PDA

View Full Version : Sites on Court Speed?


Nadal_Freak
04-20-2008, 07:13 PM
Any sites have a dedication for stats on different atp court speeds? It would be interesting to compare last years court speeds on clay as well as all the big tournaments.

flyer
04-20-2008, 07:21 PM
I have actually seen ATP kept charts that measure court speed and even have a rating system as a basis

Nadal_Freak
04-20-2008, 07:39 PM
Found it though it is an old site. http://www.tennisform.com/default.asp?&tournament=none&action=GPS&direction=Desc&sort=GPS
So Monte Carlo is the slowest. French Open is the fastest. :confused:

flyer
04-20-2008, 08:02 PM
wait so they are ranked from fastest to slowest?

edmondsm
04-20-2008, 08:02 PM
Found it though it is an old site. http://www.tennisform.com/default.asp?&tournament=none&action=GPS&direction=Desc&sort=GPS
So Monte Carlo is the slowest. French Open is the fastest. :confused:

That just goes to show you that the courts vary year to year. There is no way that the FO is the fastest.

I think that if you just look at the number of aces in a tournament it is a pretty good indicator of the court speed.

flyer
04-20-2008, 08:05 PM
wait those are not court speeds, they are games per set average, they just mention court speeds but thats not what the ranking is

flyer
04-20-2008, 08:06 PM
That just goes to show you that the courts vary year to year. There is no way that the FO is the fastest.

I think that if you just look at the number of aces in a tournament it is a pretty good indicator of the court speed.

yes def is a good calculation but you have to factor in the players and their average aces combined on all surfaces, that way when no big servers show up the results are not skewed

flyer
04-20-2008, 08:09 PM
Found it though it is an old site. http://www.tennisform.com/default.asp?&tournament=none&action=GPS&direction=Desc&sort=GPS
So Monte Carlo is the slowest. French Open is the fastest. :confused:

its some what of a measure but there are just too many other factors for these calculations to measure court speed acuratly, these are obviously off the are clay tounys scattered through out

let provide an example....

Dubai lets say has just about all the top players there and a 32 man draw compared to lets say Houston(idk if its 32 but if not still the same idea) were the rankings are spread greatly maybe from like a few top 10 players to players well outside the top 100, in dubai the games may be closer because the players are closer in rank and hence tennis ability so the sets will be closer sets leading to more games per set, were as in houston the players ranked really low may get killed and the sets will be shorter(less games per set) this has nothing to do with court speed but instead dispersment of talent....

edmondsm
04-20-2008, 08:19 PM
yes def is a good calculation but you have to factor in the players and their average aces combined on all surfaces, that way when no big servers show up the results are not skewed

It wouldn't be tough calculation at all. Just get the average number of aces per match of the whole field of players and compare it to the average aces per match at the end of the tournament. It wouldn't be perfect but it would shed some light on the court speed.

flyer
04-20-2008, 08:33 PM
It wouldn't be tough calculation at all. Just get the average number of aces per match of the whole field of players and compare it to the average aces per match at the end of the tournament. It wouldn't be perfect but it would shed some light on the court speed.

yeah i mean thats pretty much what i said

spikyblackhair
04-20-2008, 09:08 PM
Couldn't you just use a ball machine and clock speeds after the bounce?

edmondsm
04-20-2008, 09:38 PM
Couldn't you just use a ball machine and clock speeds after the bounce?

That would be more accurate, but harder to arrange getting the info. The atp should start a program where they measure courtspeeds logically like you suggest. It seems that there is so much subjectivity and uncertainty on the subject.

Andres
04-21-2008, 04:58 AM
The fastest claycourt is actually Gstaad, and not Rome as some people on these boards claim :)

coloskier
04-21-2008, 07:07 AM
The ball machine idea would be great. But I would also measure the height of the bounce, too. Hamburg clay is slow, but the ball does not bounce nearly as high, which aided Federer greatly last year.

Nadal_Freak
04-21-2008, 09:03 AM
Ace counts or breaks per match would be good ways to show the speed. Right now, I'm thinking Monte Carlo is the slowest. Very low level of aces.

flyer
04-21-2008, 09:06 AM
Ace counts or breaks per match would be good ways to show the speed. Right now, I'm thinking Monte Carlo is the slowest. Very low level of aces.

Are you watching, omgoodness its soooooooooooo slow

coloskier
04-21-2008, 09:08 AM
Are you watching, omgoodness its soooooooooooo slow

God, I hate matches decided by UFE's. :???:

FedExpress
04-21-2008, 11:30 AM
Ace counts or breaks per match would be good ways to show the speed. Right now, I'm thinking Monte Carlo is the slowest. Very low level of aces.

I'd rate the big claycourt tourneys from fastest to slowest:

1. Rome
2. French Open/Monte Carlo
3. Hamburg

Though as has been said the ball does not have as high a bounce in Hamburg.

Max G.
04-21-2008, 12:33 PM
Couldn't you just use a ball machine and clock speeds after the bounce?

That would give you the speed of the ball after the bounce, yes. That's been done. However, that's generally not when people refer to when talking about 'court speed.' For example, by that metric, Grass is actually a pretty slow surface (even before they slowed it down even further in the last couple of years), since the ball loses a lot of speed after the bounce. However, we call it a 'fast' surface because the ball also skids and bounces lower. So when we talk about court speed, really we're talking about more than you could measure and quantify with just a ball machine speed measurement.