PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon needs to change


NamRanger
07-08-2007, 11:32 AM
After watching today's match, I'm disguisted with Wimbledon. The match itself was incredible, extremely high level of play from both players, but it was literally like watching clay court / slow hardcourt tennis out there. Not only this match, but there are plenty of other matches that showed that grass is way too slow.



Roddick losing to Gasquet

Even though this is a choke, Gasquet prefers to play on slower surfaces, such as slow hardcourts and clay. This year, he was able to make a deep run at Wimbledon, upsetting Roddick along the way, who usually does well on fast surfaces.


Blake losing to JCF

Should not have happened. Blake although was mentally off, should have easily won this match. His big groundies and speed should have allowed him to straight set JCF, who really has no weapons. JCF however just looped balls back and just annoyed the heck out of Blake. He was able to get alot of balls back that normally would be winners.


Berdych losing to Nadal

Big suprise to me. I thought Berdych should have been able to take Nadal out easily in 4, but Nadal straight sets him. It seemed like Nadal was not really bothered, and just played clay court tennis out there on a grass court. He was able to get the ball up high and really bother Berdych.


Djoko vs Hewitt Match

Although Djoko won, if you watched some of the rallies from this match you would have thought they were playing on green clay. There were points that lasted 20-25 strokes if not longer, I believe one point was somewhere around 40 strokes. Absolutely rediculous.



There are tons of claycourt players other then Nadal making their way deeper on grass. He's not the only one. This is pretty unfair to fast court specialists, because the French Open doesn't change it's surface to play like a hardcourt now does it? Wimbledon needs to speed up the grass, or it's going to get a whole lot more complaints.

superstition
07-08-2007, 11:43 AM
Wimbledon should use the grass/soil it was using in the 1920s and the same balls (weight, bounce, size). At that time, players like Tilden could win primarily from the baseline with wood racquets, and serve/volley players could also do well. The game was balanced. During the wood era, there was more variety, because a player like Borg could win with topspin, a player like McEnroe could have unique strokes and practically the opposite game. The famous Helen Wills also won primarily from the baseline, yet many women who were also very successful served/volleyed like King and Court. The balls were larger in the 20s and were made smaller to lower the cost. Perhaps that's why there were dominant baseline-preferring champions in the 20s? The elaborate clothing players wore then probably limited mobility to some degree, though.

The thing Wimbledon should strive for is balance. Right now, the balance point is too much in favor of the baseliner, mainly because of the racquets but also because of the grass/soil. Wimbledon has a problem, though. Anything that gives an all court or serve/volleyer an advantage makes serving aces too easy. The racquets are the big problem. The heads are too big. It's too easy to hit passing shots. Navratilova and others have also cited poly string, saying it's too easy to generate extreme spin.

I'd like Wimbledon to switch back to fescue grass and wood racquets. If any tournament has the power to do that, it's Wimbledon.

NamRanger
07-08-2007, 11:49 AM
Wimbledon should use the grass/soil it was using in the 1920s and the same balls (weight, bounce, size). At that time, players like Tilden could win primarily from the baseline with wood racquets, and serve/volley players could also do well. The game was balanced. During the wood era, there was more variety, because a player like Borg could win with topspin, a player like McEnroe could have unique strokes and practically the opposite game. The famous Helen Wills also won primarily from the baseline, yet many women who were also very successful served/volleyed like King and Court. The balls were larger in the 20s and were made smaller to lower the cost. Perhaps that's why there were dominant baseline-preferring champions in the 20s? The elaborate clothing players wore then probably limited mobility to some degree, though.

The thing Wimbledon should strive for is balance. Right now, the balance point is too much in favor of the baseliner, mainly because of the racquets but also because of the grass/soil. Wimbledon has a problem, though. Anything that gives an all court or serve/volleyer an advantage makes serving aces too easy. The racquets are the big problem. The heads are too big. It's too easy to hit passing shots. Navratilova and others have also cited poly string, saying it's too easy to generate extreme spin.

I'd like Wimbledon to switch back to fescue grass and wood racquets. If any tournament has the power to do that, it's Wimbledon.


I wouldn't go that far, but there has to be something done to the soil and grass to make it faster then it is right now. Because honestly, the counter puncher seems to have the advantage over the attacking player right now on grass, and that's NOT right.

superstition
07-08-2007, 11:51 AM
I don't think going back to wood and fescue is going far. For most of tennis' history, it was played with wood racquets and fescue grass.

ACE of Hearts
07-08-2007, 11:51 AM
Exactly.Hey Nam, i gave a stat, Fed only had 12 forehand winners after 4 sets and we all know how lethal, Roger's forehand is on grass.

Polaris
07-08-2007, 11:52 AM
I'd like Wimbledon to switch back to fescue grass and wood racquets.
Wood racquets would be too much of a change, but a small percentage of fescue would go a long way.

ACE of Hearts
07-08-2007, 11:55 AM
I would like to see Roger with a wooden racquet.I still think he would excel.I am just curious to see it.Some players from the pass maded nice transitions when it came to the sticks off today.

NamRanger
07-08-2007, 11:56 AM
Exactly.Hey Nam, i gave a stat, Fed only had 12 forehand winners after 4 sets and we all know how lethal, Roger's forehand is on grass.


Exactly, Federer usually blasts winners everywhere at the USO and at previous Wimbledons. But this Wimbledon, he hit alot less winners, and was forced to come to net to end points because his opponents were able to get alot of balls back.



It seems like fast court specialists like Roddick, Blake, Safin, etc. seem to be going out fast. It's like claycourt players are now the new thing.

Feņa14
07-08-2007, 12:03 PM
I agree it needs to be speeded back up a bit but you're being pretty harsh on Gasquet who calls Wimbledon his favourite slam. He's also won the title at Nottingham twice, he really enjoys grass. Also Ferrero enjoys grass and Blake doesn't seem to be too keen on it, Ferrero has a very accurate serve where he seems to crank the pace up on grass and with his consistent strokes and high class forehand means he does well on the surface, I remember he had a real ding dong match with Grosjean back in 2003 when he was at his best and he looks at home.

To be honest I like the surface at Wimbledon at the moment, but not for the Championships themselves. I feel that the low bounce but not overly fast pace of the courts means that all kinds of players can play the game they want and have success with it. Clay courters can have success if they work at it such as Nadal and Ferrero, Serve Volleyers like Henman and Bjorkman can play their game and have fun doing it, and typical hard court players like Murray and Djokovic enjoy the surface too. I feel that the quality of matches we have had this year would back me up on this, we've had Nadal playing some fun matches, alot more fun than his clay matches anyway, Roddick v Gasquet, Djokovic v Kiefer/Hewitt/Baghdatis, Henman v Moya etc...

If more places around the world had the same type of courts then I feel we would get a whole range of players doing well, instead of just hard court or clay court specialists that we have at tournaments at the moment. Not to mention the surface is good on the body when compared with the punishing hard courts.

tim8
07-08-2007, 01:18 PM
After watching today's match, I'm disguisted with Wimbledon. The match itself was incredible, extremely high level of play from both players, but it was literally like watching clay court / slow hardcourt tennis out there. Not only this match, but there are plenty of other matches that showed that grass is way too slow.



Roddick losing to Gasquet

Even though this is a choke, Gasquet prefers to play on slower surfaces, such as slow hardcourts and clay. This year, he was able to make a deep run at Wimbledon, upsetting Roddick along the way, who usually does well on fast surfaces.


Blake losing to JCF

Should not have happened. Blake although was mentally off, should have easily won this match. His big groundies and speed should have allowed him to straight set JCF, who really has no weapons. JCF however just looped balls back and just annoyed the heck out of Blake. He was able to get alot of balls back that normally would be winners.


Berdych losing to Nadal

Big suprise to me. I thought Berdych should have been able to take Nadal out easily in 4, but Nadal straight sets him. It seemed like Nadal was not really bothered, and just played clay court tennis out there on a grass court. He was able to get the ball up high and really bother Berdych.


Djoko vs Hewitt Match

Although Djoko won, if you watched some of the rallies from this match you would have thought they were playing on green clay. There were points that lasted 20-25 strokes if not longer, I believe one point was somewhere around 40 strokes. Absolutely rediculous.



There are tons of claycourt players other then Nadal making their way deeper on grass. He's not the only one. This is pretty unfair to fast court specialists, because the French Open doesn't change it's surface to play like a hardcourt now does it? Wimbledon needs to speed up the grass, or it's going to get a whole lot more complaints.

I agree that the courts are too slow, but some of your examples are just wrong. Gasquet is not a slow court player. He is a shot maker who hit 90+ winners in his match against Roddick, his ground strokes and net play benifit more from grass than Roddick's do. Blake has never moved well on grass and neither has Safin, they are hard court players, whereas JCF moves GREAT. Movement is one of the most underrated components needed to be successful on grass. I agree with your other two examples though.

caulcano
07-08-2007, 01:59 PM
After watching today's match, I'm disguisted with Wimbledon. The match itself was incredible, extremely high level of play from both players, but it was literally like watching clay court / slow hardcourt tennis out there. Not only this match, but there are plenty of other matches that showed that grass is way too slow.



Roddick losing to Gasquet

Even though this is a choke, Gasquet prefers to play on slower surfaces, such as slow hardcourts and clay. This year, he was able to make a deep run at Wimbledon, upsetting Roddick along the way, who usually does well on fast surfaces.


Blake losing to JCF

Should not have happened. Blake although was mentally off, should have easily won this match. His big groundies and speed should have allowed him to straight set JCF, who really has no weapons. JCF however just looped balls back and just annoyed the heck out of Blake. He was able to get alot of balls back that normally would be winners.


Berdych losing to Nadal

Big suprise to me. I thought Berdych should have been able to take Nadal out easily in 4, but Nadal straight sets him. It seemed like Nadal was not really bothered, and just played clay court tennis out there on a grass court. He was able to get the ball up high and really bother Berdych.


Djoko vs Hewitt Match

Although Djoko won, if you watched some of the rallies from this match you would have thought they were playing on green clay. There were points that lasted 20-25 strokes if not longer, I believe one point was somewhere around 40 strokes. Absolutely rediculous.



There are tons of claycourt players other then Nadal making their way deeper on grass. He's not the only one. This is pretty unfair to fast court specialists, because the French Open doesn't change it's surface to play like a hardcourt now does it? Wimbledon needs to speed up the grass, or it's going to get a whole lot more complaints.

I agree but I'd add another reason.

Wimbledon needs to be sped up so that we don't loose anymore S&V. I, like many other people, actually enjoy S&V. It's an art.

Vision84
07-08-2007, 02:04 PM
I agree that the surface needs to change. I liked it when I saw the clash of a serve and volleyer and a baseliner. Now serve and volleyers are very rare and practically extinct. Moving back to wood rackets is a bit extreme but I think there should at least be a limit to the headsize of the rackets. 110sq is far to big and I see a lot of those on the pro circuit. it should be 95 or 97 at the limit I think.

MoFed
07-08-2007, 02:14 PM
Slowing the courts down has favored the clay courters transitioning from clay to grass. The courts need to be sped up a bit more. I don't think they need to tweak the grass that much. I know the courts were covered during al the rain but wouldn't all that moisture have change the dynamics of the court?

Feņa14
07-08-2007, 02:23 PM
I totally agree that Wimbledon needs to be more like the 1990's where it was fast and low bouncing, but don't you think that the surface they have at the moment is the most neutral in the game? There seems to be something in there for everyone and I quite like that.

PimpMyGame
07-08-2007, 02:25 PM
Wimbledon went through a phase of lots of big serves and no returns. IT WAS BORING, people. The championships ****ed a lot of people off for this reason, so they slow it down. What else could they do, ban rackets over 65sq in headsize???

This thread just goes to show that some times you can never win.

NamRanger
07-08-2007, 02:47 PM
I agree that the courts are too slow, but some of your examples are just wrong. Gasquet is not a slow court player. He is a shot maker who hit 90+ winners in his match against Roddick, his ground strokes and net play benifit more from grass than Roddick's do. Blake has never moved well on grass and neither has Safin, they are hard court players, whereas JCF moves GREAT. Movement is one of the most underrated components needed to be successful on grass. I agree with your other two examples though.


Gasquet is a natural clay court player. He does have some results on faster surfaces, but in general he's at home on clay and on slower surfaces such as Montreal, etc. Sure he's won Nottingham a few times, but that doesn't automatically qualify him as a great grass court player. He hits with heavy spin, except when he rips his backhand up the line.



Blake won Queens before, where the grass is incredibly fast. His game suits grass and he moves well in general. JCF is not a grass court player. He has no real big weapons, his serve is weak, and he hits with pretty heavy spin. No way he should have made it that deep into the quarters, and take a set off Federer.

ACE of Hearts
07-08-2007, 02:50 PM
When u see guys like Arthurs and Bjorkman make deep runs, then u have a problem.

NamRanger
07-08-2007, 02:52 PM
When u see guys like Arthurs and Bjorkman make deep runs, then u have a problem.


Arthurs I can understand, big lefty server, but Bjorkman doesn't have the firepower to really win on grass.

Vision84
07-08-2007, 03:43 PM
This was a quote from Roger Federer in his post match interview with Nadal.

"That's what's going to happen anyway in the future, that everybody will be able to play on all different surfaces because it's slowing down so much. It was almost impossible to get to the net from the baseline because you neutralize the opponent so well."

I must say I agree with him. Extremely disapointing to see so few points finished at the net this championship. Something needs to be done.

superstition
07-08-2007, 03:46 PM
I want people to use logic to explain why switching back to wood is "too extreme" a change to make, since for most of tennis' history the game was played with wood and wood racquets are not hard to play with. Have any of you hit with a high-quality wood racquet? It's not like you have to relearn the game. I just won a match today with a Wilson Advantage against an opponent with an oversize stiff racquet with poly.

Switching to wood is not extreme at all, since the same switch already occured in the opposite direction.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
07-08-2007, 04:58 PM
Gasquet is a natural clay court player. He does have some results on faster surfaces, but in general he's at home on clay and on slower surfaces such as Montreal, etc. Sure he's won Nottingham a few times, but that doesn't automatically qualify him as a great grass court player. He hits with heavy spin, except when he rips his backhand up the line.



Blake won Queens before, where the grass is incredibly fast. His game suits grass and he moves well in general. JCF is not a grass court player. He has no real big weapons, his serve is weak, and he hits with pretty heavy spin. No way he should have made it that deep into the quarters, and take a set off Federer.
jcf has a slam, masters, was number 1, something blake wasnt.

J-man
07-08-2007, 05:08 PM
I really wish that they would take the sand out of the grass courts so it would enhance serve and volley players and coming to the net more.

tennis_hand
07-08-2007, 05:09 PM
One question I don't quite understand is, why do they keep on changing the stupid court surface?

I think in recent years, only the USO has stayed without much changes. AO is changed every year, and it is changing again next year. Crap. FO is bouncing even higher and higher. Wimby is going to the same direction of FO.

IMO, lame, whoever made the decisions. Make all the men play like the girls.

aramis
07-08-2007, 05:12 PM
Gasquet is a natural clay court player. He does have some results on faster surfaces, but in general he's at home on clay and on slower surfaces such as Montreal, etc. Sure he's won Nottingham a few times, but that doesn't automatically qualify him as a great grass court player. He hits with heavy spin, except when he rips his backhand up the line.



Blake won Queens before, where the grass is incredibly fast. His game suits grass and he moves well in general. JCF is not a grass court player. He has no real big weapons, his serve is weak, and he hits with pretty heavy spin. No way he should have made it that deep into the quarters, and take a set off Federer.

Stop saying this. Have you ever seen JCF play before his injuries? The man was faster than Blake and his groundstrokes were twice as good. And his footwork was much more precise. Yeah he's been flat and tends to hit with little pace ever since, but in that particular match he was on fire. And I wouldn't call a serve that is consistently 110+ mph 'weak'. The only reason Blake was a favorite in that match was because he has had the better form the last couple of years, otherwise JCF should beat him on any surface. And when did Blake win Queen's?

As for Gasquet, I've read that he actually prefers faster surfaces and his results would indicate so as well. And Roddick just sucks now with Jimmy Connors. He was hardly convincing in his prior matches. Ever since he started slicing and trying to get into the net, the results have been ugly for the most part. He was better when he just focused on big serve, big forehand tennis. I've looked back into some videos from 2003/2004 and there's no way that EVERYONE hits with the same power nowadays, like Roddick keeps on saying. After a good serve, he just doesn't hit the forehand with the same conviction he used to.

NamRanger
07-08-2007, 05:21 PM
Stop saying this. Have you ever seen JCF play before his injuries? The man was faster than Blake and his groundstrokes were twice as good. And his footwork was much more precise. Yeah he's been flat and tends to hit with little pace ever since, but in that particular match he was on fire. And I wouldn't call a serve that is consistently 110+ mph 'weak'. The only reason Blake was a favorite in that match was because he has had the better form the last couple of years, otherwise JCF should beat him on any surface. And when did Blake win Queen's?

As for Gasquet, I've read that he actually prefers faster surfaces and his results would indicate so as well. And Roddick just sucks now with Jimmy Connors. He was hardly convincing in his prior matches. Ever since he started slicing and trying to get into the net, the results have been ugly for the most part. He was better when he just focused on big serve, big forehand tennis. I've looked back into some videos from 2003/2004 and there's no way that EVERYONE hits with the same power nowadays, like Roddick keeps on saying. After a good serve, he just doesn't hit the forehand with the same conviction he used to.


JCF is a clay court player, period. You cannot argue that. Even when his forehand was on it wasn't that fast, it was just heavy and had lots of spin. Roddick outpowered him in the final at the USO.


My bad, Blake beat Roddick to get to the Queens finals. Bad memory. To be frank though, Blake should have beaten JCF. His serve wasn't anything special, didn't even have that much pace. Blake should have torched him, especially on grass. But guess what, he didn't. Why? JCF was able to get to balls that he would have never gotten back on hardcourts. And since when did JCF become a factor on grass anyways?


Gasquet has had great results on clay and slow hardcourts. He's gone deep into alot of clay courts, and has made a masters final at Montreal. He tends not to do well on faster surfaces like the USO or indoor, where his big loopy strokes get him into trouble sometimes. His results have come from clay mainly when he's playing well.

TENNIS_99
07-08-2007, 05:26 PM
don't understand why Wimby guys choose to keep those traditions - no plays on first Sunday,all white clothes(quite supported though) but give up on the very unique and most tennis related tradition - the fast grass courts??:confused:

tennis_hand
07-08-2007, 05:58 PM
typical British? :p

tim8
07-09-2007, 12:06 PM
JCF is a clay court player, period. You cannot argue that. Even when his forehand was on it wasn't that fast, it was just heavy and had lots of spin. Roddick outpowered him in the final at the USO.


My bad, Blake beat Roddick to get to the Queens finals. Bad memory. To be frank though, Blake should have beaten JCF. His serve wasn't anything special, didn't even have that much pace. Blake should have torched him, especially on grass. But guess what, he didn't. Why? JCF was able to get to balls that he would have never gotten back on hardcourts. And since when did JCF become a factor on grass anyways?


Gasquet has had great results on clay and slow hardcourts. He's gone deep into alot of clay courts, and has made a masters final at Montreal. He tends not to do well on faster surfaces like the USO or indoor, where his big loopy strokes get him into trouble sometimes. His results have come from clay mainly when he's playing well.

Have you looked at Gasquet's results at all? Sure he had one clay masters final. He has had better results on other surface. His record at the French (his home surface) is 4-6. Best results 3rd round. Australian open (slow hard) : 3-4 (1st, 1st, 1st, 4th rounds). US Open (fast hard): 6-2 (4th, 4th rounds). Wimbledon: 8-4 (1st, 4th, 1st-against Federer, SF). He made it to finals in Toronto (picked up a set against Federer) and won a carpet tournament in Lyon. That and he won Nottinghan twice. He is a shot maker who benefits from not having to play out long points. His fitness isn't to great , but he is very fast. In addition he is a good at the net. Finally if you want any more proof that he succeeds on hard courts just look at his stat lines from this year's wimbledon. His unforced errors to winners ratio was great in every match (not sure about his one against Federer). He hit 93 winners against Roddick. Thats not a clay courter.

superbooga
07-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Most people need to stop making dumb excuses... the fact is, most players you associate with fast surfaces (read: Americans) suck now. Players who grew up on clay have an all-around better game. In several years, those "clay-courters" will be dominating the US Open, even if the surface remains the same. Players like Chris Evert have been pointing out the fact that the lack of playing experience on clay hurts Americans on ALL surfaces. They don't have any strategy or know how to construct a point.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 01:16 PM
No way.If the U.S Open stays the same, i dont know how Rafa can make the final.He will need to change alot of things.He cant stand back behind the baseline and i dont know if his grip can be effective at the U.S Open.

Grass has changed and ur not watching if u dont think so.It was so obvious yesterday.

tricky
07-09-2007, 01:24 PM
At this point, I think even US Open could be possible for Nadal. But, I mean, we do have a good month and a half to see if Nadal's success on the hard surface. In any case, it'll be good to see some speed again in tennis.

bammbamm
07-09-2007, 01:32 PM
Yes speed is good for Wimby. There needs so be some distinction between slams. Plus I want to see a lot more Serve and Volley guys and gals in the tour.

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 07:17 AM
I would like to see Roger with a wooden racquet.I still think he would excel.

While most pros would adjust to the wood, I think many would find their games lacking compared to the over-sized composite racquet's of today. Gone would be the passing shots from 6 feet behind the baseline. Furthermore, with such small heads and tiny sweet spots they would be shanking balls left and right. Add to that having to move their feet even more to be in position to hit a clean ball, the ones in average shape (for a pro) would suffer.
Lastly, the weight of wood over time would not allow them to swing as hard and as long.

With all that said, Federer would make the transition better than most, and would be even more dominate than he is now.

brolycjw
07-10-2007, 07:29 AM
No way.If the U.S Open stays the same, i dont know how Rafa can make the final.He will need to change alot of things.He cant stand back behind the baseline and i dont know if his grip can be effective at the U.S Open.

Grass has changed and ur not watching if u dont think so.It was so obvious yesterday.

Nadal was not standing back behind the baseline, he was pretty much on the baseline. You're not watching if you didn't realise that. It was SO obvious yesterday. He also came up to the net more than Federer and was more effective, so get your facts right.

Yes, Federer would make the transition very well if they ever go back to wood, simply because he was a more classic game. However, he also has to adjust his strokes as the current game demands lots of spin on groundstrokes, while the wood era has relatively flat strokes.

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 07:36 AM
Most people need to stop making dumb excuses... the fact is, most players you associate with fast surfaces (read: Americans) suck now. Players who grew up on clay have an all-around better game. In several years, those "clay-courters" will be dominating the US Open, even if the surface remains the same.

:roll:

No response is needed to your post/thoughts other than :roll:

MoFed
07-10-2007, 07:38 AM
Nadal did show a different tactic this time on the grass. He did come to the net more and was surprisingly hitting really good volleys. I'm still not sure how his game will translate onto the summer hardcourts. They don't play the same as Indian Wells or Miami. It would be interesting to see if he can make that transition to the summer hardcourts. Then I think there will be a truer rivalry between him and Roger. Since the summer courts have been Roger's for the taking.

phat
07-10-2007, 08:10 AM
Did you guys actually saw the match between JCF & Blake? I did and I was shocked that JCF was actually outhitting Blake in that match starting at the 2nd set. You guys have to see the match to believe how hard JCF hit his forehand. Think about it. JCF was blowing shots with Fed in the quarters. He took one set and played neck to neck in the first 2 sets. I think he can be in the top 10 by the end of the year if he can keep himself healthy. That's how good he is.

superstition
07-10-2007, 09:58 AM
I think many would find their games lacking compared to the over-sized composite racquet's of today.
Initially, yes. Their games would have to be retuned. But, there are advantages to wood, too. It's easier to hit angles with them, for one thing. There can be more finesse in the wood game, and more players would be able to volley because passing shots wouldn't be as deadly. There would also be more variety in the game because topspin wouldn't be so dominant. Players like Borg hit topspin with wood and played against serve and volley flat hitters like McEnroe. There was more room for variety in the game than there is now. As the racquets have gotten bigger and more powerful, the space of the tennis court has shrunk, in a virtual way. That makes topspin too important.

The WTA tour, which is a mess of injuries, would be able to get back in much better shape, especially if hard courts were eliminated for pro tournaments, as they should be.

TennezSport
07-10-2007, 10:20 AM
Initially, yes. Their games would have to be retuned. But, there are advantages to wood, too. It's easier to hit angles with them, for one thing. There can be more finesse in the wood game, and more players would be able to volley because passing shots wouldn't be as deadly. There would also be more variety in the game because topspin wouldn't be so dominant. Players like Borg hit topspin with wood and played against serve and volley flat hitters like McEnroe. There was more room for variety in the game than there is now. As the racquets have gotten bigger and more powerful, the space of the tennis court has shrunk, in a virtual way. That makes topspin too important.

The WTA tour, which is a mess of injuries, would be able to get back in much better shape, especially if hard courts were eliminated for pro tournaments, as they should be.

There are 3 reasons why we will never see wood racquets again.

1) Cost of production
the cost of farming the proper trees and the manufacturing process to make wood racquets is prohibitive.
2) Cost of consistency
the loss of wood materials due to the varances in consistency is prohibitive.
3) Poor racquet integrity
wood racquets break down too quickly and lose their consistency and feel over time. With todays big strokes and tough strings, wood racquets would probably warp at impact (would make for some great excitement).

TennezSport :cool:

superstition
07-10-2007, 10:23 AM
In other words, who cares about the quality of the game or the injury problem as long as racquet companies can produce cheap synthetic frames in China and charge big bucks for them?

Bamboo matures quickly. It could be a substitute for hardwood.

fastdunn
07-10-2007, 10:24 AM
AFAIK, Bjorkman plays much more net game than lots of players
at the Wimbledon.