and accused the sport’s event managers of engineering conditions that advantage certain competitors.
The technical issue: why court speed matters
At its core, this controversy is about physics and tactics. Court speed—usually measured by a metric called the Court Pace Index (CPI)—determines how quickly the ball travels and bounces on a given surface. On faster courts, big servers and players who take the ball early tend to dominate, while slower courts favour baseline grinders who can sustain long rallies.
- Fast courts reward aces, first-strike tennis, and opportunistic net play. Points are short and serving becomes an even bigger weapon.
- Slow courts make serves more returnable, extend rally length, and reward footwork, defence and the ability to construct points over extended exchanges.
When a tournament’s courts are noticeably slower than in previous years, match dynamics shift and players who excel at long, attritional rallies gain a measurable advantage. That’s the precise effect Zverev says is being engineered to the benefit of Alcaraz and Sinner, whose games combine elite movement, shot variety and consistency from the back of the court.
Why Alcaraz and Sinner benefit from rally-friendly courts
Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner are modern exemplars of complete baseline players. Both possess excellent movement, powerful yet versatile groundstrokes, and the fitness to sustain repeated high-intensity rallies. On slower courts, their ability to defend effectively and then pivot to attack is magnified — they can absorb pressure and manufacture openings in long exchanges.
Because Alcaraz and Sinner can defend, reset, and then finish points with aggression, a court that encourages baseline rallies reduces the one-off, server-dominated upsets that a faster court can create. In short, a slower court plays to their strengths and can, over time, increase the frequency with which they reach the late rounds of big events.
A longer history: calls for variety in the game
Zverev’s comments are part of a wider conversation that has been bubbling for years. Critics and former champions have long argued that too many tournaments now play similarly, reducing tactical diversity and diminishing the advantage that different playing styles once enjoyed. Observers who treasure serve-and-volley play and fast-court variety argue that uniform surfaces make the sport less interesting in a stylistic sense.
Those who defend the status quo say modern players have simply become more complete; athleticism and coaching mean the best players can perform across surfaces, so what looks like uniformity is actually evolution. Both sides have a point: the sport has evolved, but the loss of distinctive court identities removes one of tennis’s strategic variables.
Is there proof tournaments are deliberately slowing courts?
Zverev’s accusation implies intent. Measuring the effect — and proving deliberate manipulation — is tricky.
- Objective measures like CPI can show that a court plays slower or faster than in previous years. Those numbers, if publicly available, make a persuasive case that conditions have changed.
- Operational explanations often offered by tournament organisers (ball type, humidity, maintenance, player safety, broadcast conditions) can plausibly explain shifts without implying malice.
- Intent is much harder to prove. To show deliberate favoritism would require internal documentation, testimony or consistent patterns combined with explicit admissions — none of which are commonly available to the public.
In short, while measurable changes in court speed can be demonstrated, proving an orchestrated plan to favour specific players is a higher evidentiary bar. What remains clear, however, is that perception matters: if top players believe organisers are shaping conditions to produce predictable outcomes, it can undermine trust and fuel ongoing controversy.
How court speed changes match planning and tactics
Court speed affects everything from serve strategy to return positioning:
- On fast courts, players aim to shorten points, rely on serve dominance, and often stay aggressive at the net. Tactical plans favour hitting early and taking time away from the opponent.
- On slow courts, players construct points, use angles, and value stamina and transitional defence. Returns become more important, and successful returners can flip a point’s direction more frequently.
Coaches and players plan training and tournament schedules around expected conditions. If a stretch of tournaments is perceived as slower, players may emphasise return drills, endurance and constructing points in practice. Tactical preparation then becomes both a competitive advantage and a resource game: who can adapt fastest?
The protagonists: quick profiles and their contrast
Alexander Zverev — A top-level power baseliner who has shown time and again that he can produce big groundstrokes, serve effectively and dominate at times. Zverev’s critique springs partially from a competitive place: when conditions consistently favour marathon rallies, his serve and certain offensive weapons may be somewhat neutralised.
Carlos Alcaraz — A dynamic mover and shotmaker with the ability to both grind in long rallies and finish points explosively. His blend of defence-to-attack makes him a natural beneficiary on surfaces that reward extended exchanges.
Jannik Sinner — A rising figure known for clinical baseline reliability and a steel-trap temperament in matchplay. Sinner’s efficiency in closing out matches and maintaining high levels of consistency means rally-heavy conditions suit his style.
These contrasts help explain why Zverev framed his question in terms of stylistic advantage: surface changes shift the balance between these coaching archetypes.
Reactions from the tennis community
The conversation around Zverev’s comments has spread quickly. Some players and commentators agree that too many surfaces feel similar; others say the top players simply deserve credit for being more versatile. Among fans the debate is lively: traditionalists call for more fast-court variety, while newer audiences appreciate powerful baseline rallies and long epic matches.
The core of the dispute isn’t simply technical. It touches on what fans want from tennis: short, unpredictable points that reward risk, or longer strategic battles that showcase endurance and rally construction. Commercial pressures complicate matters — broadcasters, sponsors and tournament promoters all prefer marquee matchups and predictable high-profile clashes. That reality can influence operational choices, whether by design or by market logic.
Practical remedies — what could change and what’s feasible?
If the tour or tournament organisers sought to restore greater variety, the options include:
- Publishing and monitoring CPI targets for events to ensure a mix of court speeds across the calendar.
- Adjusting ball type or pressure to achieve different playing characteristics without major infrastructure changes.
- Re-introducing or expanding fast-court events (or scheduling more grass-court opportunities) to give serve-and-volley and first-strike players a better chance.
- Enhanced transparency from tournaments about why they choose certain preparations — and how factors like player safety, weather and broadcast demands shaped that decision.
Each approach has trade-offs: balls and surfaces cost money; broadcasters and sponsors have expectations; players have travel and training logistics. But incremental steps — including clearer public communication about court choices — would go a long way in calming suspicion.
What effect could this debate have on tournaments and rankings?
Narratively, Zverev’s comments add a new subplot to the season: it’s no longer just about who wins, but how conditions influence the likelihood of certain matchups. If the trend toward slower courts continues, players whose strengths match those conditions may gather ranking momentum and confidence that feeds future success.
For organisers, even the perception of unfairness is damaging. Tournaments dependent on reputation and fan goodwill may feel pressure to justify their choices publicly. For sponsors and broadcasters, the spectacle remains the priority—but if spectator tastes shift because of perceived homogeneity, commercial strategies might need to adapt.
Final analysis — fairness, spectacle and the future of tennis
Alexander Zverev’s accusation is notable because it brings a technical debate into the public arena in blunt terms. Whether or not organisers are deliberately “slowing courts” to favour certain players, the discussion exposes a fault line between the sport’s competitive integrity and its commercial imperatives.
If tennis wants to preserve stylistic diversity and the unpredictable thrill of varied play, it must reckon with how operational decisions — from ball choice to court maintenance — influence outcomes. For fans and media, the focus will now be on transparency: will tournament organisers explain their choices more clearly? Will governing bodies consider guardrails for surface variety? The answers will shape the feel of tennis for years to come.