PDA

View Full Version : Bring back the old grass


dh003i
07-08-2007, 12:06 PM
Wimbledon is my favorite tournament, but it's really sucking lately. I might start liking the USO and AO better. I think the USO plays faster than Wimbledon.

There's no doubt about it, the grass is slower and higher-bouncing. Really disgusting. We have clay-court tennis for 1/3rd of the season...can we please have real grass-court tennis -- not this green clay crap -- for at least 1 month?

Nadal deserves credit for again getting to the Wimbledon final, and this time through tougher competition. However, he lost at Queens to Mahut, and that shows what happens to clay-court players on real grass. Federer, btw, used to play more net-tennis at Wimbledon (see Sampras match, and his first Wimbledon win), until they slowed it down.

This of course isn't Nadal's fault, but Wimbledon's. The AO (the higher bounces of which supposedly favored Nadal) and the USO are what happen to Nadal on faster surfaces.

In any event, those who said Nadal was "in Federer's head" are again proven wrong. Although Federer wasn't playing his best tennis, and Nadal was playing his best on grass, Federer was clearly the mentally tougher player, winning both tie-breaks.

ACE of Hearts
07-08-2007, 12:10 PM
Fed's serve saved his butt.I thought he was going down based on this ******** grass now.I wished they brung the big fat grass so we can see some serve and volley play from Roger.

Nadal_Freak
07-08-2007, 12:12 PM
Did you ever think that the speed is not all the differences between surfaces? Footwork, variable bounces(predictable or unpredictable), agility, and anticipation all have a factor on this. Grass feels more like clay as it is a soft surface that is easy on Nadal's gritty game. Hard courts take a bigger toll on Nadal physically which doesn't bother others as much with their style of play. (big hitters)

dh003i
07-08-2007, 12:22 PM
Nadal Freak,

True enough...but also part of the reason I think Nadal's done better on grass than hard-courts is because there are few great grass-court players, but a lot of great hard-court players.

And certainly bounce and speed are a major factor at Wimbledon; that doesn't take away from the other factors, of course.

caulcano
07-08-2007, 02:13 PM
Wimbledon is my favorite tournament, but it's really sucking lately. I might start liking the USO and AO better. I think the USO plays faster than Wimbledon.

There's no doubt about it, the grass is slower and higher-bouncing. Really disgusting. We have clay-court tennis for 1/3rd of the season...can we please have real grass-court tennis -- not this green clay crap -- for at least 1 month?

Nadal deserves credit for again getting to the Wimbledon final, and this time through tougher competition. However, he lost at Queens to Mahut, and that shows what happens to clay-court players on real grass. Federer, btw, used to play more net-tennis at Wimbledon (see Sampras match, and his first Wimbledon win), until they slowed it down.

This of course isn't Nadal's fault, but Wimbledon's. The AO (the higher bounces of which supposedly favored Nadal) and the USO are what happen to Nadal on faster surfaces.

In any event, those who said Nadal was "in Federer's head" are again proven wrong. Although Federer wasn't playing his best tennis, and Nadal was playing his best on grass, Federer was clearly the mentally tougher player, winning both tie-breaks.

I agree 100%.

A great match by 2 great players but I wanna see S&V for at least 1 month a year. Wimbledon needs to be sped up.

Lion King
07-08-2007, 02:17 PM
Did you ever think that the speed is not all the differences between surfaces? Footwork, variable bounces(predictable or unpredictable), agility, and anticipation all have a factor on this. Grass feels more like clay as it is a soft surface that is easy on Nadal's gritty game. Hard courts take a bigger toll on Nadal physically which doesn't bother others as much with their style of play. (big hitters)

Imagine Nadal vs. Sampras or Rafter or Ivanisevic or Becker on OLD, fast Wimbledon grass. I doubt he would take a set off any of those guys.

Pete Semper
07-08-2007, 02:31 PM
^^
Cant be more agree with that. Nadal would have no chance to reach the final with the real Wimbley grass.. It underlines the performance of Agassi when he won in 92 against Ivanisevic !

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
07-08-2007, 02:48 PM
^^
Cant be more agree with that. Nadal would have no chance to reach the final with the real Wimbley grass.. It underlines the performance of Agassi when he won in 92 against Ivanisevic !

dude shut up, nadal made the final, then you people still!!!!!!!!!!! make excuses, just be quiet and acknowledge the guy.

dh003i
07-08-2007, 06:05 PM
The point isn't dissing Nadal. He did great, better than expected. And against a pretty tough draw.

But Wimbledon is just too slow and high-bouncing. Period.

When Federer won his 1st Wimby, he did it with a significant amount of S&V and net-play. He's used it less since them. That's a damn shame.

We already have 1/3rd the season clay-court. Real fans want real grass-courts, not this 2nd rate grass designed to help out clay-court players. They don't speed up the clay to help out S&Vers.

Tennis_Monk
07-08-2007, 06:55 PM
No. I like wimbledon the way it is. I dont like points finished in 2 shots for 3 hours. Thats stupid tennis to me.

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 07:21 PM
No. I like wimbledon the way it is. I dont like points finished in 2 shots for 3 hours. Thats stupid tennis to me.

Well, that is why you have clay-court season every year. ;)

CyBorg
07-08-2007, 07:22 PM
Leave the grass as is. Bring back the woodies, the white balls and the short shorts.

Thanks. :)

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 07:25 PM
I am not discrediting Nadal in any way, but I really found it funny that he was able to apply a Roland Garros-style of play on Federer today AT WIMBY and almost succeeded.

Balls were jumping above Fed's shoulders constantly. Nadal kept hitting his fearhand towards Roger's backhand constantly because the high backhands were obviously bothering Rog. It looked like Roland Garros all of the sudden. And, it's not like Fed has the height of a hobbit either.

tennis_hand
07-08-2007, 07:28 PM
We shall have a petition against those Wimbledon officials.
Change back or just play 2nd fiddle to FO and spray red clay instead.

latinking
07-08-2007, 07:31 PM
It seems like the powers that be, want every surface ( in Grand Slams )to play as similar as possible. Every Grand slam should play more how it used to be. Grass should be like the old Grass. Because of this it has totally changed the game.

I can't belive I am actually wishing there was more serve and volley players, years ago I hated them, now I miss them. LOL. But Tennis does need more diversity in playing style. IMO.

FarFed
07-08-2007, 07:35 PM
My thoughts too.

I am not discrediting Nadal in any way, but I really found it funny that he was able to apply a Roland Garros-style of play on Federer today AT WIMBY and almost succeeded.

Balls were jumping above Fed's shoulders constantly. Nadal kept hitting his fearhand towards Roger's backhand constantly because the high backhands were obviously bothering Rog. It looked like Roland Garros all of the sudden. And, it's not like Fed has the height of a hobbit either.

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 07:36 PM
It seemed as if the Queen's Club grass played faster than this Wimby crap.

tennis_hand
07-08-2007, 07:40 PM
It seemed as if the Queen's Club grass played faster than this Wimby crap.

From the Queen's final, it looks so.

arnz
07-08-2007, 07:48 PM
Hmmm I guess you guys really like what wimbledon in the mid 90's became, a serving contest. For me, it bored the hell out of me to see guys out serving each other. I believe the only people who liked it are the people like you guys.

I think if it continued that way, Wimbledon would have lost even more viewers than ever. they make decisions based on money. the more casual fans that watch tennis, the more sponsorships, the more money. Lets face it, tennis isnt very exciting to watch to the average person unless there is a back and forth and lots of shotmaking.

Oh yipee, some guy aced the other guy 40 times, and the rest were service winners, boy what a match!! Oh he serves a 130mph to get a cake return and now he volleys it for a winner. What technique to volley that sitting duck return!!

I would love to see a poll of TV viewers to ask them which would they rather see, a Nadal Federer final, or an Ivanesavic Sampras final

latinking
07-08-2007, 07:50 PM
I am not discrediting Nadal in any way, but I really found it funny that he was able to apply a Roland Garros-style of play on Federer today AT WIMBY and almost succeeded.

Balls were jumping above Fed's shoulders constantly. Nadal kept hitting his fearhand towards Roger's backhand constantly because the high backhands were obviously bothering Rog. It looked like Roland Garros all of the sudden. And, it's not like Fed has the height of a hobbit either.

I totally agree. Very Sad the Grass at Wimby

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 07:54 PM
Hmmm I guess you guys really like what wimbledon in the mid 90's became, a serving contest. For me, it bored the hell out of me to see guys out serving each other. I believe the only people who liked it are the people like you guys.

I think if it continued that way, Wimbledon would have lost even more viewers than ever. they make decisions based on money. the more casual fans that watch tennis, the more sponsorships, the more money. Lets face it, tennis isnt very exciting to watch to the average person unless there is a back and forth and lots of shotmaking.

Oh yipee, some guy aced the other guy 40 times, and the rest were service winners, boy what a match!! Oh he serves a 130mph to get a cake return and now he volleys it for a winner. What technique to volley that sitting duck return!!

I would love to see a poll of TV viewers to ask them which would they rather see, a Nadal Federer final, or an Ivanesavic Sampras final

We are not saying "Make the grass play as fast as ice" but we are rather saying "If you're going to slow the grass down this much, at least have the courtesy of painting it red"

Keifers
07-08-2007, 08:48 PM
arnz may be right about Wimby's decision to go to slow grass being based on economics -- would be very interesting to know for sure.

No doubt the slower speed helped Nadal play his clay court style (with some very intelligent additions, e.g., excellent touch volleys at net) and come very close to winning the title. If the grass is not changed, there's a very good chance he'll win it one day soon.

Had he won today, Borg's feat of winning the French and Wimbledon back-to-back would still be a gold standard of excellence -- when he did it, the difference between the two surfaces was HUGE.

I think the officials at Wimby have overshot the mark in terms of making the tournament more winnable by clay-courters. I hope they tweak it back the other way so that we see some real serve-and-volleyers in action and with a chance of winning.

ACE of Hearts
07-08-2007, 08:53 PM
He will win it next year, bank on it!!!!!Fed was helpless when it came to the baseline because the bounce was high right into Nadal's zone.Also the bounce really slowed the action and we saw so many rallies, what a joke!!!!!

NamRanger
07-08-2007, 08:58 PM
Hmmm I guess you guys really like what wimbledon in the mid 90's became, a serving contest. For me, it bored the hell out of me to see guys out serving each other. I believe the only people who liked it are the people like you guys.

I think if it continued that way, Wimbledon would have lost even more viewers than ever. they make decisions based on money. the more casual fans that watch tennis, the more sponsorships, the more money. Lets face it, tennis isnt very exciting to watch to the average person unless there is a back and forth and lots of shotmaking.

Oh yipee, some guy aced the other guy 40 times, and the rest were service winners, boy what a match!! Oh he serves a 130mph to get a cake return and now he volleys it for a winner. What technique to volley that sitting duck return!!

I would love to see a poll of TV viewers to ask them which would they rather see, a Nadal Federer final, or an Ivanesavic Sampras final


I'd much rather watch different types of tennis. Even if it is a boring serving contest. You have to understand, the reason why people watch Wimbledon is for the big servers, the great volleys, the diving, and so much more. It's called grass and no clay for a reason. The All England Club messed up Wimbledon so bad that they nearly dethroned the King of Grass without even having to rig the draw, all they had to do was change the surface. Nadal's a great player and all, but in no way should he have been able to do some of the things he was able to do today, such as get the ball high, play defensive tennis and still get close to winning, and basically get away with spinning his serve in.


Today was a great match, but we have to realize that they were playing on grass. Some of the shots Nadal hit on the run would be pretty much impossible as Johnny Mac said before, because the court was so much faster, and the ball skidded more. Those defensive backhands and forehands Nadal hit for winners from 10 feet behind the baseline would have not worked back in the day, because he wouldn't have had the time to hit them.


Federer pretty much threw everything he had plus a kitchen sink, and he nearly lost. He was coming to net more then he has done so in the past, serving big and consistent, just pounding groundstrokes, using his slice backhand, dropshots, the whole arsenal. Yet Nadal just had to keep the ball in play and he nearly won because of it.

ACE of Hearts
07-08-2007, 09:04 PM
Everything was slow today.I felt the ball was heavy just looking at the tv.Its painful to watch,Is there anyway people can protest?LOL.

bluetrain4
07-08-2007, 09:09 PM
I wish the Slams were as follows

AO - medium to medium-slow hardcourt
Roland Garros - traditional slow red clay
Wimbledon - traditional fast, low skidding grass
USO - fast hardcourt.

Hardcourts are unique. You can speed them up and down to play however. But, the reason so many people can play well, regardless of the speed, is the sureness of the bounce and the players' footing.

scineram
07-09-2007, 04:31 AM
With slowing the ground next year even more I cannot see Nadal losing again. If not for the serve Fed would have been toast. He will lose even that slight edge in the future.

Nadal_Freak
07-10-2007, 12:56 AM
People here are exaggerating the changes at Wimbledon. The courts still played fast. 25 aces from Federer showed it still played fast. I think people are just using it as a way to discredit Nadal. You haters always have a way.

FarFed
07-10-2007, 01:30 AM
With slowing the ground next year even more I cannot see Nadal losing again. If not for the serve Fed would have been toast. He will lose even that slight edge in the future.

I'm amazed at your conviction.

FarFed
07-10-2007, 01:34 AM
People here are exaggerating the changes at Wimbledon. The courts still played fast. 25 aces from Federer showed it still played fast. I think people are just using it as a way to discredit Nadal. You haters always have a way.

I must say I kinda agree with you here. I think Federer was shanking a lot, he needs to fix his backhand strategy.

But on the whole, the balls weren't skidding or dying down early, that's for sure.

HAWKEYE
07-10-2007, 01:45 AM
People here are exaggerating the changes at Wimbledon. The courts still played fast. 25 aces from Federer showed it still played fast. I think people are just using it as a way to discredit Nadal. You haters always have a way.

I agree. Serve & voleyers could still do well at Wimbledon. Ancic was in QF last year, lost to Federer. Indoor carpets are slowed down much more than grass. In fact these days indoor carpets are slower than US hard courts. If you want more serve & voleyers make "slow" grass court season last longer or bring back fast indoor carpets.

Scorch
07-10-2007, 02:35 AM
Hmmm I guess you guys really like what wimbledon in the mid 90's became, a serving contest. For me, it bored the hell out of me to see guys out serving each other. I believe the only people who liked it are the people like you guys.

I think if it continued that way, Wimbledon would have lost even more viewers than ever. they make decisions based on money. the more casual fans that watch tennis, the more sponsorships, the more money. Lets face it, tennis isnt very exciting to watch to the average person unless there is a back and forth and lots of shotmaking.

Oh yipee, some guy aced the other guy 40 times, and the rest were service winners, boy what a match!! Oh he serves a 130mph to get a cake return and now he volleys it for a winner. What technique to volley that sitting duck return!!

I would love to see a poll of TV viewers to ask them which would they rather see, a Nadal Federer final, or an Ivanesavic Sampras final



This is so true. It seems that some people have short memories or were not watching tennis in the mid to late 90s.

Serve-fest tennis would have been the death of Wimbledon had they not slowed down the courts. Speeding up the courts WOULD NOT = SERVE & VOLLEY TENNIS.

Sunday's final was simply brilliant and had some awesome rallies. I loved it.

dave333
07-10-2007, 03:09 AM
The big disadvantage is that we get players like Llujubic and Roddick with nothing but serves going deep...

Narcissist
07-10-2007, 03:25 AM
Yeah lets bring back the serve fest of the 90s and the FO winner going out in the first round every year *yawn* :roll: People *****ed an complained then and now they equalise things a little bit they ***** again. I don't understand why people want to massivley fragment the tour by making it so surface dependant.

Look at the aces served and Venus winning the women's title- grass is still grass guys.

deucecourt
07-10-2007, 05:30 AM
When did they change the grass at Wimby?

Benhur
07-10-2007, 06:45 AM
There seems to be a huge amount of misunderstanding, misinformation and contradiction on these boards about the "slowness" of the "new" (6-year old) grass. It's funny how Nadal's success acts as a barometer to the cries. The year the new “slow” grass arrived, the two classic dirtballers, Rafter and Ivanisevic, cruised to the finals by slugging it out from the baseline (remember -:), yet nobody complained. Now that Nadal is in the final for the second year in a row, there are huge theatrical gesticulations about how it is all turning into a claycourt and Wimbledon is going to hell. This is pure BS.

I will make several basic points meant to clarify some basic things. Before that, I suggest everyone read an article featuring the comments of the Head Groundsman at Wimbledon, regarding what actually, rather than gossipy, was done to the courts.

http://www.nysun.com/article/35116

Two things were done:

1) The soil was replaced with harder and firmer soil.
2) The grass mixture was changed from 70% perennial rye + 30% fescue to 100% perennial rye.

Despite all the cries heard here, by far the most significant of those two changes is the first one. It is mostly the hardness of the under soil that is responsible for the higher bounce (assuming unchanged length in the grass, which is the case). Bringing up the rye component from 70% to 100% has an insignificant effect on the bounce, and this was measured in their tests.

It is important to remember that the reason for those two changes was to make the grass *last longer.* In other words, to keep the tournament a grass tournament through its duration. The players of today are pretty much grass-terminator beasts compared with players 40 years ago (not to mention players in the early days, dancing delicately on those lawns with their white long pants and slipper-like shoes). If you watch Wimbledon semifinals and finals of the 80s and 90s, you will see that by the end of the second week the amount of grass left on the court was considerably *less* than today. For one thing, the 30% fescue grass was all gone, and the softer soil made for more uneven, bumpier courts. Getting out of the baseline at the least opportunity was indeed a good idea.

I also take issue with the use of the word “fast” around here. Grass does not make a surface “faster” in any normal sense of this word. It is not a matter of quickness. "Deadness/skipness” might be a more appropriate term. The amount of kinetic energy absorbed by the surface is a function of its hardness. The softer the surface, the less energy it will reflect back to the ball, slowing it down AND lowering the bounce (unless, as happens on clay, the crest of the ridge dug by the ball as it strikes the ground increases the reflection angle; while on an perfectly hard surface that is not deformed at all by the ball, the angle of incidence would be exactly the same as the angle of reflection, assuming no spin). All this is easily demonstrated if you test the bounce of a ball on increasing levels of grass. The more grass you add (thickness and length) the more it will deaden the bounce. Eventually you will reach a point where the ball will not bounce at all.

Those of you who clamor for the old conditions to return, are actually asking to see courts that will be increasingly bare near and increasingly uneven near the end of the second week (as the terminators and their shoes get increasingly beastly), while at the same time many of you are complaining that the courts play "like clay” because they lose their grass.

Of course under those conditions of bumpy soil, rushing the net will pay better dividends unless you are great at adjusting to bad bounces. Then again, under those conditions, the game will only accelerate its already deplorable trend towards relying more and more on the serve. Do an experiment. Get a tape of a Sampras-Ivanisevic match on grass, or similar matchups. Edit out all the points that last less than 3 seconds. This would mean taking out: (a) aces, (b) service winners, (c) return winners and (d) return ducklings easily put away with the first volley.

What you are left with is may be 25% of the match. And that percentage will only decrease as players specialize more and more on producing unreturnable serves. Is that what you really want?

I agree with those who would like to see a return to wood. I thikd if the current players had grown up using would, the rankings would be essentially the same. A match like Sunday’s final would have been longer and probably even more entertaining.

But realistically, the chances of a return to wood are pretty much nil. So are the chances of forcibly reducing the advantage of the server without slowing down the rest of the game (by reducing the width of the service box for example).

Under those realities, I am *infinitely* grateful to be able to watch finals like yesterday rather than the boom-boom contests of the 90s. Additionally, I am not sure at all that the old conditions of play would mean that Sunday’s finalists would necessarily be different. Nadal came to net more than Federer and was pretty effective there. In the match against Berdych which featured extreme bad-bounce conditions, it was Nadal who adapted better to them while Berdych was seen hitting in all kinds of awkward positions time and time again.

If you pine for the traditional conditions, then please be consistent and go all the way. Watch footage from Wimbledon in the early years of the 20th century. Kind of fun. I am positively sure Nadal and Federer would be highly entertaining playing with that equipment. But why on earth would you like a return to the sleeping pills of the boom-boom era? Zzzzzzzzz.

brolycjw
07-10-2007, 07:22 AM
Well said, I couldn't agree more. Too many people are complaining without any idea what they are asking for. Fact is, Nadal came to the net more than Federer in the finals proving it wasn't just a clay court affair.

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2007, 07:25 AM
I rather watch a serve-athon then watch 20 stroke rallies, thats a joke.

brolycjw
07-10-2007, 07:40 AM
Did you even read the post by Benhur? Read again before making stupid comments like this.

Nobody cares about your opinion, you're just a nobody with 6k posts on the web.

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2007, 07:44 AM
I did u idiot.Your a fool, wimbledon needs to speed them up 90s style!!!I dont care what Nadal did at the net.Look at the freaking match and the high bounces on this ****** surface called grass.I want low bounces, thats what real grass is all about!!

brolycjw
07-10-2007, 07:59 AM
Stop whining like a crybaby, maybe you read the post, but I'm sure you couldn't decipher a single word of it with your puny brain. He mentioned that they had to change the soil so that there would still be grass at the finals, as modern players have shoes that would easily destroy the grass with the old soil. Speed of the bounce depends on the hardness of the soil. Grass did not get slower, as the soil is harder than before and the balls would retain much of their kinetic energy after the bounce. The balls bounce high as part of the velocity component is upwards, the only way to lower it is to reduce the hardness of the soil which will inevitably slow down the bounce since it absorbs the kinetic energy.

The only reason it might seem slower is due to the bigger tennis balls which are used in all tournaments on the ATP circuit nowadays.

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2007, 08:32 AM
Well ur crazy if u think it didnt play slow on sunday.The fact that the Fed forehand was basically a non-factor is ridiculous, especially on this so called fast surface.I do agree somewhat that it looked like they where using heavy balls as well.

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 08:36 AM
Bring back the old grass

I agree

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 08:43 AM
I should have also said that more important than bringing back the old grass, they need to return to the old under-surface conditions. The ball did not bounce much and stayed very low.
Those who remember it from years ago, know you did not dare let the ball bounce to hit an overhead for fear that it would not bounce back up high enough to hit the overhead.
When the ball stays low it makes it more difficult to hit passing shots low, and is much harder to hit for players with western grips, hence the reason the clay courters always did poorly there.

Benhur
07-10-2007, 11:12 AM
Well ur crazy if u think it didnt play slow on sunday.The fact that the Fed forehand was basically a non-factor is ridiculous, especially on this so called fast surface.I do agree somewhat that it looked like they where using heavy balls as well.

Federer's forehand is always a big factor, if only because players know they better don't give Federer too many looks at forehands. That's why Nadal kept going to Federer's backhand, to try to make his forehand a non-factor as much as possible. In the rare occasions when he got a good look at a forehand, he hit a few winners. Look, the surface conditions have been supposedly the same since 2001, so any perceived changes in speed have to be due mostly to the ball and the weather. There is nothing else. I don't know how much the balls have changed. As for the weather, when it's wet the bounce will be lower AND slower, and the ball doesn't travel as fast, but people seem to perceive the lower bounce as a "faster" ball. Sunday was not wet and the ball was probably moving faster and bouncing higher.