PDA

View Full Version : Why I think Wimbledon is not slow grass.


Pages : [1] 2 3

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 08:27 PM
We've all heard the argument that the grass surface played at Wimbledon has slowed down in recent years. The argument goes that since 2002, Wimbledon has played significantly slower. Some people argue that not only is Wimbledon slower than it used to be, but that it's grass surface is one of the slowest of the 4 Majors (even being compared to clay).

Now, while the argument can be made that Wimbledon may have slowed down, I'd like to argue that the grass at Wimbledon has not slowed to down to the extreme that some people claim. In fact, I've taken the liberty of researching all the Wimbledon Men's Singles tournaments since 2002, and taking a look at players who've done well at Wimbledon.

I've taken a look at players who've achieved success on grass, and also on hardcourts and carpets, but who've achieved their lowest level of success on clay courts - in order to prove that the speed of the Wimbledon surface post-2001 does not benefit players who play well on slower surfaces (such as clay-court specialists) as much as it benefits players who play well on faster surfaces (like it always has).

Here's a list I've compiled.
__________________________________________________ _______________
2002 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Sjeng Schalken – this is a guy who won 2 grass titles and 6 hard court titles, so he was quite adept at faster surfaces. His clay court resume, at 1 title and a measly 3rd round showing once at Roland Garros, leaves much to be desired.
- Quarterfinalist: Richard Krajicek – another big server with a solid net game, Krajicek is the 1996 Wimbledon champion, and has won 2 other grass court titles, along with 7 hard court titles (including 2 masters) and 6 carpets. His clay court resume is solid, but clearly the weakest of his surfaces relative to his other success (1 clay title, 1 master’s final, and a RG semi).
- Semifinalist: Tim Henman – sometimes considered a grass court specialist (despite lacking any titles), Henman has 3 grass court finals and made the Wimbledon semi-finals 4 times (3 times before 2002, on the “fast grass”).
- Champion: Lleyton Hewitt – the 2001 US Open champion, with 3 grass titles, a masters on hardcourt, and the Master’s Cup on hardcourt. After 2002, Lleyton went on to make the AO final, win another grass court title, and amass to date his best win percentage on any surface at 81% on grass (compared to his worst win percentage at 69% on clay).

2003 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Tim Henman – see above
- Quarterfinalist: Jonas Bjorkman – 2 grass titles + 1 final, 3 hardcourt titles, and 1 title on carpet (and a final in a carpet Master’s); Bjorkman is much more adept to faster surfaces than he is to slow clay (his worst GS result is a 4th round showing at RG, and he has no clay titles to speak of).
- Quarterfinalist: Alexander Popp – I don’t know much about him, but apparently his favourite surface is grass and he made the Wimbledon Quarterfinals in 2000 on “fast grass”
- Semifinalist: Sebastien Grosjean – here’s a guy who was good on clay, but his best results were on fast surfaces; 1 grass title, 1 hardcourt title, and 2 carpet titles (including a master’s title).
- Semifinalist: Andy Roddick – big server, 4 grass titles, 17 hard court titles, 1 carpet title. We all know Andy is no clay-court specialist.
- Finalist: Mark Philippoussis – 2 grass titles, 8 hard court titles (one of which is MS title), the big serving Australian also made the final at the US Open and made 3 quarter-finals at Wimbledon from 1998-2000, on “fast grass”.

2004 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Lleyton Hewitt, see above.
- Quarterfinalist: Tim Henman, see above.
- Quarterfinalist: Sjeng Schalken, see above.
- Semifinalist: Sebastien Grosjean, see above.
- Semifinalist: Mario Ancic – the big serving Croat was once considered the next big grass-courter in the style of Goran Ivansevic, and with 2 grass titles and a carpet title, Ancic is definitely adept on faster surfaces.
- Finalist: Andy Roddick, see above

2005 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Sebastien Grosjean, see above.
- Semifinalist: Lleyton Hewitt, see above.
- Semifinalist: Thomas Johansson – 2 grass titles, 3 carpet titiles, and 6 hardcourt titles (including a Major and a Master’s title). Johansson is definitely not a clay-court specialist by any definition, finding fasters surfaces to his liking.
- Finalist: Andy Roddick, see above.

2006 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Mario Ancic, see above
- Quarterfinalist: Radek Stepanek – with 4 hardcourt titles and no clay titles, Stepanek clearly plays his best tennis on faster surfaces.
- Quarterfinalist: Lleyton Hewitt, see above
- Semifinalist: Marcos Baghdatis – 1 hardcourt title and 1 carpet title, the 2006 Australian Open finalist was also a runner up at Halle, on grass. No clay titles or finals.
- Semifinalist: Jonas Bjorkman, see above

2007 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Andy Roddick, see above
- Quarterfinalist: Marcos Baghdatis, see above

2008 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Mario Ancic, see above
- Quarterfinalist: Arnaud Clement – with 3 hardcourt titles (and Australian Open finalist), 1 carpet title, and 3 grass finals; Clement finds success on faster surfaces that he does not on the slower clay (with no finals or titles). Also, the 2007 Wimbledon Doubles Champion.
- Quarterfinalist: Andy Murray – even though he’s improved on clay, in 2008 he was more of a hard-court specialist, clearly favouring faster surfaces. US Open finalist, 3 hardcourt masters (out of 10 HC titles), and a carpet title.
- Semifinalist: Rainer Schuettler – 1 carpet title, 1 hardcourt title, and a AO runner-up. While he is solid on clay, his best results come from faster surfaces.
- Semifinalist: Marat Safin – 2 Harcourt Grand Slam titles (and 2 other HC major finals), 2 Master’s titles on hardcourts + 3 MS shields on carpet. Safin has done well on clay (with 2 titles and a RG semi-final), but is definitely more adept on faster surfaces as one of the best hard courters of the decade.
__________________________________________________ _______________

My conclusion; many players who've done well at Wimbledon have success at other grass-court tournaments and have had success before 2002 at Wimbledon and other grass-court tournaments.
Most players who have done well at Wimbledon since 2002 have done well on Hard-courts. While there have been some players who've made it deep into Wimbledon who can be considered clay courters or more adept on slower surfaces, they are still the minority at Wimbledon.

That's my opinion and the facts i'm backing it up with.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong, and why? Am I right, and why? Discuss.
And let's keep this free of Nadal/Federer/Djokovic bashing, please.

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 08:36 PM
I don't think any sane person has said that Wimbledon is green clay or slow grass, but it is slower than it was in the 90s. But just because clay courters aren't doing well on it doesn't mean that it isn't slower, which it is.

Nadal_Freak
05-21-2009, 08:38 PM
Wimbledon is just as fast as it used to be. It's just dramatic how much the styles of play have changed.

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 08:38 PM
I don't think any sane person has said that Wimbledon is green clay or slow grass, but it is slower than it was in the 90s. But just because clay courters aren't doing well on it doesn't mean that it isn't slower, which it is.

Well, there are some people with certain "agendas" on this forum who want to argue that Wimbledon is basically "green clay".

Basically, my conclusion is that it's basically in between the Aussie Open and the US Open in speed. I base that on the fact that most people who do well at Wimby are basically hardcourters.

Guys like Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are excellent on every surface so I didn't include them in my list.

RCizzle65
05-21-2009, 08:41 PM
I'm sure everyone is just over exaggerating the green clay thing, I doubt anyone really thinks it is that slow, but we all know it is definitely slower than it was 10 years ago

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 08:43 PM
Well, there are some people with certain "agendas" on this forum who want to argue that Wimbledon is basically "green clay".

Basically, my conclusion is that it's basically in between the Aussie Open and the US Open in speed. I base that on the fact that most people who do well at Wimby are basically hardcourters.

Guys like Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are excellent on every surface so I didn't include them in my list.

Yeah, that's why I said sane people, because some people on here happen to be in-sane. :)

rubberduckies
05-21-2009, 08:43 PM
Excellent thread and analysis.

Nadal_Freak
05-21-2009, 08:43 PM
I'm sure everyone is just over exaggerating the green clay thing, I doubt anyone really thinks it is that slow, but we all know it is definitely slower than it was 10 years ago
You think you mean. It's just theory as the styles of play are now suited for baseliners. It's too easy for passing shots now and baseline game is amazing.

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 08:46 PM
You think you mean. It's just theory as the styles of play are now suited for baseliners. It's too easy for passing shots now and baseline game is amazing.

I think it's a combination of what you've said and the fact that there's less grass court tournaments these days so the field is less specialized.

veroniquem
05-21-2009, 08:49 PM
I don't think any sane person has said that Wimbledon is green clay or slow grass, but it is slower than it was in the 90s. But just because clay courters aren't doing well on it doesn't mean that it isn't slower, which it is.
Yes lots of people have said it (and we all know why). Grass is and will always be a fast surface. Great reseach by he OP.

sh@de
05-21-2009, 08:57 PM
Yeah I don't get it with those people claiming Nadal won on 'green clay'. Just which part of Wimby last year was 'green clay'? The way some people find excuses for their defeated hero is pathetic... I completely agree with OP.

And a side point, to all you people out there who blame Federer's loss because of 'green clay', how about Madrid last week? Nadal fans are now screaming that Madrid conditions favoured Fed. If you were making excuses for Fed about 'green clay', then don't bother attacking those Nadal fans. That'll just make you sound hypocritical.

At the end of the day, whether Madrid really favoured Federer or not, and whether Wimby has really been slowed down or not, I think the player who wins deserves it. Why? Because it means he was the one who adapted best. If the surface or tournament changes, then it's up to the player to change. Those who don't adapt will be left behind; they won't deserve the title. Those who do win, and they should receive full credit for their performances.

jamesblakefan#1
05-21-2009, 09:01 PM
Yeah I don't get it with those people claiming Nadal won on 'green clay'. Just which part of Wimby last year was 'green clay'? The way some people find excuses for their defeated hero is pathetic... I completely agree with OP.

And a side point, to all you people out there who blame Federer's loss because of 'green clay', how about Madrid last week? Nadal fans are now screaming that Madrid conditions favoured Fed. If you were making excuses for Fed about 'green clay', then don't bother attacking those Nadal fans. That'll just make you sound hypocritical.

At the end of the day, whether Madrid really favoured Federer or not, and whether Wimby has really been slowed down or not, I think the player who wins deserves it. Why? Because it means he was the one who adapted best. If the surface or tournament changes, then it's up to the player to change. Those who don't adapt will be left behind; they won't deserve the title. Those who do win, and they should receive full credit for their performances.

Agreed.
10 chars

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 09:02 PM
Yeah I don't get it with those people claiming Nadal won on 'green clay'. Just which part of Wimby last year was 'green clay'? The way some people find excuses for their defeated hero is pathetic... I completely agree with OP.

And a side point, to all you people out there who blame Federer's loss because of 'green clay', how about Madrid last week? Nadal fans are now screaming that Madrid conditions favoured Fed. If you were making excuses for Fed about 'green clay', then don't bother attacking those Nadal fans. That'll just make you sound hypocritical.

At the end of the day, whether Madrid really favoured Federer or not, and whether Wimby has really been slowed down or not, I think the player who wins deserves it. Why? Because it means he was the one who adapted best. If the surface or tournament changes, then it's up to the player to change. Those who don't adapt will be left behind; they won't deserve the title. Those who do win, and they should receive full credit for their performances.

Very smart and insightful post, and I agree. Some people like to twist the facts to back up their favorite player, but forget that tennis is still tennis at the end of the day.

Fee
05-21-2009, 09:21 PM
I asked a player about it at Indian Wells. He said the grass is so slow now that he's changed the way he strings his racquets. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, it was my signature for a week or two. Something like 'it's slow as mud now, it's a complete joke.'

But that's just one guy's opinion.

IvanAndreevich
05-21-2009, 09:23 PM
Slow grass is still a pretty fast surface. Doesn't mean it isn't slow as far as grass goes.

TennisandMusic
05-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Geez just watch last years final. Look at how fast the points played out, how much lower the bounce is over other surfaces, how the slices skid through more than any other surface because of the low bounce etc...

It's not rocket science, just use your eyes.

imalil2gangsta4u
05-21-2009, 09:42 PM
Its definetely still fast, but it doesnt compare do the way it use to be.

tennis_hand
05-21-2009, 11:24 PM
That's my opinion and the facts i'm backing it up with.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong, and why? Am I right, and why? Discuss.
And let's keep this free of Nadal/Federer/Djokovic bashing, please.

even the players and the experts who have touched, stepped on and eaten the grass say it is slower. What are u trying to prove? to prove ur are more intelligent than those players and the experts using your analysis and facts gathered on the internet?

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 11:39 PM
even the players and the experts who have touched, stepped on and eaten the grass say it is slower. What are u trying to prove? to prove ur are more intelligent than those players and the experts using your analysis and facts gathered on the internet?

Maybe you could post some links to articles where players and experts say that, so we could take a look?

Thanks.

380pistol
05-21-2009, 11:41 PM
The grass is slower. The groundskeepers and science have confirmed it. End of story, move on.

Lateralus
05-21-2009, 11:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

That about sums it up.

Blinkism
05-21-2009, 11:54 PM
The grass is slower. The groundskeepers and science have confirmed it. End of story, move on.

It might be slower, but it is not slow like clay, which is what some people claim.

The point of this thread was to prove that Wimbledon is still a fast surface and players who do well on faster surfaces do better at Wimbledon than players who do well on slower surfaces.

And yes, groundskeepers have confirmed that Wimbledon has been gradually slowing down since the early 90's according to the Wimbledon spokesman in this article from 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2088800.stm

But Championships spokesman Johnny Perkins told BBC Sport Online that there had been no change in court preparation this year.

"Absolutely not," said Perkins. "The grass is the same, and it's the same seed mix at the same height.

"It was dry for longer beforehand so that makes the balls bounce more and gives the players longer to play their shots, so there are more rallies."

Wimbledon has made a concerted move to slow the courts over the last decade, but Perkins insisted the change would not be discernible from one year to another.

"Over the last 10 years the courts have gradually been firmed up in line with the movement of the game," said Perkins.

"As the number of serve-volleyers decreased it was just felt that the ball was going through a bit too quickly.

"But it has been a gradual change and not enough that you would notice in one particular year."


So if Wimbledon is slower, it's only that much slower than the 70's and 80's, but not that drastically slower than the time that guys like Sampras and Ivanisevic were making finals, according to the spokesman for Wimbledon in the article.

Apparently the grass was gradually slowed because the serve-and-volley guys disappeared, and not the other way around (serve-and-volley disappeared because Wimbledon slowed down).

That's all the word of the Wimbledon spokesperson, though.

There's still no proof Wimbledon is a slow surface, as some people say. Perhaps it has slowed down, but if you read my original post, you'll see that most people doing well at Wimbledon are guys who've always played well on grass and hardcourts but not as well on clay (with the exception of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer).

IvanAndreevich
05-22-2009, 12:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

That about sums it up.

That's great. Never seen a comparison like that.

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 12:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

That about sums it up.

What language is this video?

Are the commentators talking about Roger's serving technique and the fact that he's added topspin to his serve, thus possibly slowing it down on contact with the grass?

IvanAndreevich
05-22-2009, 12:13 AM
What language is this video?

Are the commentators talking about Roger's serving technique and the fact that he's added topspin to his serve, thus possibly slowing it down on contact with the grass?
Doesn't look like there is much more spin on it. The 2008 is just going deeper into the service box, but other than that the trajectories are pretty straight.

Besides, what kind of topspin do you think he added at 126 mph?!

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 01:03 AM
Federer vs. Hewitt - s'Hertogenbosch Semi-Final 2001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AashZp6JiyA&feature=related)
Roddick vs. Hewitt - Queen's Club Semi-Final 2004 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vyuwn2AvgI)
Federer vs. Hewitt - Wimbledon Quarter-Final 2004 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78bsuvVP3s&feature=related)
Federer vs. Roddick - Wimbledon Final 2004 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dG0zHG2EB4)
Nadal vs. Roddick - Queen's Club Semi-Final 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsMnIm4JQI&feature=related)
Nadal vs. Federer - Wimbledon Final 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK8u5M7MTZA)

And for good measure

Henman vs. Sampras - Wimbledon Semi-Final 1998 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dG0zHG2EB4)

IMO, It's more about the style of play than it is about the surface. Henman shows in the clip with Sampras the same thing Nadal does with players at the net, with great passing shots.

Anyways, from what I see in these clips is that the grass plays the same, or very similar, for players making big serves and moving to the net and those that play at the baseline.

And here's another clip, Agassi vs. Martin - Wimbledon 4th Round 1994 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QsYaCvMis)
Agassi here plays in a similar fashion to Nadal, longer rallies and passing shots when his opponent comes to the net.

It's more about style, as Nadal_Freak pointed out, than it is about the surface, really. The grass-court style of play has evolved from serve-and-volley to what it is today because baseline players have adapted to the surface and pushed serve-and-volley players off the top of the grass hill.

sh@de
05-22-2009, 01:37 AM
The vid comparing Fed's serves in 2003 and 2008 is not really proof of the grass slowing down. Spin was not taken into account, wind speed was not taken into account... there are countless variables not controlled that make that analysis inaccurate.

Dave M
05-22-2009, 02:16 AM
Good research by the OP, have to agree that it's not green cay by a long way but it is a lot slower than the first time i went there around 1992.The grass seems denser as well but the thing i've really noticed is that it stays grassy for more of the tournament. I don't just mean around the boxes as very few people goto the net as thats obvious, but the baseline.
But I think the technology changes that happened from the late 80s/ arly 90s (rackets then balls) and the fact that for the mostpart you don't get bad bounces means that the baseliners have much more time to set for their stroke. Look when Agassi won hi title and how amazed eveyone was, it was a9i think) hot yearte courts were hard and played more evenly previously you couldn't rely on a regular high/ even bounce so people came ino the net to volley the ball and therefore remove that influence from their game. As the balls bounc more consistantly and higher it means a baseline hugger can pick a guy off at the net without feara good sliced volley will be at his ankle each time.
Just my thinking though!

Gen
05-22-2009, 02:54 AM
Well, there are some people with certain "agendas" on this forum who want to argue that Wimbledon is basically "green clay".

Basically, my conclusion is that it's basically in between the Aussie Open and the US Open in speed. I base that on the fact that most people who do well at Wimby are basically hardcourters.

Guys like Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are excellent on every surface so I didn't include them in my list.

Here's a link to the article where this "green clay" was used for the first time to prove that not only forum amateurs have "agendas". So-called "experts" are also biased.
http://nationalsportsreview.com/2008/07/08/the-green-clay-of-wimbledon/

After all this speculation about grass-slower-than-clay had started, ITF declared several times that they calibrated all the slam surfaces. According to ITF site, Wimbledon grass plays nearly as fast as USO surface (depending on the weather, when it's rainy, it's a bit slower). I haven't saved these links, but I'm pretty sure that this info can be found in ITF site.

About players saying that Wimbley grass is no grass any more. Tim Henman, a Wimbledon failure, says it's slow. Boris Becker, a Wimbledon champ, says it's the same. Andre Agassi, another Wimbledon champ, said he saw no difference (at least last year).

Thanks for your review. You have an interesting approach. Others calculated the actual speed after the bounce, used stats to prove that nothing has changed much. It's the first time that somebody looks at this issue "player-wise".

Winners or Errors
05-22-2009, 04:00 AM
Green clay. :-)

I'm in agreement with those who say it's no longer the fastest major, because it's no longer the fastest major. The US Open is.... That doesn't mean it's RG slow, just that it plays slower than many think grass should and gives more bounce than it did prior to the grass change.

The-Champ
05-22-2009, 05:17 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

That about sums it up.


the balls didn't land on the same spot.

fps
05-22-2009, 05:19 AM
Green clay. :-)

I'm in agreement with those who say it's no longer the fastest major, because it's no longer the fastest major. The US Open is.... That doesn't mean it's RG slow, just that the fact that it plays slower than many think grass should and gives more bounce than it did prior to the grass change.

yep, and the ball still bounces differently- it still bounces lower, it's still a big adjustment to make.

fps
05-22-2009, 05:20 AM
the balls didn't land on the same spot.

they need to do that analysis with 100 first and second serves from the same guy landing in a similar spot. one ball from each year can only show so much.

Andres
05-22-2009, 06:12 AM
Wimbledon is just as fast as it used to be. It's just dramatic how much the styles of play have changed.
No. Simply no.

FloridaAG
05-22-2009, 06:16 AM
This thread is a joke - No one has said the grass at Wimbledon is as slow as clay. What has been said is that it is slower than it used to be. It is uncontrovertable - I don't really care and frankly think the matches are more fun to watch now that it is slower as both baseline and attacking can take place.

When it was faster, even pure baseliners had to serve and volley/come to net often as it was basically impossible to win points otherwise.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 06:28 AM
What language is this video?

Are the commentators talking about Roger's serving technique and the fact that he's added topspin to his serve, thus possibly slowing it down on contact with the grass?

They are speaking spanish. No, they are not speaking about his technique, rather stating that one could see form the graphics that the ball not only slows down much more in 2008 after contact with the ground, but also bounces higher.

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 06:36 AM
This thread is a joke - No one has said the grass at Wimbledon is as slow as clay. What has been said is that it is slower than it used to be. It is uncontrovertable - I don't really care and frankly think the matches are more fun to watch now that it is slower as both baseline and attacking can take place.

When it was faster, even pure baseliners had to serve and volley/come to net often as it was basically impossible to win points otherwise.

Well, only a few people go as far as saying Wimbledon plays as slow as clay. But alot of people point out that the speed at Wimbledon, these days, allows for guys like Nadal, for example, to do well despite lacking the skills of grass-court players from the 90's (serve-and-volley, for example).

The point of this thread was just to show that the players who do well at Wimbledon still fit the profile, for the most part. That's what I was trying to point out in my original post.

I don't think it's fair to say this thread is a joke. I wasn't trying to argue Wimbledon doesn't play like clay (that's a ridiculous point of view), but rather i'm arguing that it is still played on a fast surface and any player that does well there is usually adept on other fast surfaces (hardcourts and carpet), as well.

Cyan
05-22-2009, 06:51 AM
If Wimbledon was slow grass like clay then the other claycourters would be going deep and that is not happening.

Venus is still winning Wimbledon and she doesn't like slow courts....

drakulie
05-22-2009, 06:54 AM
^^Wimbledon is not a "fast surface" anymore. And yes, the changing of the surface their (slower and higher bouncing) has enabled players who wouldn't normally do well there to excel.

Gorecki
05-22-2009, 06:58 AM
Well, only a few people go as far as saying Wimbledon plays as slow as clay. But alot of people point out that the speed at Wimbledon, these days, allows for guys like Nadal, for example, to do well despite lacking the skills of grass-court players from the 90's (serve-and-volley, for example).

The point of this thread was just to show that the players who do well at Wimbledon still fit the profile, for the most part. That's what I was trying to point out in my original post.

I don't think it's fair to say this thread is a joke. I wasn't trying to argue Wimbledon doesn't play like clay (that's a ridiculous point of view), but rather i'm arguing that it is still played on a fast surface and any player that does well there is usually adept on other fast surfaces (hardcourts and carpet), as well.

to a certain extent this makes sense.

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 07:16 AM
^^Wimbledon is not a "fast surface" anymore. And yes, the changing of the surface their (slower and higher bouncing) has enabled players who wouldn't normally do well there to excel.

Like who for example?

I took a look at players who've made at least Quarter-finals at Wimbledon since 2003, and the large majority of those players (with the exception of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer) are usually players who haven't had as much success on clay than they've had on grass, hardcourts, or carpets. There are some exceptions, Juan Carlos Ferrero being the most obvious (Quarter-finalist in 2007), but he was also a US Open finalist so he's adept on fast surfaces, also.
Maybe the surface has slowed down, but it is still a fast surface (somewhere between the AO and the US Open in speed, in my opinion).

Otherwise, Nadal is usually used as the prime example of someone who benefits from Wimbledon having been slowed down, even though this goes against what I posted in this thread's original post (which is that the large majority of players doing well at Wimbledon are not clay-courters, but rather players who do better on fast surfaces). The fact is that Nadal has excelled on fast grass, making the Quarter-finals at Queen's in 2007, and finally winning the tournament in 2008.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 07:25 AM
^^^You have obviously never played on grass.

Guys who like the ball high, and hit with extreme grips don't typically do well on fast, slick surfaces that bounce low.

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 07:30 AM
^^^You have obviously never played on grass.

Guys who like the ball high, and hit with extreme grips don't typically do well on fast, slick surfaces that bounce low.

Like who, for example? If Nadal's your only example, then I think we'd have to agree that his success at Wimbledon is an exception and is more to do with his work ethic and ability to adapt and apply his technique on grass.

That's quite the achievement when you consider that, as it seems, no other player who likes the ball hit and hits with an extreme grip has done so well on a fast slick surface. But, it still seems that, overall, most players who do well at Wimbledon are players who play their best tennis on fast surfaces. That's not too different from the 90's, for example.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 08:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

That about sums it up.


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b281/Frost327/Joker/1181911796832.gifhttp://i39.tinypic.com/23m7tjd.jpg

SteveI
05-22-2009, 08:19 AM
If the OP is saying the current Wimbledon grass is not slower than in the past... he has not been watching as long as I have been. Watch Fed vs Sampas (BTW.. what year was that??) and watch a match now. I am 52 and have seen at least the finals since 1978 or so. I have no facts... or video.. only my eyes. There is no doubt the grass is slower than in the past. The folks at Wimbledon even say so..

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 08:44 AM
If the OP is saying the current Wimbledon grass is not slower than in the past... he has not been watching as long as I have been. Watch Fed vs Sampas (BTW.. what year was that??) and watch a match now. I am 52 have at seen at least the finals since 1978 or so. I have no facts... or video.. only my eyes. There is no doubt the grass is slower than in the past. The folks at Wimbledon even say so..

You're right, I haven't been watching that long. You've got a 20 year head start on me as i've started watching Wimbledon since 1998. Since then, though, I haven't noticed a huge change in court speed. It's just that baseliners have improved on grass, while serve-and-volley players have basically disappeared.

Maybe Wimbledon is slower than in the past, but I'm just trying to say it's still up there with the hardcourt majors, in speed. If anything, it's probably the second fastest major now, after the US Open (in my opinion).

Here's what I don't get, though. If you look at serve-and-volley guys like Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Rafter, and McEnroe, you'll see that they did very well on hardcourts too.

So, even if Wimbledon is slower, shouldn't there still be prominent serve-and-volley guys playing on hardcourts, or carpet tourneys?

It's more about the style in men's tennis changing, rather than the surface. The baseline style favored by the top guys these days means that rallies will be longer, and because the top guys are excellent at passing shots, it's less likely someone will move forward into the net.

tacou
05-22-2009, 08:53 AM
well yeah, if you only show all the fast-court specialists who do well at W every year it'll look like the same tournament it was in the 90s.

I think it all boils down to an opinion, really, because the facts are facts: Wimbledon is much slower than it used to be. It cannot be debated.

However, people who say it is slower than the French or call it green clay are just upset that Nadal is playing well there now and/or miss serve and volley. I miss it too but just because Wimbledon changed the grass does not make it any less prestigious in my eyes.

EtePras
05-22-2009, 08:56 AM
Even Spanish speaking people are proving Wimbledon is slower now.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 09:10 AM
You're right, I haven't been watching that long. You've got a 20 year head start on me as i've started watching Wimbledon since 1998. Since then, though, I haven't noticed a huge change in court speed. It's just that baseliners have improved on grass, while serve-and-volley players have basically disappeared.

Maybe Wimbledon is slower than in the past, but I'm just trying to say it's still up there with the hardcourt majors, in speed. If anything, it's probably the second fastest major now, after the US Open (in my opinion).

Here's what I don't get, though. If you look at serve-and-volley guys like Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Rafter, and McEnroe, you'll see that they did very well on hardcourts too.

So, even if Wimbledon is slower, shouldn't there still be prominent serve-and-volley guys playing on hardcourts, or carpet tourneys?

It's more about the style in men's tennis changing, rather than the surface. The baseline style favored by the top guys these days means that rallies will be longer, and because the top guys are excellent at passing shots, it's less likely someone will move forward into the net.


Have you seiously been watching tennis since 98???? If you have, I'm having a hard time understanding why you wouldn't know the answers to your questions.

For starters, Wimbledon was always the very fastest court (much faster than the US open), and much slicker/low bouncing. Couple that with the fact the bounces were horrible, compared to a hard court, and you the very toughest condition compared to any other type of fast court. The bad bounces, fast/slick, low bouncing court have all been taken out of the equation. What you have today at Wimbldeon are slower courts, that are higher bouncing, don't skid as much, and are much smoother to play (hence, no bad bounces).
The US Open, although the fastest slam right now, has also been slowed down recently. In other words, doesn't play as fast as it used to.To sum it up for you,,,,,,,,, the US Open is slower than it used to be, and yet is now faster than Wimbledon. Which goes to show you just how much they have slowed down the surface at Wimbledon.

No way in hell do any of these guys (Fed included) get away with playing the style of tennis they do at Wimbledon 10 years ago. And if they do play that style, they lose 9 out of 10 times to a good serve and volleyer.

This includes Nalbandian, Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Federer, etc.

guys who play like karlovic, dent, ancic would be heading the way at Wimbledon. and definitely no way a guy like Nadal who tends to return from 50 feet behind the baseline and doesn't remotely have a weapon as a serve make it to the second week.

Cesc Fabregas
05-22-2009, 09:17 AM
Have you seiously been watching tennis since 98???? If you have, I'm having a hard time understanding why you wouldn't know the answers to your questions.

For starters, Wimbledon was always the very fastest court (much faster than the US open), and much slicker/low bouncing. Couple that with the fact the bounces were horrible, compared to a hard court, and you the very toughest condition compared to any other type of fast court. The bad bounces, fast/slick, low bouncing court have all been taken out of the equation. What you have today at Wimbldeon are slower courts, that are higher bouncing, don't skid as much, and are much smoother to play (hence, no bad bounces).
The US Open, although the fastest slam right now, has also been slowed down recently. In other words, doesn't play as fast as it used to.To sum it up for you,,,,,,,,, the US Open is slower than it used to be, and yet is now faster than Wimbledon. Which goes to show you just how much they have slowed down the surface at Wimbledon.

No way in hell do any of these guys (Fed included) get away with playing the style of tennis they do at Wimbledon 10 years ago. And if they do play that style, they lose 9 out of 10 times to a good serve and volleyer.

This includes Nalbandian, Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Federer, etc.

guys who play like karlovic, dent, ancic would be heading the way at Wimbledon. and definitely no way a guy like Nadal who tends to return from 50 feet behind the baseline and doesn't remotely have a weapon as a serve make it to the second week.




I remember last year Jason Goodall did a piece whichs shows Nadal stands closer to the baseline on grass than on clay to return.

ty slothrop
05-22-2009, 09:29 AM
I remember last year Jason Goodall did a piece whichs shows Nadal stands closer to the baseline on grass than on clay to return.

49 feet is in fact a little closer than 50 feet. the point is you couldn't stand where he stands back in, say 1991...

drakulie
05-22-2009, 09:29 AM
I remember last year Jason Goodall did a piece whichs shows Nadal stands closer to the baseline on grass than on clay to return.

I'm being sarcastic in saying that. yes, Nadal has indeed changed his return strategy for Wimbledon on returns.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve Wimbledon. He won it on the same surface everyone else played on, and IMO>>> one of the greatest matches I have ever seen. I have also chose him to make it to the finals the last 3 years, and have picked him to win it.

That said, there is no way in hell he or the other players benefitting from the change in sufrace go into the second week of Wimbledon 7-10 years ago playing that style.

vtmike
05-22-2009, 09:33 AM
I'm being sarcastic in saying that. yes, Nadal has indeed changed his return strategy for Wimbledon on returns.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve Wimbledon. He won it on the same surface everyone else played on, and IMO>>> one of the greatest matches I have ever seen. I have also chose him to make it to the finals the last 3 years, and have picked him to win it.

That said, there is no way in hell he or the other players benefitting from the change in sufrace go into the second week of Wimbledon 7-10 years ago playing that style.

But you can also argue that Fed had to change his style in order to adapt to the different playing conditions on grass now...

I remember him using a lot of serve and volley when he played against Sampras...So its more a case of the player adapting to the surface than the other way round...If Federer was playing 10 years back, he would have continued to improve his serve & volley game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88VJbv3X6-4

bolo
05-22-2009, 09:33 AM
49 feet is in fact a little closer than 50 feet. the point is you couldn't stand where he stands back in, say 1991...

actually he stands significantly closer, IIRC even in 06. Obviously he's gotten a lot better since 06 but imo he probably would not have been able to do that at 20 if the grass hadn't already been slowed down.

380pistol
05-22-2009, 09:37 AM
It might be slower, but it is not slow like clay, which is what some people claim.

The point of this thread was to prove that Wimbledon is still a fast surface and players who do well on faster surfaces do better at Wimbledon than players who do well on slower surfaces.

And yes, groundskeepers have confirmed that Wimbledon has been gradually slowing down since the early 90's according to the Wimbledon spokesman in this article from 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2088800.stm



So if Wimbledon is slower, it's only that much slower than the 70's and 80's, but not that drastically slower than the time that guys like Sampras and Ivanisevic were making finals, according to the spokesman for Wimbledon in the article.

Apparently the grass was gradually slowed because the serve-and-volley guys disappeared, and not the other way around (serve-and-volley disappeared because Wimbledon slowed down).

That's all the word of the Wimbledon spokesperson, though.

There's still no proof Wimbledon is a slow surface, as some people say. Perhaps it has slowed down, but if you read my original post, you'll see that most people doing well at Wimbledon are guys who've always played well on grass and hardcourts but not as well on clay (with the exception of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer).

Well I agree it's not like clay, but the fact that the USAT has confirmed the Deco Turf II (2003- present) is slower than the Deco Turf II (1978-2000), yet many say Wimbledon is slower than the US Open says something.

ksbh
05-22-2009, 09:37 AM
Just on time, Blink ... you got to watch the great one, the grass master, win his last 3 Wimbledon titles! :)

You're right, I haven't been watching that long. You've got a 20 year head start on me as i've started watching Wimbledon since 1998.

380pistol
05-22-2009, 09:38 AM
I'm being sarcastic in saying that. yes, Nadal has indeed changed his return strategy for Wimbledon on returns.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve Wimbledon. He won it on the same surface everyone else played on, and IMO>>> one of the greatest matches I have ever seen. I have also chose him to make it to the finals the last 3 years, and have picked him to win it.

That said, there is no way in hell he or the other players benefitting from the change in sufrace go into the second week of Wimbledon 7-10 years ago playing that style.


Keep in mind I despise this clown and think he has the IQ of a numbnut, but he makes a valid point, whether people will admit it or not.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 09:43 AM
But you can also argue that Fed had to change his style in order to adapt to the different playing conditions on grass now...

I remember him using a lot of serve and volley when he played against Sampras...So its more a case of the player adapting to the surface than the other way round...If Federer was playing 10 years back, he would have continued to improve his serve & volley game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88VJbv3X6-4


I agree. But what I'm saying is that he won't get away with playing his current style of play 8 years ago. he would have to, and has teh ability to play serve and volley, as pointed out by you, so am quite certain he would still have a few wimbledon titles. can't say the same about Nadal, hewitt, etc.

stevepidge
05-22-2009, 09:46 AM
In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.

Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year.' "

Blinkism
05-22-2009, 09:50 AM
well yeah, if you only show all the fast-court specialists who do well at W every year it'll look like the same tournament it was in the 90s.

I think it all boils down to an opinion, really, because the facts are facts: Wimbledon is much slower than it used to be. It cannot be debated.

However, people who say it is slower than the French or call it green clay are just upset that Nadal is playing well there now and/or miss serve and volley. I miss it too but just because Wimbledon changed the grass does not make it any less prestigious in my eyes.

Ok, that's fair. I'll do the opposite. It'll be a much shorter list

2002 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Nicolas Lapentti - He had won 1 carpet title, 1 hardcourt title, and 1 clay title leading up to this Wimbledon (and his biggest title was the hardcourt title, in Indianapolis). You could call him a clay-courter, though.
- Finalist: David Nalbandian - some argument could be made that at that point in his career, with only 1 title (on clay), he could have been considered a clay-courter. Looking at his career to this date, though, it's clear he is a man for all surfaces (with a Master's Cup on carpet, and 2 Master's shields on hardcourts).

2003 Wimbledon
- No clay-court specialists or slow surface players to speak of in the Quarterfinals or beyond. Ferrero made the 4th round at Wimby that year, but then he went on to make the US Open final that year too, and won the Madrid masters title on Indoor Hardcourt surface that year. Not a hardcourt specialist, but no slouch either.

2004 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Florian Mayer - he had 2 challenger titles on clay going into the Wimbledon that year.
- No one else to speak of, other than Moya, maybe. He's in the same boat as Ferrero, though - a great clay courter, but would have probably made the 4th round at pre-2001 Wimby anyways.

2005 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Fernando Gonzalez - Ok, a strong argument could be made that in 2005 Gonzalez could have been primarily a clay-courter. But that year he won his first title on hard courts and on carpet, and to date he's been in the final of a Master's on hardcourts, a Grand Slam on hardcourts, and the Olympics on hardcourts, so Gonzalez doesn't fit the mold of clay-court specialist or anything like that.
- Quarterfinalist: David Nalbandian, see above
- Other than these guys, Ferrero made the 4th round again and Coria made the 4th round also. Coria could be a called a clay courter, for sure (although he has a carpet title, and was in the finals of a hardcourt masters and a grass tournament).

2006 Wimbledon
- No one in the Quarterfinals or better who can be called a claycourter, really.
- In the 4th round we got Verdasco, who at that point in his career was basically a claycourter (but has improved on all surfaces, even reaching a grasscourt final in 2008), and Ferrer who was also a claycourter in 2007 (although he had won his first and second hardcourt titles in the next year, and went on to win a grass title in 2008, not to mention being the finalist in the Master's Cup in 2007 on hardcourts).

2007 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Juan Carlos Ferrero, see above.
- No one else to speak of really who did well that can be considered a clay courter, except for Nikolai Davydenko who made the 4th round that year (but had come off winning 2 title on carpet, including a Masters, in 2006, and then another one in 2007).

2008 Wimbledon
- No one really to consider a clay courter who did well that year , except maybe Wawrinka, who made the 4th round.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Really 2002 (with 1 quarterfinalist and a finalist) was the year in which clay courters seemed to do the best and maybe also 2005 (with 2 quarterfinalists).

What I see is a list made up of mostly Spaniards and Argentinians who've also excelled on hardcourts and on carpet courts too, in some cases. I think people with stereotypes about Spaniards and Argentinians being mainly claycourters has clouded their judgement about Wimbledon's surface speed and has forced some people to make the conclusion that Wimbledon must be drastically slower if Argentinians, Spaniards, and even an Ecuadorian can do well on grass.

SteveI
05-22-2009, 09:58 AM
In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.

Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year.' "

Thanks.. nice post!

BTW... I seem to remember in the the early 80s, that the balls were kept in a cooler at courtside.. and were opened the night before. Am I "mis-remebering"??... :-)

NamRanger
05-22-2009, 11:07 AM
Ok, that's fair. I'll do the opposite. It'll be a much shorter list

2002 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Nicolas Lapentti - He had won 1 carpet title, 1 hardcourt title, and 1 clay title leading up to this Wimbledon (and his biggest title was the hardcourt title, in Indianapolis). You could call him a clay-courter, though.
- Finalist: David Nalbandian - some argument could be made that at that point in his career, with only 1 title (on clay), he could have been considered a clay-courter. Looking at his career to this date, though, it's clear he is a man for all surfaces (with a Master's Cup on carpet, and 2 Master's shields on hardcourts).

2003 Wimbledon
- No clay-court specialists or slow surface players to speak of in the Quarterfinals or beyond. Ferrero made the 4th round at Wimby that year, but then he went on to make the US Open final that year too, and won the Madrid masters title on Indoor Hardcourt surface that year. Not a hardcourt specialist, but no slouch either.

2004 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Florian Mayer - he had 2 challenger titles on clay going into the Wimbledon that year.
- No one else to speak of, other than Moya, maybe. He's in the same boat as Ferrero, though - a great clay courter, but would have probably made the 4th round at pre-2001 Wimby anyways.

2005 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Fernando Gonzalez - Ok, a strong argument could be made that in 2005 Gonzalez could have been primarily a clay-courter. But that year he won his first title on hard courts and on carpet, and to date he's been in the final of a Master's on hardcourts, a Grand Slam on hardcourts, and the Olympics on hardcourts, so Gonzalez doesn't fit the mold of clay-court specialist or anything like that.
- Quarterfinalist: David Nalbandian, see above
- Other than these guys, Ferrero made the 4th round again and Coria made the 4th round also. Coria could be a called a clay courter, for sure (although he has a carpet title, and was in the finals of a hardcourt masters and a grass tournament).

2006 Wimbledon
- No one in the Quarterfinals or better who can be called a claycourter, really.
- In the 4th round we got Verdasco, who at that point in his career was basically a claycourter (but has improved on all surfaces, even reaching a grasscourt final in 2008), and Ferrer who was also a claycourter in 2007 (although he had won his first and second hardcourt titles in the next year, and went on to win a grass title in 2008, not to mention being the finalist in the Master's Cup in 2007 on hardcourts).

2007 Wimbledon
- Quarterfinalist: Juan Carlos Ferrero, see above.
- No one else to speak of really who did well that can be considered a clay courter, except for Nikolai Davydenko who made the 4th round that year (but had come off winning 2 title on carpet, including a Masters, in 2006, and then another one in 2007).

2008 Wimbledon
- No one really to consider a clay courter who did well that year , except maybe Wawrinka, who made the 4th round.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Really 2002 (with 1 quarterfinalist and a finalist) was the year in which clay courters seemed to do the best and maybe also 2005 (with 2 quarterfinalists).

What I see is a list made up of mostly Spaniards and Argentinians who've also excelled on hardcourts and on carpet courts too, in some cases. I think people with stereotypes about Spaniards and Argentinians being mainly claycourters has clouded their judgement about Wimbledon's surface speed and has forced some people to make the conclusion that Wimbledon must be drastically slower if Argentinians, Spaniards, and even an Ecuadorian can do well on grass.



You are not considering the fact that the tour as a whole is played on much slower surfaces than the 90s. Carpet has been removed, hardcourts are slower, etc. This is a huge flaw in your argument.

coloskier
05-22-2009, 11:56 AM
If Wimbledon was slow grass like clay then the other claycourters would be going deep and that is not happening.

Venus is still winning Wimbledon and she doesn't like slow courts....

Wait a minute.... you are talking about the WTA, not the ATP, where the competition is so poor that it doesn't matter what kind of courts they are for Venus and Serena to win.

coloskier
05-22-2009, 11:59 AM
In the early 90's the only courts that were faster than Wimbledon were indoor carpet. Nothing else. Not AO, not USO, nothing. And since everyone now is claiming that USO is faster than Wimbledon, by simple reasoning Wimbledon has slowed down, since the USO has not changed.

ksbh
05-22-2009, 12:07 PM
It appears to me that the grass courts have slowed down a little but either way, it's producing incredible tennis. So leave it alone the way it is ... at least as long as Nadal & Federer are playing :twisted:

drakulie
05-22-2009, 12:11 PM
In the early 90's the only courts that were faster than Wimbledon were indoor carpet. Nothing else. Not AO, not USO, nothing. And since everyone now is claiming that USO is faster than Wimbledon, by simple reasoning Wimbledon has slowed down, since the USO has not changed.


This is correct. However, the USO has also slowed down as well, which goes to show just how much they have slowed down the surface at Wimbledon.

P_Agony
05-22-2009, 01:54 PM
Wimbeldon is slower and higher bouncing than it was. Last year they showed on TV the diffrence in bounce and speend between the court of 2007 and the court of 2008.

NamRanger
05-22-2009, 03:53 PM
This is correct. However, the USO has also slowed down as well, which goes to show just how much they have slowed down the surface at Wimbledon.


They have slowed surfaces across the board; not just the USO.

Nadal_Freak
05-22-2009, 03:57 PM
We'll make a deal. Monte-Carlo clay can be used for RG and Queen's grass can be used for Wimbledon. That way everyone is happy. Or maybe not.

380pistol
05-22-2009, 09:53 PM
We'll make a deal. Monte-Carlo clay can be used for RG and Queen's grass can be used for Wimbledon. That way everyone is happy. Or maybe not.

How about Wimbledon and the US Open the way it always was??

sh@de
05-22-2009, 10:44 PM
How about Wimbledon and the US Open the way it always was??

That would be great :). I think it's a vicious cycle really. If you slow down surfaces, then fewer people will play S&V, and so the tourney organisers slow down the surfaces even more because nobody S&V's, thereby further discouraging the S&V play style. I think some tournaments like Wimbledon and US Open should be sped back up a little. It could help for tennis to have some more variety. I'm not an advocate of making every single surface fast as hell, but a balance would definitely be nice.

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 11:08 PM
Just wanted to revive this thread in light of Nadal withdrawing form Wimbledon 2009.

Just want to see how many people still think Wimbledon is slow enough to let clay-courters or slow surface players excel there (or at least, more of these players than pre-2002), now that Nadal is out.

Let's put that theory to the test!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no clay-courter or slow court player is going to make the Quarters this year and a maximum of 2 will make it to the 4th round.

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:17 PM
380 Pistol got banned? Shame,I mean he sure is a fanboy(most of us here are)and a hothead but I liked reading his posts,always full of statistics,data etc. which I always like.Also one of the few who didn't really hold Fed's H2H against Nadal that much against him(he realizes it is a match-up issue).

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:20 PM
Just wanted to revive this thread in light of Nadal withdrawing form Wimbledon 2009.

Just want to see how many people still think Wimbledon is slow enough to let clay-courters or slow surface players excel there (or at least, more of these players than pre-2002), now that Nadal is out.

Let's put that theory to the test!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no clay-courter or slow court player is going to make the Quarters this year and a maximum of 2 will make it to the 4th round.


Sigh; your argument holds no water because you do not take into account that everyone is used to the slow conditions of the whole tour as a whole. Everyone is pretty much a slow court player now. The only true fast court specialists died out with Tim Henman.

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:27 PM
Just wanted to revive this thread in light of Nadal withdrawing form Wimbledon 2009.

Just want to see how many people still think Wimbledon is slow enough to let clay-courters or slow surface players excel there (or at least, more of these players than pre-2002), now that Nadal is out.

Let's put that theory to the test!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no clay-courter or slow court player is going to make the Quarters this year and a maximum of 2 will make it to the 4th round.

It isn't clay-like but it plays much like a slow,soft HC since 2002.It's still grass however even if is significantly slower than in the 90s so great athletes and movers still excel on it.

We all know Safin is always brutally honest so here's his take on it last year:

Q. How did you play?

MARAT SAFIN: I played well because I think the courts, they has been getting slower and slower throughout the years. So it's not any more like they used to be like eight years ago. It was really fast, and now you can play from the baseline and nobody even getting close to the net.


Q. What do you like the most about Wimbledon, and what do you dislike the most about Wimbledon?

MARAT SAFIN: Thanks for the people to make the courts slower.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=50419

IvanAndreevich
06-20-2009, 11:36 PM
Sigh; your argument holds no water because you do not take into account that everyone is used to the slow conditions of the whole tour as a whole. Everyone is pretty much a slow court player now. The only true fast court specialists died out with Tim Henman.

Kind of agree with this. Whereas before the BIGGEST difference between the 3 surfaces was the SPEED of court, now it's

1) movement and footwork
2) dealing with unpredictable bounces

That's why there are no true (or few) clay court specialists left. They also do well enough on other surfaces since they have slowed down, so as long as they got the footwork, they can execute their familiar game plan.

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 11:37 PM
Sigh; your argument holds no water because you do not take into account that everyone is used to the slow conditions of the whole tour as a whole. Everyone is pretty much a slow court player now. The only true fast court specialists died out with Tim Henman.

So then what's the distinction between slow court players and fast court players.

I mean, there's clearly guys who do well on grass and hard courts... and then there's guys who do well on clay and slower hard courts. Otherwise we'd see the same players make it far all over surfaces, and we don't really see that outside of the Top 10, as a whole.

Let's just see how this Wimbledon pans out, and then compare it to the clay season. Let's see if a lot of names overlap.

I don't think that we'll see a lot of clay courters make it far in Wimbledon. I still think that guys who do well on carpet, indoor hardcourt, and faster hardcourts will make up the majority of the players left in the second week.

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 11:38 PM
Kind of agree with this. Whereas before the BIGGEST difference between the 3 surfaces was the SPEED of court, now it's

1) movement and footwork
2) dealing with unpredictable bounces

That's why there are no true (or few) clay court specialists left. They also do well enough on other surfaces since they have slowed down, so as long as they got the footwork, they can execute their familiar game plan.

But there's players that still do well on faster courts and not slower courts. How do you account for that?

IvanAndreevich
06-20-2009, 11:49 PM
But there's players that still do well on faster courts and not slower courts. How do you account for that?

Hold on, maybe it's time for me to sleep. Can you clarify why you think my post suggests that this should not be the case?

Surfaces have slowed down, but not uniformly. E.g. in hypothetical units (higher is faster, 1 to 5) -

90's
wimby: 4.5
uso: 4
fo: 1

now
wimby: 3
uso: 3.5
fo: 1

So the speed difference between the FAST courts today with the SLOW courts of today is much less than it was in the past. That doesn't mean that some courts are still noticeably faster than others (USO compared to FO). Those numbers are just examples to illustrate what I mean not from any actual data.

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 11:56 PM
Hold on, maybe it's time for me to sleep. Can you clarify why you think my post suggests that this should not be the case?

Surfaces have slowed down, but not uniformly. E.g. in hypothetical units (higher is faster, 1 to 5) -

90's
wimby: 4.5
uso: 4
fo: 1

now
wimby: 3
uso: 3.5
fo: 1

So the speed difference between the FAST courts today with the SLOW courts of today is much less than it was in the past. That doesn't mean that some courts are still noticeably faster than others (USO compared to FO). Those numbers are just examples to illustrate what I mean not from any actual data.

Yeah, yeah, but I think we'll both agree that there's players who do well at Wimby and the USO (and AO) but don't do well at the FO.

So how do you account for them? If the faster courts have slowed down, why can't they make the leap and do well on clay?

This year it happened, at the FO. Soderling is a prime example of a guy who did nothing on clay his whole career, being a grass/carpet guy, and he made it to the FO final. Usually, though, it seems there is a clear distinction between slow court players and fast courts players.

Slow court players = Almagro, Montanes, Gicquel, and company
Fast court players = Roddick, Blake, Dent and company

What's your take on that?

Maybe the French sped up this year? Maybe it was 1, and now it's 1.5 or 2? We won't be able to tell for a few years, so this is a moot question.

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 12:19 AM
So then what's the distinction between slow court players and fast court players.

I mean, there's clearly guys who do well on grass and hard courts... and then there's guys who do well on clay and slower hard courts. Otherwise we'd see the same players make it far all over surfaces, and we don't really see that outside of the Top 10, as a whole.

Let's just see how this Wimbledon pans out, and then compare it to the clay season. Let's see if a lot of names overlap.

I don't think that we'll see a lot of clay courters make it far in Wimbledon. I still think that guys who do well on carpet, indoor hardcourt, and faster hardcourts will make up the majority of the players left in the second week.



Look, I don't need to tell you how slow Wimbledon is. Ferrero making the QF in 2007 (well past his prime) and taking a set off Federer should tell you something's up. Safin, who has NEVER done anything at Wimbledon, well outside his prime makes a run to the SF.



Coria, a PURELY claycourt specialist made the 2nd week of Wimbledon in 05. Fernando Gonzalez in the QF? Right. Jarrko Nieminen in the QF in 06. Heck, did you watch Hewitt v. Djokovic Wimbledon 07? 30 shot rallies galore. That doesn't happen on old grass, period.



I mean come on. All the Spanish guys say that all they do is play their clay court game on grass. Half of these guys wouldn't even win one round on old grass, much less be making it to the QF of Wimbledon. It's VERY hard to say it is not much slower, when you have pros, former pros, former CEO of AELTC, among plenty of other evidence that says the grass is different and slower.

joeri888
06-21-2009, 12:40 AM
Wimbledon is just as fast as it used to be. It's just dramatic how much the styles of play have changed.

Haha, I always find it funny that every degree of heat on a claycourt is making it a hardcourt, every meter of altitude makes it a red grasscourt, and only the RG clay was 'real clay', and that's not even the case anymore because they changed everything, otherwise Rafa couldn't lose. Yet, on the other side, several pro's who've played a long time now have said that the grass has been significantly slowed down, but you don't believe it because it wouldn't be in Rafa's favour to agree with that. It has defenitely slowed down imo. The difference with Queen's was never as big as it was last couple of years.

I don't mind it that much, because I think slower grasscourts have favoured Federer as well, especially in his earlier years against guys like Philipousis etc. It's only against Nadal that it's a disadvantage to him.

devila
06-21-2009, 12:49 AM
Roddick shows up with bad fitness in grass events because he can't stand having to betray the Wimbledon "tradition". That's why Federer, Nadal, Safin, Murray, Blake, Schuettler, and Tipsarevic look heroic.

MT319
06-21-2009, 12:57 AM
There are some people with certain "agendas" on this forum who want to argue that Wimbledon is basically "green clay".

Basically, my conclusion is that it's basically in between the Aussie Open and the US Open in speed. I base that on the fact that most people who do well at Wimby are basically hardcourters.

Right so basically your personal posting agenda has something to do with the repetitive abuse of the word basically.

shrakkie
06-21-2009, 03:01 AM
I can't stand all this bickering over something that has been PROVEN many times over. The grass is slower. Sure it is still a fast service but many investigations have PROVED it is slower.

Let us all move one now.

Chase
06-21-2009, 03:39 AM
i don't see why you come up with such an elaborate subjective test to answer a simple question. has the speed of the courts at wimbledon slowed down? you look at empirical data. speed of a ball travelling through a court. i.e. the video posted earlier in spanish. i don't see the point of taking this alternative, riduculous approach to such a simple question.

IvanAndreevich
06-21-2009, 10:21 AM
Yeah, yeah, but I think we'll both agree that there's players who do well at Wimby and the USO (and AO) but don't do well at the FO.

So how do you account for them? If the faster courts have slowed down, why can't they make the leap and do well on clay?


Like I said, the footwork is different and the bounce is different. Guys like Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are great movers on clay and can generate their own pace well. An excellent example of who is not a great mover on clay is Murray. His defensive game is less effective precisely because of his footwork. Otherwise, with clay being slower, there would simply be no way to get the ball past the guy.

This year it happened, at the FO. Soderling is a prime example of a guy who did nothing on clay his whole career, being a grass/carpet guy, and he made it to the FO final. Usually, though, it seems there is a clear distinction between slow court players and fast courts players.

Slow court players = Almagro, Montanes, Gicquel, and company
Fast court players = Roddick, Blake, Dent and company

What's your take on that?

So what makes you think that it's the speed of the court rather than bounce and footwork, and for example, how clay takes top spin much better than other surfaces, that affect their results the most?

Roddick is a good example of that. He's got the patience from the baseline to be good on clay, but his footwork sucks on it altogether.

Blake blasts flat balls. With irregular bounce on clay he has no margins and makes errors. Plus he is not a great mover on it either. Also clay is still much slower than HC so it makes it harder for him to create winners.

More and more what we are seeing now is all the top guys doing pretty well across ALL surfaces. The whole Top 5 is pretty much capable of a slam semi at all 4 GS's. That wasn't the case in the past IMO. Nowadays there are fewer and fewer "surface specialists" around at any level on the tour.

Even funnier is that we have guys like Murray and Simon who SHOULD do well on clay based on their great defense, but fail because of their footwork and their balls being too flat. Not sure about Murray, but Simon is definitely what I would call a "HC specialist".


Maybe the French sped up this year? Maybe it was 1, and now it's 1.5 or 2? We won't be able to tell for a few years, so this is a moot question.
On some days it definitely played faster than others, probably due to the hot dry weather.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 11:23 AM
Alright I'll admit that Nadal's knee had more to do with RG results than anything. Nadal is an all-surface player. But players like Del Potro and Soderling should not do well on clay. They are fast court players. RG is very fast for a clay court as well as Wimbledon being really slow for a grass court. But anyone with eyes can see there is still quite a difference in speed between the 2. I would like a more drastic difference though as they should be polar opposites imo.

tintin
06-21-2009, 11:49 AM
since we're talking about the grass being slow I'll add a clip and an article about an former winner talking about how slow the grass is and I'll start with her comments from 2006 to today:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5uoZjUQsM
check at 0:39;)

http://www.lequipe.fr/Tennis/breves2009/20090621_163518_mauresmo-dans-son-jardin.html

Avec votre jeu, vous êtes un peu le dernier des Mohicans sur le circuit féminin ?

J'ai l'impression. En plus, j'ai le sentiment qu'on peut faire des échanges du fond sur la surface. Au service, on a un peu plus de temps pour retourner. J'ai l'impression que la surface est moins rapide. Chez les hommes, ils servent à 220 km/h et ils jouent derrière. Cela me paraît incroyable. Même Roger (Federer) qui faisait service-volée sur ses deux services en 2001, a réalisé 5% de service-volée lors de son dernier titre à Wimbledon. Cela montre l'évolution de la surface.

Cela pose-t-il des problèmes pour votre jeu ?

Cela demande un peu plus de patience. Il y a davantage d'échanges du fond parce qu'on ne peut plus aller de la même manière vers l'avant.



again if anyone speaks French please confirm what she said in the article as proof that the grass has slowed down and for years now http://emoticons4u.com/happy/1101.gif

SandV
06-24-2009, 05:58 PM
Regarding the comparison to hard courts:

Douglas Robson (ex-college player and tennis reporter for USA Today) researched changes at the U S Open surface, finding that it has been slowed down twice since 2000. The first time was after 2000 when Safin won it, more sand was added to the top paint of the surface. This was repeated after the 2002 tourney when Sampras won it. They stopped after 2003 when server Roddick met baseliner Ferrero in the final, supposedly establishing that either style courld succeed.

jimbo333
06-24-2009, 06:12 PM
After only 3 days, the ball is bouncing up around their ears!!!

It is ridiculous!!!

It is not playing anything like an old grass court from 10 years ago!!!

bolo
06-24-2009, 06:21 PM
well I haven't read the whole thread so apologize early in case someone mentioned it.

But cahill and pmac (?) mentioned the interesting facts that nadal_freak dug up a while back. That it's actually much harder to break now at wimbledon than in the past. I forget how far back they said but I think they were comparing reasonably far back, at least 10 years.

canuckfan
06-24-2009, 06:30 PM
Wimbledon is slower than the 90's, and bounces significantly higher. It's an unmistakeable difference. Only desperate nadal fans seeking to glorify their guy while burying their heads in the sand try to claim otherwise. It would be nice to have fast low bouncing grass (wimby), med-fast hard (usopen), med slow hard (aussie), and slow high bouncing clay (RG)...but there's nothing we can do about it.

Al Czervik
06-24-2009, 06:31 PM
Early in Sharapova's match, Pam Shriver relayed that Sharapova says she normally loves grass, but in round one, that ball was not moving through the court at all and was very slow.

TennisFan481
06-24-2009, 06:53 PM
Well, I think it may have been slowed down a LITTLE in the early 2000's, but it obviously couldn't have been by that much as freak'n Mark Phillippousis made the final in 2003. Andy Roddick made the F in 2004 and 2005, and the SF in 2003. Tim Henman was still making QFs and SFs. And just watching those old matches on youtube...at least through 2005, the ball was still skipping off the court. The grass even LOOKED different in those days than it does now.

I think the DRAMATIC difference that we see today (to where it is not only slower than the US Open, but probably medium speed overall) started in either 2006 or 2007.

My money's on 2007, as I remember how clean and thoroughly Federer's shots were penetrating the court in 2006 Wimbledon, including against Nadal in the final. In 2007, he was getting into these marathon type rallies and nothing he did seemed to penetrate, outside his serve. Part of that may have been because of a decline in play, but you have to also think part of it was related to the grass itself.

But what's interesting is that this year so far, Karlovic is through easily to the 3rd round. Soderling's through and looking strong. The big hitters seem to be having success.

Nadal_Freak
06-24-2009, 07:21 PM
Early in Sharapova's match, Pam Shriver relayed that Sharapova says she normally loves grass, but in round one, that ball was not moving through the court at all and was very slow.
Maybe she doesn't have much power anymore. The courts were moving just fine from what I've seen. Sharapova can't serve well anymore. That is why she loses now.

IvanAndreevich
06-24-2009, 08:25 PM
well I haven't read the whole thread so apologize early in case someone mentioned it.

But cahill and pmac (?) mentioned the interesting facts that nadal_freak dug up a while back. That it's actually much harder to break now at wimbledon than in the past. I forget how far back they said but I think they were comparing reasonably far back, at least 10 years.

This can mean many things as so much has changed. Racquet technology, new strings, people staying on the baseline, etc.

dh003i
06-24-2009, 08:30 PM
Yes, the grass is clearly slower, but more importantly, it is higher bouncing. The commentators have clearly noted this.

When Federer won Wimbledon in 2003, McEnroe and others were thrilled: A "S&V" player winning it! Finally, S&V is back. (ok, he only usually came in on 1st serves, but still). But then each year he came in to the net less. Why? Because he suddenly decided that he'd rather run around more and work harder? No. Because the grass changed.

Last year, he came in more at the USO than at Wimbleodn. I wonder why that was.

dh003i
06-24-2009, 08:35 PM
Alright I'll admit that Nadal's knee had more to do with RG results than anything. Nadal is an all-surface player. But players like Del Potro and Soderling should not do well on clay. They are fast court players. RG is very fast for a clay court as well as Wimbledon being really slow for a grass court. But anyone with eyes can see there is still quite a difference in speed between the 2. I would like a more drastic difference though as they should be polar opposites imo.

Something we can agree on.

Although the FO was faster this year mainly because of weather.

I'm not sure how much clay's been changed over the years; can't really compare with the FO from Borg's day, as it may have just seemed slower then due to the wood.

Nadal_Freak
06-24-2009, 08:40 PM
Something we can agree on.

Although the FO was faster this year mainly because of weather.

I'm not sure how much clay's been changed over the years; can't really compare with the FO from Borg's day, as it may have just seemed slower then due to the wood.
French Open was much faster this year compared to last year. The bounces seemed lower as well. Something was up. McEnroe said these were one of the fastest balls he's played with. I think that was the major change this year and why Karlovic had 55 aces. Of course heavy conditions will make the ball slower when it sokes up with water. When dry, it is extremely fast.

bolo
06-25-2009, 03:33 AM
This can mean many things as so much has changed. Racquet technology, new strings, people staying on the baseline, etc.

yes I agree it can mean many things.

Rabbit
06-25-2009, 04:46 AM
PMac and MadBrad both said this morning in their commentary that Roland Garros is playing faster than Wimbledon! The example they used was the DelPotro/Federer match.

Andres
06-25-2009, 05:32 AM
Alright I'll admit that Nadal's knee had more to do with RG results than anything. Nadal is an all-surface player. But players like Del Potro and Soderling should not do well on clay. They are fast court players. RG is very fast for a clay court as well as Wimbledon being really slow for a grass court. But anyone with eyes can see there is still quite a difference in speed between the 2. I would like a more drastic difference though as they should be polar opposites imo.
Stop contradicting yourself. Your entire life you've been saying Monte Carlo and Roland Garros play very much alike, and they're the slowest claycourt of them all. Don't make me go to your 10 thousand points to prove my point.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 05:34 AM
Stop contradicting yourself. Your entire life you've been saying Monte Carlo and Roland Garros play very much alike, and they're the slowest claycourt of them all. Don't make me go to your 10 thousand points to prove my point.
I said RG has changed. It's not even close to Monte-Carlo speedwise now.

Aabye
06-25-2009, 05:58 AM
PMac and MadBrad both said this morning in their commentary that Roland Garros is playing faster than Wimbledon! The example they used was the DelPotro/Federer match.

So wait...is Wimbledon slowing down or is RG speeding up?

I mean, on the one hand Rafa has gotten to the final of Wimbledon several times and even won it once. People claim he generally prefers slower courts.

On the other hand, Soderling got to the final of RG, and his best prior results all came on carpet (the fastest surface)....

:?

drakulie
06-25-2009, 06:16 AM
I said RG has changed. It's not even close to Monte-Carlo speedwise now.

How is Nadal doing with his 3 week vacation?? You think he is practicing on fast surfaces, slow surfaces, or cycling??

Aabye
06-25-2009, 06:18 AM
How is Nadal doing with his 3 week vacation?? You think he is practicing on fast surfaces, slow surfaces, or cycling??

Fishing...

AAAA
06-25-2009, 06:19 AM
From what I heard the balls used at Wimbledon are bigger and heavier than those used at the FO, hence slower through the air and after the bounce.

How do people observe court speed without using instruments? They judge by the speed of the ball, through the air and after the bounce. Even if the grass is faster than the clay the potential gain in ball speed from the court could be cancelled out by the balls used if they're bigger and heavier enough.

Rabbit
06-25-2009, 07:58 AM
So wait...is Wimbledon slowing down or is RG speeding up?

I mean, on the one hand Rafa has gotten to the final of Wimbledon several times and even won it once. People claim he generally prefers slower courts.

On the other hand, Soderling got to the final of RG, and his best prior results all came on carpet (the fastest surface)....

:?

According to what I've seen all the players say, from Pat Cash on, RG has speeded up and Wimbledon has slowed down.

Cash specifically said in an interview last year on Tennis Channel that the composition of the courts at Roland Garros is much firmer than it used to be. The courts play considerably faster than they used to which is also attributable to the ball they use. In past years, they have used pressureless balls which are considerably slower. Last year, on a particularly windy day, Nadal stopped play and asked that the match be suspended until the courts were refitted with top dressing. Apparently the majority of the dressing had blown off and the courts were slick and potentially unsafe. Nadal even remarked that they played more like a hard court than a clay court.

Cash also said that while Queens has a more old style court, the courts at Wimbledon have changed considerably. Cash's exact words were "they may have made too perfect a court". The courts at Wimbledon are much firmer than they used to be which produces a more consistent bounce. In addition to that, the heads groundskeeper in a rather lengthy interview indicated that they have almost perfected the growth of the grass there. He said, and playing on other grass courts I can attest, that grass doesn't grow vertically, it grows horizontally. They have gotten the grass to grow more vertically and this too produces a more equitable bounce and slows the court.

I also read that they open the balls two weeks prior to tournament start which slows them down.

So, to answer your question, play at all the majors save has slowed down. This, I surmise, is in response to criticism of years past that professional tennis had turned into a serving contest. IMO, it has ruined play on grass and turned the sport's play even more homogenous than it was.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 08:01 AM
According to what I've seen all the players say, from Pat Cash on, RG has speeded up and Wimbledon has slowed down.

Cash specifically said in an interview last year on Tennis Channel that the composition of the courts at Roland Garros is much firmer than it used to be. The courts play considerably faster than they used to which is also attributable to the ball they use. In past years, they have used pressureless balls which are considerably slower. Last year, on a particularly windy day, Nadal stopped play and asked that the match be suspended until the courts were refitted with top dressing. Apparently the majority of the dressing had blown off and the courts were slick and potentially unsafe. Nadal even remarked that they played more like a hard court than a clay court.

Cash also said that while Queens has a more old style court, the courts at Wimbledon have changed considerably. Cash's exact words were "they may have made too perfect a court". The courts at Wimbledon are much firmer than they used to be which produces a more consistent bounce. In addition to that, the heads groundskeeper in a rather lengthy interview indicated that they have almost perfected the growth of the grass there. He said, and playing on other grass courts I can attest, that grass doesn't grow vertically, it grows horizontally. They have gotten the grass to grow more vertically and this too produces a more equitable bounce and slows the court.

I also read that they open the balls two weeks prior to tournament start which slows them down.

So, to answer your question, play at all the majors save has slowed down. This, I surmise, is in response to criticism of years past that professional tennis had turned into a serving contest. IMO, it has ruined play on grass and turned the sport's play even more homogenous than it was.




So this means that Federer is better on clay then grass now? Hahaha.

thejoe
06-25-2009, 08:04 AM
I said RG has changed. It's not even close to Monte-Carlo speedwise now.

Due to the weather this year. You have to get it out of your head that they changed it consciously.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 08:04 AM
I said RG has changed. It's not even close to Monte-Carlo speedwise now.



Until you admit the U.S. Open is faster than Wimbledon, you cannot say RG has changed at all. Otherwise it is all hearsay.

Rabbit
06-25-2009, 08:04 AM
So this means that Federer is better on clay then grass now? Hahaha.

Well considering he won Roland Garros and has yet to win Wimbledon I think this is a fair and accurate statement.... :)

I also don't think green clay is too far from accurate about Wimbledon.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 08:06 AM
Well considering he won Roland Garros and has yet to win Wimbledon I think this is a fair and accurate statement.... :)

I also don't think green clay is too far from accurate about Wimbledon.



I'm not sure, I seriously think that Roland Garros looked faster than Wimbledon at times. I mean, the QFs and SFs looked extremely fast, especially with the wind blowing the top layer off.



I've never seen Federer's forehand penetrate the RG so well before. At Wimbledon so far, he's having abit of trouble hitting through the court.

coloskier
06-25-2009, 08:06 AM
Almost EVERY player from the 90's says that the grass is slower now with a higher bounce. I think they know much better than ANYONE on this forum who hasn't actually played on the Wimbledon grass.

SandV
06-25-2009, 04:40 PM
They definitely played with a lighter ball at R G this year. Roddick and J Mac stated as much. Karlovic had 55 aces. Stosur, whose serve is her main weapon, reached the semis. Fed had way more aces and service winners than last year.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 05:27 PM
Well considering he won Roland Garros and has yet to win Wimbledon I think this is a fair and accurate statement.... :)

I also don't think green clay is too far from accurate about Wimbledon.
Tell that to Murray and Venus Williams that Wimbledon is green clay. They would laugh at your face. They love fast surfaces and find Wimbledon the most suitable to their game Mr. Nadal is on steroids.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 05:29 PM
They definitely played with a lighter ball at R G this year. Roddick and J Mac stated as much. Karlovic had 55 aces. Stosur, whose serve is her main weapon, reached the semis. Fed had way more aces and service winners than last year.
Yes and RG is a joke now for doing so. You know they wanted Fed to win. This is the first time they act on trying to do so.

dh003i
06-25-2009, 08:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=88VJbv3X6-4&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D88VJbv3X6-4%26feature%3Drelated

Yea, tell me Wimbledon isn't significantly slower today than then.

That was a beautiful match to watch. I'd rather watch that than Federer's win over Nadal in '07, or loss to him in '08.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 08:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=88VJbv3X6-4&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D88VJbv3X6-4%26feature%3Drelated

Yea, tell me Wimbledon isn't significantly slower today than then.

That was a beautiful match to watch. I'd rather watch that than Federer's win over Nadal in '07, or loss to him in '08.
This is how the old grass looked when the players stand back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QsYaCvMis

Mansewerz
06-25-2009, 08:20 PM
No. Simply no.

I dunno why, but I just love this response.

Blinkism
06-25-2009, 08:29 PM
This is how the old grass looked when the players stand back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QsYaCvMis

Great clip Nadal_Freak, thanks!

Blinkism
06-25-2009, 08:30 PM
Tell that to Murray and Venus Williams that Wimbledon is green clay. They would laugh at your face. They love fast surfaces and find Wimbledon the most suitable to their game Mr. Nadal is on steroids.

Not just them, but everyone listed on the first post in this thread.

Read the OP, people!!!

dh003i
06-25-2009, 08:32 PM
It is definitely slower than it used to be.

And that clip wasn't long enough to demonstrate everything. Find me highlights from a whole match.

T1000
06-25-2009, 08:35 PM
its slower than the uso. kind of hard to disagree with pros about this

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 08:37 PM
Another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MECh9jx6Uo&feature=related

dh003i
06-25-2009, 08:40 PM
Another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MECh9jx6Uo&feature=related

Look at the Becker-Sampras 1996 Masters final. I don't think the passing shots today are any better than those of those two guys.

Hence, I don't think the reason S&V declined is because passing shots got so much better. Maybe they look better, because there's more time to setup and get to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_c9LfnDKBQ

Btw: grass today isn't just slower; it is also higher bouncing, which favors baseline play, and much more even in response, which means there's little risk in letting the ball bounce.

Blinkism
06-25-2009, 08:42 PM
its slower than the uso. kind of hard to disagree with pros about this

Perhaps this is true, but what I'm saying with this thread is that Wimbledon is still one of the fastest slams. Whether it's the fastest or second after the USO, I still think that the way the grass plays at Wimbledon still favors players who do well on faster courts.

I think that there is an illusion of Wimbledon slowing down because of the dissapearance of Serve and Volley players that were so much a part of Wimbledon, but I think that it's an overall shift in tennis because we don't really see prominent S&V's on any surface. That might have to do with Wimbledon, but all the great S&V's of the 80's and 90's did well at the USO and the AO, also.

So it's a combination of things, but my point is basically that Wimbledon is still a fast surface.

Definitely not "green clay" or incredibly slow like some people claim.

dh003i
06-25-2009, 08:42 PM
Another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MECh9jx6Uo&feature=related

Even that clip you showed proves my point. The court is more worn out towards the net than today. The baseline is worn out too, still, but the mid-court to net area is much more worn out than on the courts today. The mid-court and net area won't be worn out at all by the final.

Blinkism
06-25-2009, 08:43 PM
Btw: grass today isn't just slower; it is also higher bouncing, which favors baseline play, and much more even in response, which means there's little risk in letting the ball bounce.

Also, there's less skidding and "soft spots" because the grass is more uniform now, so baseline play can be more predictable and, like you said, less risky.

Al Czervik
06-25-2009, 08:44 PM
Hence, I don't think the reason S&V declined is because passing shots got so much better. Maybe they look better, because there's more time to setup and get to them.

Courier says that because of Luxilon, he can hit shots now that he never could when he was playing. As one of the articles about Luxilon said, the game is much less linear and flat, and more about ridiculous hook and loop shots.

dh003i
06-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Perhaps this is true, but what I'm saying with this thread is that Wimbledon is still one of the fastest slams. Whether it's the fastest or second after the USO, I still think that the way the grass plays at Wimbledon still favors players who do well on faster courts.

I think that there is an illusion of Wimbledon slowing down because of the dissapearance of Serve and Volley players that were so much a part of Wimbledon, but I think that it's an overall shift in tennis because we don't really see prominent S&V's on any surface. That might have to do with Wimbledon, but all the great S&V's of the 80's and 90's did well at the USO and the AO, also.

So it's a combination of things, but my point is basically that Wimbledon is still a fast surface.

Definitely not "green clay" or incredibly slow like some people claim.

It's still fast; but as you said, not as fast as the USO. And just as important, the bounce of the ball is higher. The grass is also much more consistent, so few bad bounces.

Anyways, people who say it isn't slower have to answer why players who S&V'ed a lot at Wimbledon -- like Federer -- stopped doing it as much.

I think maybe they should let the grass grow longer. That would reduce the bounce of the balls.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Funny how when Del Potro said Roland Garros was playing like a hard court all the *******s jumped on board saying that since a pro said it it must be true but when far more pros say that Wimbledon's slowed down, you basically so they are wrong.

Blinkism
06-25-2009, 08:47 PM
Even that clip you showed proves my point. The court is more worn out towards the net than today. The baseline is worn out too, still, but the mid-court to net area is much more worn out than on the courts today. The mid-court and net area won't be worn out at all by the final.

I don't see a big difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGL0jW3G-js

Wimbledon 2006 final.

Same wear and tear, in my eyes.

Blinkism
06-25-2009, 08:50 PM
Funny how when Del Potro said Roland Garros was playing like a hard court all the *******s jumped on board saying that since a pro said it it must be true but when far more pros say that Wimbledon's slowed down, you basically so they are wrong.

I agree... anecdotal evidence from pro's is just that. They might be talking about a certain court they played on (maybe it's different from the other courts somehow), or a certain match where conditions made court speed vary from the usual.

That's why you have to look at the big picture.

Rabbit
06-26-2009, 03:33 AM
Tell that to Murray and Venus Williams that Wimbledon is green clay. They would laugh at your face. They love fast surfaces and find Wimbledon the most suitable to their game Mr. Nadal is on steroids.

Well what do they say? Evidently you've had conversations with both, right? I mean in order for you to make a comment like that you've most assuredly talked to them?

In reading the rest of this thread, it is evident that your total and complete knowledge of the game past is only through the miracle of YouTube. Your lack of perspective is only exceeded by your absolute ignorance of the game then..........and now.

As to your last sentence, we'll see.

Andres
06-26-2009, 05:42 AM
I dunno why, but I just love this response.
Thanks. The man delivers ;)

:mrgreen:

devila
06-26-2009, 03:03 PM
I was laughing when fans of big servers like Roddick say these guys won more because the faster courts made the success and Slam wins increase like rabbits' population. No matter how mch slower the grass becomes, the player should be adaptable and genetically great enough to win. It has nothing to do with just standing there and having humongous power shots.

Look how delusional the bigger servers are; the wrong decisions affect how serious they work and choose coaches.
Athleticness matter as much as emotions. The competition is not greater the last decade, but the top Slam contenders crash often. Most of them're not very strong with endurance and quickness, they don't work the right way and
fear the media hyperbole..,

Nadal_Freak
06-26-2009, 03:05 PM
Well what do they say? Evidently you've had conversations with both, right? I mean in order for you to make a comment like that you've most assuredly talked to them?

In reading the rest of this thread, it is evident that your total and complete knowledge of the game past is only through the miracle of YouTube. Your lack of perspective is only exceeded by your absolute ignorance of the game then..........and now.

As to your last sentence, we'll see.
You will be a joke on the board if Nadal is not on steroids.

FiveO
06-27-2009, 03:19 AM
Perhaps this is true, but what I'm saying with this thread is that Wimbledon is still one of the fastest slams. Whether it's the fastest or second after the USO, I still think that the way the grass plays at Wimbledon still favors players who do well on faster courts.

I think that there is an illusion of Wimbledon slowing down because of the dissapearance of Serve and Volley players that were so much a part of Wimbledon, but I think that it's an overall shift in tennis because we don't really see prominent S&V's on any surface. That might have to do with Wimbledon, but all the great S&V's of the 80's and 90's did well at the USO and the AO, also.

So it's a combination of things, but my point is basically that Wimbledon is still a fast surface.

Definitely not "green clay" or incredibly slow like some people claim.

It depends on what you are comparing it to. There are only four Majors.

The US Open was the second fastest Major since transitioning from Har-Tru to hardcourts in the late 1970's.

The US Open was second fastest compared to Wimbledon which was notably faster.

In 2001 they slowed the US Open. In 2003 they slowed it again, and the feeling of the powers that be, were that they got it right when they got a power serving Roddick v. a baselining JCF in the final. Apparently those Sampras v. Agassi finals and the Sampras v. Hewitt final weren't "just right". The point is the US Open, historically the second fastest was slowed and slowed again, moving it closer to AO speed.

In 2001 they changed Wimbledon's grass as well, slowing it, and that's after switching to a slower ball there in 1995.

The US Open, after having been SLOWED twice in 2001 and 2003 is NOW the fastest of the four Majors. Wimbledon is slower than that.

Yes Wimbledon is the second "fastest" Major, but in an era when the formerly second fastest Major was significantly slowed. There are no "Fast" surfaces left. IMO a better way to describe Wimbledon's speed is that it is now the third slowest Major.

5

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:48 AM
.

Then why is there a real difference between players who do well on slower surfaces and players who do well on faster surfaces?

sh@de
06-27-2009, 04:32 AM
Then why is there a real difference between players who do well on slower surfaces and players who do well on faster surfaces?

I don't think anybody's doubting that. The thing people are trying to argue is that there should be a more distinct difference i.e. specialists have a much greater advantage.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 04:39 AM
It depends on what you are comparing it to. There are only four Majors.

The US Open was the second fastest Major since transitioning from Har-Tru to hardcourts in the late 1970's.

The US Open was second fastest compared to Wimbledon which was notably faster.

In 2001 they slowed the US Open. In 2003 they slowed it again, and the feeling of the powers that be, were that they got it right when they got a power serving Roddick v. a baselining JCF in the final. Apparently those Sampras v. Agassi finals and the Sampras v. Hewitt final weren't "just right". The point is the US Open, historically the second fastest was slowed and slowed again, moving it closer to AO speed.

In 2001 they changed Wimbledon's grass as well, slowing it, and that's after switching to a slower ball there in 1995.

The US Open, after having been SLOWED twice in 2001 and 2003 is NOW the fastest of the four Majors. Wimbledon is slower than that.

Yes Wimbledon is the second "fastest" Major, but in an era when the formerly second fastest Major was significantly slowed. There are no "Fast" surfaces left. IMO a better way to describe Wimbledon's speed is that it is now the third slowest Major.

5
Wimbledon is clearly faster than the Australian Open and slightly faster than the US Open. I consider Wimbledon and US Open as fast surfaces.

thejoe
06-27-2009, 04:53 AM
Wimbledon is clearly faster than the Australian Open and slightly faster than the US Open. I consider Wimbledon and US Open as fast surfaces.

It's definetly quicker than the Aus Open, but I still think that US Open is quicker.

skip1969
06-27-2009, 05:10 AM
this is one of those never-ending arguments on this board, and i usually don't get involved in these . . . but i will say this:

though i didn't like some of those serve-fests of the 90's when the big serves had such a distinct advantage over the rest of the field, one of the things i did like about wimbledon was that it was such a specific surface. as such, everyone knew that to succeed (at any level) at wimby, many had to make some level of adjustment to their game. yes, the speed of the court was a major factor, but so was the bounce of the ball. the conditions made it difficult for players with extreme grips or with long, loopy strokes. they lacked the time needed because the surface robbed them of that time.

additionally, there had to be an adjustment in strategy as well. you couldn't rely on a true bounce in a 20 stroke rally. so the onus was placed on aggression. even players who wouldn't normally come to net felt the need to do it at least to some degree.

none of this bothered me, since the players had to make adjustments at roland garros, where the surface had the opposite effect and the big servers were at a big disadvantage. it was that range of surface which made those slams to interesting to watch. i don't see that anymore, though i love the slams just the same.

FiveO
06-27-2009, 05:15 AM
Wimbledon is clearly faster than the Australian Open and slightly faster than the US Open. I consider Wimbledon and US Open as fast surfaces.

Herein lies the rub.

5

FiveO
06-27-2009, 05:54 AM
Then why is there a real difference between players who do well on slower surfaces and players who do well on faster surfaces?

Rank players today by Major surfaces.

Then go back two generations and rank them by Major surface 10-15 years ago.

Then demonstrate this wild variance between Major surface/player results today that you are referring to?

In another thread I think you stated that you started watching tennis seriously in '98. If you think it varies wildly today, you should have seen it prior to that. This is why many of us who saw more than the last dozen years of tennis argue against the homogenization of playing conditions that exist today.

5

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 06:15 AM
Tell that to Murray and Venus Williams that Wimbledon is green clay. They would laugh at your face. They love fast surfaces and find Wimbledon the most suitable to their game Mr. Nadal is on steroids.



So you can use professional player comments but I can't. I love this double standard. Again, people, do remember N_F says...


1. He is just as knowledgeable about surfaces as a tennis pro who plays on them

2. He has a better view of court surface speed from his television

3. Obviously is not very good at tennis

4. Calls McEnroe and the old guys fast court *****

5. Says that clay at RG is faster than the Australian Open now

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 09:59 AM
So you can use professional player comments but I can't. I love this double standard. Again, people, do remember N_F says...


1. He is just as knowledgeable about surfaces as a tennis pro who plays on them

2. He has a better view of court surface speed from his television

3. Obviously is not very good at tennis

4. Calls McEnroe and the old guys fast court *****

5. Says that clay at RG is faster than the Australian Open now
1. I said tennis players can be very biased as well. Especially Roddick for example. Can't admit he is not as good as 2004 so he blames the surface.
2. You do have a better view on court speed compared to most positions in the stadium.
3. I was at 4.0's without a serve.
4. It is obvious the people at ESPN are biased and want courts to be faster.
5. I never said that. I said that Madrid was faster than the Australian Open because of the altitude and dry conditions.
I'm the only one that put all the work in finding which surfaces are toughest to break. ESPN finally acknowledged this that it is just like the old grass when it comes to difficulty of breaking.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 10:14 AM
1. I said tennis players can be very biased as well. Especially Roddick for example. Can't admit he is not as good as 2004 so he blames the surface.
2. You do have a better view on court speed compared to most positions in the stadium.
3. I was at 4.0's without a serve.
4. It is obvious the people at ESPN are biased and want courts to be faster.
5. I never said that. I said that Madrid was faster than the Australian Open because of the altitude and dry conditions.
I'm the only one that put all the work in finding which surfaces are toughest to break. ESPN finally acknowledged this that it is just like the old grass when it comes to difficulty of breaking.



1. Roddick is not biased, he has no reason to be biased. He is year round a top 10 player. Anyways, if it was just him, you MIGHT have a point. Except it is not just Roddick. It is Goran, Rafter, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Navratilova, etc. You know, like the whole professional tennis community.

2. You're an idiot for saying this. You simply cannot say you have a better view of the speed of the surface than a professional player who plays on it.

3. You cannot be a 4.0 without a solid serve. And if you want to prove it, please show me evidence that you are an actual 4.0, since you should have a USTA membership card and records of you playing in 4.0 tournaments.

4. It is not just ESPN, it is the whole freaking world.

5. You said RG was blazing fast and that it is out of this world fast, which contributed to Nadal's loss. Gilbert said the one fast shot is the serve on this surface, that's it. Every other shot is playing slow. Federer for instance is having trouble hitting through this court, when he had no trouble blowing winners past by players at RG.



So why are you allowed to say RG is fast from pure eye sight and speculation, but I'm not allowed to say grass is slower with actual evidence?




There is no way physically possible for the grass to be the same as the old grass. It is simply NOT possible when Wimbledon Officials themselves said they CHANGED it. Different types of grass will produce different types of characteristics. It is that simple. Yet Nadal_Freak here continues to try and argue relentlessly that Nadal is somehow some type of all surface monster when he simply only benefits from today's conditions.

NadalandFedererfan
06-27-2009, 10:18 AM
Denying grass has slowed down today when even officials of Wimbledon and those make mantain the grass publicly say so is completely ridiculous. Yes the grass has slowed today and quite a few players benefit including my two favorite players. To speculate how you think certain players might still handle the old faster grass is fine, but to deny the glaring slowing of the grass is to be an idiot.

FiveO
06-27-2009, 10:22 AM
1. Roddick just stated in his post match press conference that the best he ever played at Wimbledon was '04 and hadn't regained that form "yet".

5

TennisandMusic
06-27-2009, 10:44 AM
Well let's compare just how different it is. Here are some Wimbledon clips from the 90's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGqA6YMefGI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxskActkAIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZQCANHxmjw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-uBYbcINJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC6aYPsjGOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TBnugWlxQs&feature=related

There are a lot more. I'd have to say it looks a lot more similar than different.

FiveO
06-27-2009, 10:59 AM
Well let's compare just how different it is. Here are some Wimbledon clips from the 90's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGqA6YMefGI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxskActkAIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZQCANHxmjw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-uBYbcINJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC6aYPsjGOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TBnugWlxQs&feature=related

There are a lot more. I'd have to say it looks a lot more similar than different.

I can see that the courts are green and the players are wearing white too.

But I also see the difference between a steady diet of balls being struck between hip and knee as opposed to today where the norm is chest height and higher.

Between hip and knee is not ideal for grips biased to the extreme and more extreme west.

OTH chest and higher is optimal for such grips.

5

TennisandMusic
06-27-2009, 11:03 AM
I can see that the courts are green and the players are wearing white too.

But I also see the difference between a steady diet of balls being struck between hip and knee as opposed to today where the norm is chest height and higher.

Between hip and knee is not ideal for grips biased to the extreme and more extreme west.

OTH chest and higher is optimal for such grips.

5

Yeah because the game was generally different (a lot of eastern grips) and zero people were playing with poly strings. So less spin, and therefore less of a bounce. However you still see the same thing as today...a slowdown in the ball in the horizontal direction but a low bounce.

You can also see that the courts are almost fully worn instead of just the baseline. It's just a different game. But it's not a radically different surface. That's why all the moaning is silly. At least to me it seems what's far more different is simply how guys play now, and that is much more a result of the racquets and strings.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 11:21 AM
I can see that the courts are green and the players are wearing white too.

But I also see the difference between a steady diet of balls being struck between hip and knee as opposed to today where the norm is chest height and higher.

Between hip and knee is not ideal for grips biased to the extreme and more extreme west.

OTH chest and higher is optimal for such grips.

5
Yes that part was obvious. The old grass absorbed more of the energy due to the grass being softer and the ball barely bounced due to it. That was not in question. The question was that the ball went through the court quicker. In that case, I would have to disagree. The allusion of the old grass being so fast was due to it barely bouncing and that took time away from you. It's actually harder to break now than 10 years ago at Wimbledon but it was still fast back then just like now.

FiveO
06-27-2009, 11:29 AM
Yeah because the game was generally different (a lot of eastern grips) and zero people were playing with poly strings. So less spin, and therefore less of a bounce. However you still see the same thing as today...a slowdown in the ball in the horizontal direction but a low bounce.

You can also see that the courts are almost fully worn instead of just the baseline. It's just a different game. But it's not a radically different surface. That's why all the moaning is silly. At least to me it seems what's far more different is simply how guys play now, and that is much more a result of the racquets and strings.

It's different. More so than the difference between the hardcourts of the AO and USO pre-2001, where on one Sampras clearly had an edge and the other Agassi. That small a difference effected outcomes.

Now we see the effects and hear comments debating whether the RG and Wimbledon is faster, that is radical. On the former grass conditions it would be touch and go whether a lob would bounce high enough for an overhead, give a Lendl these conditions and it would have been very likely that he would have been the first to win a "career Slam" on three surfaces.

That's radically different.

5

TennisandMusic
06-27-2009, 11:30 AM
Yes that part was obvious. The old grass absorbed more of the energy due to the grass being softer and the ball barely bounced due to it. That was not in question. The question was that the ball went through the court quicker. In that case, I would have to disagree. The allusion of the old grass being so fast was due to it barely bouncing and that took time away from you. It's actually harder to break now than 10 years ago at Wimbledon but it was still fast back then just like now.

Yeah exactly. It's not the height of the bounce...surely it bounces a little higher because of more spin employed by players and the fact that the grass is pure rye as opposed to a blend. But it certainly does not appear to move through the court any faster back in the day. Not at all.

And like I've said many many times on this board, grass plays "fast" because of the low bounce and how it takes time away from you. Not because it's moving through the court faster. This makes it easier to hit winners because the ball doesn't "come to you" like on a hard court, nor do you have the time to run down the ball like clay. You have to move TO the ball like no other surface. I've played on every surface, I know how the stuff plays. Including a lower bouncing grass and a higher bouncing grass.

If people just look at these videos with an unbiased eye, it's clear that the primary difference would maybe be the bounce, though it is certainly not radically different. Grass is not THAT different from before. The GAME is different than before, but that is evident on every single surface out there.

Give players small racquets with full natural gut in them, keep the grass exactly the same and watch what happens.

TennisandMusic
06-27-2009, 11:34 AM
It's different. More so than the difference between the hardcourts of the AO and USO pre-2001, where on one Sampras clearly had an edge and the other Agassi. That small a difference effected outcomes.

Now we see the effects and hear comments debating whether the RG and Wimbledon is faster, that is radical. On the former grass conditions it would be touch and go whether a lob would bounce high enough for an overhead, give a Lendl these conditions and it would have been very likely that he would have been the first to win a "career Slam" on three surfaces.

That's radically different.

5

No one in their right mind is debating whether RG or Wimbledon is faster. Give me a break. Please tell me what possible changes in the materials of clay and grass would constitute such a radical deviation from decades of play. You're simply incorrect.

have you ever PLAYED on either surface? You're ignoring all of the visual and physical evidence to simply say "it's way too slow!"

I find this hilarious really. As soon as Nadal has success on grass there has been some MAJOR complaining about Wimbledon. That's really where this ALL comes from. No one said a word when Roddick was getting to the final in 04-05 on the exact same grass.

FiveO
06-27-2009, 12:00 PM
No one in their right mind is debating whether RG or Wimbledon is faster. Give me a break. Please tell me what possible changes in the materials of clay and grass would constitute such a radical deviation from decades of play. You're simply incorrect.

have you ever PLAYED on either surface? You're ignoring all of the visual and physical evidence to simply say "it's way too slow!"

I find this hilarious really. As soon as Nadal has success on grass there has been some MAJOR complaining about Wimbledon. That's really where this ALL comes from. No one said a word when Roddick was getting to the final in 04-05 on the exact same grass.

I've played all the surfaces, grass, red clay, Har Tru, Supreme Court, all forms of hards, etc. Still play on grass at West Side, and several clubs on Long Island and in Connecticut, and since you allude to it, yes, one of us does not know what they are talking about.

The commentators at Wimbledon are debating which played faster this year, not me, and I didn't suggest it merely paraphrased their words. A failure to recognize a distinction in ball height off the bounce and realize that it not only a product of surface softness, but of lack of friction depending on how the ball is struck, compounded by what ball is used, does mean that one of us never played on grass.

5

FiveO
06-27-2009, 12:07 PM
No one in their right mind is debating whether RG or Wimbledon is faster. Give me a break. Please tell me what possible changes in the materials of clay and grass would constitute such a radical deviation from decades of play. You're simply incorrect.

have you ever PLAYED on either surface? You're ignoring all of the visual and physical evidence to simply say "it's way too slow!"

I find this hilarious really. As soon as Nadal has success on grass there has been some MAJOR complaining about Wimbledon. That's really where this ALL comes from. No one said a word when Roddick was getting to the final in 04-05 on the exact same grass.

Also, now I see where you are coming from:

When one enters a discussion with a chip on their shoulder, in this case seeing any critique of surface speed as an attack on Nadal, they can't help but coming across as irrational.


FYI alot of people spoke about the Wimbledon grass speed and it was discussed here and other places. Here is some reading material for you. Take particular note of the dates and consider why it was a topic of discussion and when. This conversation started almost immediately after the change. Before Nadal was even a blip on tennis' radar.


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3611417&postcount=94

5

drakulie
06-27-2009, 12:48 PM
For those of you arguing the courts aren't slower, let us know when you guys have one of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw&feature=PlayList&p=0D8803210BC4088E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36

Gorecki
06-27-2009, 01:00 PM
No one in their right mind is debating whether RG or Wimbledon is faster. Give me a break. Please tell me what possible changes in the materials of clay and grass would constitute such a radical deviation from decades of play. You're simply incorrect.

have you ever PLAYED on either surface? You're ignoring all of the visual and physical evidence to simply say "it's way too slow!"

I find this hilarious really. As soon as Nadal has success on grass there has been some MAJOR complaining about Wimbledon. That's really where this ALL comes from. No one said a word when Roddick was getting to the final in 04-05 on the exact same grass.

if you had one friggin cell in your brain you would have used the search function and see that even here in TTW people been discussing wimbledon speed since 2006

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=86821&highlight=wimbledon+speed

so how far did Nadal get in 2006 again?

you are entering Fedace\Nadal_freak Territory...

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 01:06 PM
For those of you arguing the courts aren't slower, let us know when you guys have one of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw&feature=PlayList&p=0D8803210BC4088E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36
It all makes sense now. Grass is more adapted to skidding with slices than flat serves. See how the ball that stays lower is going through the court quicker. I just made an observation of grass taking slice better. Nadal is very good with his slices on his backhand as well as his serve.

thejoe
06-27-2009, 01:19 PM
It all makes sense now. Grass is more adapted to skidding with slices than flat serves. See how the ball that stays lower is going through the court quicker. I just made an observation of grass taking slice better. Nadal is very good with his slices on his backhand as well as his serve.

Huh? That isn't what the video says. It doesn't show anything about slice.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 01:22 PM
Huh? That isn't what the video says. It doesn't show anything about slice.
You should know that the lower trajectory equals more slice. The ball that stayed low throughout the picture had more slice on it. Slices stay lower. So the grass benefitted that shot more than the one that was slightly flatter at the same pace.

thejoe
06-27-2009, 01:29 PM
You should know that the lower trajectory equals more slice. The ball that stayed low throughout the picture had more slice on it. Slices stay lower. So the grass benefitted that shot more than the one that was slightly flatter at the same pace.

They were both flat, first serves down the T in the deuce court, which means a minute ammount or NO slice.

malakas
06-27-2009, 01:33 PM
Fish and Llodra have said it.I trust them more than any of you.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 01:34 PM
They were both flat, first serves down the T in the deuce court, which means a minute ammount or NO slice.
They don't carry the same trajectory. Thus, they don't have the same exact spin. A slight difference is still a differece. Slice>flat shots on grass.

Gorecki
06-27-2009, 01:36 PM
You should know that the lower trajectory equals more slice. The ball that stayed low throughout the picture had more slice on it. Slices stay lower. So the grass benefitted that shot more than the one that was slightly flatter at the same pace.

herm... no! neither of your points is correct...

Andres
06-27-2009, 01:50 PM
It all makes sense now. Grass is more adapted to skidding with slices than flat serves. See how the ball that stays lower is going through the court quicker. I just made an observation of grass taking slice better. Nadal is very good with his slices on his backhand as well as his serve.
THIS grass takes slice worse than a flat shot. In the old grass, the backspin really skid and stayed low. Not the case now. Flat shots are more rewarded on this now grass than slice. Slice shots NOW tend to sit up. That makes no sense.

I've seen slice approach shots bouncing at waist level. Gimme a break. Don't tell me Llodra or Karlovic or Stepanek don't know how to hit

Hitting flat and fast gets the best results on this new grass.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 02:34 PM
THIS grass takes slice worse than a flat shot. In the old grass, the backspin really skid and stayed low. Not the case now. Flat shots are more rewarded on this now grass than slice. Slice shots NOW tend to sit up. That makes no sense.

I've seen slice approach shots bouncing at waist level. Gimme a break. Don't tell me Llodra or Karlovic or Stepanek don't know how to hit

Hitting flat and fast gets the best results on this new grass.
You couldn't be more wrong. Congrats on being the opposite of the truth. Flat is not a good plan here. It works against the grass. Thus why Blake, Gonzo, and some of the other flat ball hitters aren't doing while Murray and Federer's variety is doing well. Even Djokovic is using more slice than normal and Nadal used a lot of that last year. It is a shot you need to have to succeed on grass.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 02:36 PM
Just wanted to revive this thread in light of Nadal withdrawing form Wimbledon 2009.

Just want to see how many people still think Wimbledon is slow enough to let clay-courters or slow surface players excel there (or at least, more of these players than pre-2002), now that Nadal is out.

Let's put that theory to the test!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no clay-courter or slow court player is going to make the Quarters this year and a maximum of 2 will make it to the 4th round.

Well, it's the 4th round and who are the "clay courters" left?

It's basically Igor Andreev, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Stan Wawrinka. I don't consider Ferrero a clay-court specialist, but either way I was more or less right. I said 2 slow court players will make the 4th round. Maybe 3 made it, but that's 3 out of 16 players left. How would this be possible if Wimbledon played slowly or like "green clay"?

It's not completely strange to see some clay courters make it to the 4th round. I mean, just look at Wimbledon 10 years. You had Guga "I live and breath clay" Kuerten making the quarter-finals!

In 1998 you had a 4th round matchup between Fransisco Clavet (a clay courter) and David Sanguinetti.

In 1995 Andrei Medvedev took Boris Becker to 5 sets in the 4th Round.

Karol Novacek made the 4th round in 1991.

Point is, there's always been a few clay courters doing well at Wimbledon, even before 2002. Maybe the number of clay courters or slow courters that do well at Wimbledon has increased slightly, the vast majority of players in the second week are still fast court players.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 02:39 PM
What do you guys think? Am I wrong, and why?

Yes, you are wrong. Let us know when you find one of these showing the opposite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw&feature=PlayList&p=0D8803210BC4088E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36

Andres
06-27-2009, 02:40 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Congrats on being the opposite of the truth. Flat is not a good plan here. It works against the grass. Thus why Blake, Gonzo, and some of the other flat ball hitters aren't doing while Murray and Federer's variety is doing well. Even Djokovic is using more slice than normal and Nadal used a lot of that last year. It is a shot you need to have to succeed on grass.
I know you're using a cardbox with formulas for replies, explanations, and excuses (and of course, you keep changing them when someone proves you wrong) but what you just said is plain idiocy.

The slice isn't skidding anymore.

But again, why am I arguing with you? Who am I? You're the resident expert here.

By the way, your cardbox is outdated.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 02:47 PM
I know you're using a cardbox with formulas for replies, explanations, and excuses (and of course, you keep changing them when someone proves you wrong) but what you just said is plain idiocy.

The slice isn't skidding anymore.

But again, why am I arguing with you? Who am I? You're the resident expert here.

By the way, your cardbox is outdated.
It's right on the mark. Murray used that slice by itself to beat Gulbis and Troicki. I guess you missed those matches. Taking high risk shots on an unpredictable surface like this and allowing grass to slow the ball with it's texture is not the way to go. Slices is the way to go. And I've never been proven wrong about Wimbledon. No stats to prove anything against my thoughts. The slice skids much more on grass. Common sense really.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 02:49 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Congrats on being the opposite of the truth. Flat is not a good plan here. It works against the grass. Thus why Blake, Gonzo, and some of the other flat ball hitters aren't doing while Murray and Federer's variety is doing well. Even Djokovic is using more slice than normal and Nadal used a lot of that last year. It is a shot you need to have to succeed on grass.



A. Gonzalez does not hit flat, he hits with tons of spin.

B. Blake doesn't do well because he can't hold his serve at all, and he is woefully inconsistent on everything but a HC.

C. Murray has been succeeding with his defensive style of tennis on grass. That wouldn't work in a million years on the grass of the 90s.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 02:49 PM
Now, people are saying the US Open is faster now than Wimbledon.

So let's take a look at clay courters doing well at the US Open.

2008 US Open
4th Round - Gael Monfils
4th Round - Stanislas Wawrinka
4th Round - Tommy Robredo
4th Round - Nikolay Davydenko
4th Round - Igor Andreev

That's already more than Wimbledon this year, but let's take a look at the the USO from 2005-2007 for good measure.

2007 US Open
4th Round - Juan Monaco
4th Round - Stanislas Wawrinka
Semifinals - Nikolay Davydenko
Semifinals - David Ferrer
Quarterfinals - Juan Ignacio Chela

So 2/4 Semifinalists, 3 out of 8 Quarterfinalists were clay courters in 2007 at the USO, And 5 clay courters in the 4th round. This year is the best proof that the USO is not faster than Wimbledon. When was the last time clay courters did this well at Wimbledon?

2006 US Open
4th Round - Marc Gicquel
4th Round - Tommy Robredo
Semifinals - Nikolay Davydenko

Ok, 2006 is similar to what Wimbledon is looking like this year. I'll admit that. Not so much a great year for the clay courters at the USO, except for Davydenko.

2005 US Open
4th Round - Nicolas Massu
4th Round - Tommy Robredo
Quarterfinals - Guillermo Coria

Similar year to 2006.

So in conclusion, the USO is not less favorable to slow courters or clay courters than Wimbledon. In fact, it seems clay courters do BETTER at the USO than Wimbledon.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 02:50 PM
It's right on the mark. Murray used that slice by itself to beat Gulbis and Troicki. I guess you missed those matches. Taking high risk shots on an unpredictable surface like this and allowing grass to slow the ball with it's texture is not the way to go. Slices is the way to go. And I've never been proven wrong about Wimbledon. No stats to prove anything against my thoughts. The slice skids much more on grass. Common sense really.



O rly?


Wait, I've already beaten you up and down multiple threads about grass speed.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 02:51 PM
Now, people are saying the US Open is faster now than Wimbledon.

So let's take a look at clay courters doing well at the US Open.

2008 US Open
4th Round - Gael Monfils
4th Round - Stanislas Wawrinka
4th Round - Tommy Robredo
4th Round - Nikolay Davydenko
4th Round - Igor Andreev

That's already more than Wimbledon this year, but let's take a look at the the USO from 2005-2007 for good measure.

2007 US Open
4th Round - Juan Monaco
4th Round - Stanislas Wawrinka
Semifinals - Nikolay Davydenko
Semifinals - David Ferrer
Quarterfinals - Juan Ignacio Chela

So 2/4 Semifinalists, 3 out of 8 Quarterfinalists were clay courters in 2007 at the USO, And 5 clay courters in the 4th round. This year is the best proof that the USO is not faster than Wimbledon. When was the last time clay courters did this well at Wimbledon?

2006 US Open
4th Round - Marc Gicquel
4th Round - Tommy Robredo
Semifinals - Nikolay Davydenko

Ok, 2006 is similar to what Wimbledon is looking like this year. I'll admit that. Not so much a great year for the clay courters at the USO, except for Davydenko.

2005 US Open
4th Round - Nicolas Massu
4th Round - Tommy Robredo
Quarterfinals - Guillermo Coria

Similar year to 2006.

So in conclusion, the USO is not less favorable to slow courters or clay courters than Wimbledon. In fact, it seems clay courters do BETTER at the USO than Wimbledon.


I like how you are nitpicking and not even showing half of the clay court specialists that reach the 2nd week of Wimbledon. Ferrero, Coria, etc. lmao hell even Safin who sucks on grass makes a friggin SF? LOL.




The only people who even try to make the argument that grass has not changed are Nadal fans/supporters. Everyone else who has 2 eyes and common sense knows that the grass has slowed down by a tremendous amount. I mean, even T&M at least admits that the grass has somewhat slowed down.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 02:52 PM
A. Gonzalez does not hit flat, he hits with tons of spin.

B. Blake doesn't do well because he can't hold his serve at all, and he is woefully inconsistent on everything but a HC.

C. Murray has been succeeding with his defensive style of tennis on grass. That wouldn't work in a million years on the grass of the 90s.
You should know Murray's been surfaces are fast surfaces. He hates clay. There isn't a surface too fast for his defense as he loves to use the slice and is a great counter-puncher. Blake doesn't do well because he doesn't get true bounces on the grass. Gonzo hits with topspin which slows down on the grass and he is rushed as well.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 02:54 PM
Yes, you are wrong. Let us know when you find one of these showing the opposite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw&feature=PlayList&p=0D8803210BC4088E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36

I think all the research that I've done and Nadal_Freak has done on break of serve percentages at all tournaments is much stronger than some random video with no written context.

tudwell
06-27-2009, 02:55 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Congrats on being the opposite of the truth. Flat is not a good plan here. It works against the grass. Thus why Blake, Gonzo, and some of the other flat ball hitters aren't doing while Murray and Federer's variety is doing well. Even Djokovic is using more slice than normal and Nadal used a lot of that last year. It is a shot you need to have to succeed on grass.

Gonzalez is not a flat ball hitter. He slices 90% of his backhands and hits one of the heaviest topspin forehands on tour.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 02:56 PM
I like how you are nitpicking and not even showing half of the clay court specialists that reach the 2nd week of Wimbledon. Ferrero, Coria, etc. lmao hell even Safin who sucks on grass makes a friggin SF? LOL.




The only people who even try to make the argument that grass has not changed are Nadal fans/supporters. Everyone else who has 2 eyes and common sense knows that the grass has slowed down by a tremendous amount.

.. my post was about the US Open, and I've written about clay courters doing well at Wimbledon in an earlier post where I show Ferrero and Coria doing well.

Sorry, Safin does not "suck" on grass and is not a clay court specialist. He was in the final of Halle in 2005, and took a set off Federer.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 02:56 PM
O rly?


Wait, I've already beaten you up and down multiple threads about grass speed.
The only thing you have done is making my ear drums hurt. You have no such thing. You even wanted to prove Nadal was on steroids. You realized that was a failure as well. You have been served. :D

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 02:58 PM
.. my post was about the US Open, and I've written about clay courters doing well at Wimbledon in an earlier post where I show Ferrero and Coria doing well.

Sorry, Safin does not "suck" on grass and is not a clay court specialist. He was in the final of Halle in 2005, and took a set off Federer.




No, Safin SUCKS on grass. I'm sorry. As much as I love Marat Safin, he BLEW on grass from 2000-2007. Please do feel free to explain to me how Safin is so good on grass yet couldn't make it past the 4th round in 7 tries.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 02:59 PM
I mean, even T&M at least admits that the grass has somewhat slowed down.

I admitted that in my OP.

My argument isn't that Wimbledon is the exact same speed it's always been, I'm arguing that those whole do well at Wimbledon still fit the bill (fast court players).

Wimbledon might be slower, sure, but it's still either the second fastest or fastest major and not "green clay" as some claim.

malakas
06-27-2009, 02:59 PM
Yes Safin does suck at grass.It's his worst surface and has said it himself .

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:00 PM
The only thing you have done is making my ear drums hurt. You have no such thing. You even wanted to prove Nadal was on steroids. You realized that was a failure as well. You have been served. :D



Let's start from the beginning :


1. Professional players said grass is slower (Henman, Bjorkman, Safin, Roddick, etc.)
2. Former professional players said grass is slower (Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Rafter, Goran, Navratilova, etc.)
3. Australian Open Tournament Director said grass is slower
4. Former Wimbledon CEO said there was a concentrated effort into slowing down the grass
5. Clay court specialists such as Ferrero and Coria all of a sudden making the 2nd week out of the blue
6. BBC Analysis showing that the grass is slower
7. Head groundskeeper of Wimbledon contradicting many of his previous statements in his interviews
8. BEST OF ALL EVEN THE ITF SAID SO. (The funniest part was that you just said they were flat out lying)



Um, how much more do you want?

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:00 PM
I think all the research that I've done and Nadal_Freak has done on break of serve percentages at all tournaments is much stronger than some random video with no written context.

LMAO!!!!


muahahahahahahaahahah

LOLOLOLLOLOL


seriously???????


muahahahaaaaaaaaaahhahahahhahahahahahahaa


Too funny!


anyway, let us know when you find something showing the opposite of this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_F...om=PL&index=36 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw&feature=PlayList&p=0D8803210BC4088E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36)

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:00 PM
No, Safin SUCKS on grass. I'm sorry. As much as I love Marat Safin, he BLEW on grass from 2000-2007. Please do feel free to explain to me how Safin is so good on grass yet couldn't make it past the 4th round in 7 tries.

He made the quarterfinals in 2001...

And then he played 5 more times before he made the semifinals.

What 7 tries? LMFAO, I love your attention to detail. Just like how you thought my post was about Wimbledon when I was talking about clay courters doing well at the US Open.

LOL!!

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:01 PM
blahblah

You've got nothing constructive to add to this discussion and all you have is that one clip and refuse to look at facts.

I'm done discussing this with you, atleast NamRanger and others can keep up a normal discussion. You're just ridiculous.

Benhur
06-27-2009, 03:02 PM
Yeah exactly. It's not the height of the bounce...surely it bounces a little higher because of more spin employed by players and the fact that the grass is pure rye as opposed to a blend. But it certainly does not appear to move through the court any faster back in the day. Not at all.

And like I've said many many times on this board, grass plays "fast" because of the low bounce and how it takes time away from you. Not because it's moving through the court faster. This makes it easier to hit winners because the ball doesn't "come to you" like on a hard court, nor do you have the time to run down the ball like clay. You have to move TO the ball like no other surface. I've played on every surface, I know how the stuff plays. Including a lower bouncing grass and a higher bouncing grass.

If people just look at these videos with an unbiased eye, it's clear that the primary difference would maybe be the bounce, though it is certainly not radically different. Grass is not THAT different from before. The GAME is different than before, but that is evident on every single surface out there.

Give players small racquets with full natural gut in them, keep the grass exactly the same and watch what happens.


Those are good points, and I’ve made similar ones in the past, particularly concerning the notion of “fast surface” and the vertical vs horizontal components of the balls trajectory.

In spite of the generalized confusion, I think most people have an intuitive sense of what is meant by the speed of a court.

There are many different ways to evaluate it, ranging from very subjective to more objective methods. If you identify one factor that can be clearly correlated to this notion of court speed, and this factor can be easily and objectively measured, I much prefer to rely on that than on vague subjective impressions.

The work on breaking percentage statistics of major tournaments compiled by Nadal Freak is without doubt the most objective tool to gage variations in court speed, both between surfaces and accross time for the same surface.

That court speed is related to breaking percentage is both intuitively obvious and statistically demonstrable. Everybody undestands that in tennis the server has an advantage, and this is born out by the fact that on average, accross all surfaces, the receiver wins only about 23% of the games. This we call the breaking percentage.

Everybody understands that, whatever is meant by “court speed,” a faster surface means an increase in the advantage of the server, and a slower surface means a decrease in this advantage. That’s why if a pro were asked to play one game for his life, and he was allowed to choose the surface, he generally would choose a slow one if he was to receive, and a fast one if he was to serve.

That the advantage of the server increases with the speed of the court can be simply explained by observing that:

the "faster" the surface:

1. The harder it is to return
2. The easier it is for the server to maintain the initiative (initial advantage) after you return.

All this is pretty much common sense.

The beauty of it is that you can actually check empirically if this common sense is backed up by reality. It turns out that it is indeed backed up, and with extraordinary consistency.

The break percentage statistics DO show a very consistent correlation between the perceived relative speed of different courts, and their respective break percentages. They also show great stability in these percentages, year in year out, for each tournament.

Thus year after year, a tournament like Lyon, generally perceived as very fast, comes on or near the top with very low breaking percentages of about 12%, Queens a few percentage points higher, and so on until you get to the slowest clay courts in the upper 20s.

Neither these correlations nor their remarkable stability can be due to chance. This is a key point. Since players change from year to year, and most other factors change, and the only thing that remains unchanged is the surface, the stability in these percentages for each surface HAS to be due to the surface. If not... to what? Coincidence?? Those who don't see it that way, must explain what the stability is due to.

The controversy arises only when people are confronted with the baffling fact that Wimbledon's breaking percentage has NOT gone up in spite of vociferous denunciations, especially in the last few years, that the surface had been slowed down. I am yet to see a rational explanation why if the surface has "slowed down" so much since the late 90s, the breaking percentage does not show it, and it shows in fact a slight decrease, which is the opposite of what you would expect. IF the surface is indeed a lot slower, as some maintain, the only rational explanations I can come up with are for this phenomenon are:

a) The serve has improved (but only at Wimbledon)
AND/OR
b) The return has gotten worse (but only at Wimbledon)
AND/OR
c) The balls are faster (at Wimbledon)

I find the first two rationally unacceptable. Why only at Wimbledon? So I am left with c. But from what I’ve read, it looks like the balls were, if anything, slowed down too. If this is so, then it is even more puzzling.

Aside from that, magic is the only thing that comes to mind as an explanation. In other words, across all tournaments, everywhere, a slower surface is reflected in a higher breaking percentage. But at Wimbledon, through some mysterious interventions, the opposite has happened in the last decade.

To repeat, I am yet to read any plausible explanation why these marvels should occur ONLY at Wimbledon. Until I do, I will continue to believe that the "speed of the courts," whatever is meant by that, cannot be significantly different from what it was in the late 90s, because if it were significantly different, it would have to be reflected in the breaking percentage. There is simply no escape from this.
----------------------
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-- Sherlock Holmes

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:02 PM
I admitted that in my OP.

My argument isn't that Wimbledon is the exact same speed it's always been, I'm arguing that those whole do well at Wimbledon still fit the bill (fast court players).

Wimbledon might be slower, sure, but it's still either the second fastest or fastest major and not "green clay" as some claim.


It has slowed drastically. It cannot be the fastest surface when there is so much talk about the U.S. Open being faster.

VivalaVida
06-27-2009, 03:02 PM
Grass is definitely slower now. Stop trying to disprove facts. When professionals and videos using high tech computers confirm it, you are just wasting your time.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:03 PM
Let's start from the beginning :


1. Professional players said grass is slower (Henman, Bjorkman, Safin, Roddick, etc.)
2. Former professional players said grass is slower (Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Rafter, Goran, Navratilova, etc.)
3. Australian Open Tournament Director said grass is slower
4. Former Wimbledon CEO said there was a concentrated effort into slowing down the grass
5. Clay court specialists such as Ferrero and Coria all of a sudden making the 2nd week out of the blue
6. BBC Analysis showing that the grass is slower
7. Head groundskeeper of Wimbledon contradicting many of his previous statements in his interviews
8. BEST OF ALL EVEN THE ITF SAID SO. (The funniest part was that you just said they were flat out lying)



Um, how much more do you want?

You want proof that Wimbledon was slowed down starting in the early 90's?

sihatch19
06-27-2009, 03:03 PM
you should see the grass in my backyard

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:03 PM
You've got nothing constructive to add to this discussion and all you have is that one clip and refuse to look at facts.

I'm done discussing this with you, atleast NamRanger and others can keep up a normal discussion. You're just ridiculous.


LOLOLOOL


muahahahahhahhaa, LOLOLOLOLOLOLO

sorry, but I'm still laughing my *** off at you thinking "professor" Nadal Freak is some sort of expert on break serve percentages.

LOLOLOLOLOl

hehehehehe

mauahahahahahahahhaa

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:05 PM
It has slowed drastically. It cannot be the fastest surface when there is so much talk about the U.S. Open being faster.

what good is the talk if clay courters do better at the USO than Wimbledon?

that's them facts, I don't care about anecdotal evidence if clay courters are going further at the USO than Wimbledon.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:06 PM
He made the quarterfinals in 2001...

And then he played 5 more times before he made the semifinals.

What 7 tries? LMFAO, I love your attention to detail. Just like how you thought my post was about Wimbledon when I was talking about clay courters doing well at the US Open.

LOL!!



Oh, I forgot, you're a Nadal ****. Let me put it to you this way.



Throughout Safin's whole Wimbledon career before 2008, he was able to muster one QF throughout his whole career, where it took a monumentally easy draw for him to get there.



You are using what I call "Nadal fan strategy" where you nitpick errors that mean really not much at all and try to avoid the center of our argument.



You said Safin was good on grass. I said he sucks. All evidence points towards the fact that he sucked on grass until that random 2008 year where he decided to make a run out of nowhere.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:06 PM
blahblah

He doesn't have to be an expert. He didn't create those statistics.

Just like I'm not an expert on clay courters at Wimbledon. I just found the facts and posted them on here. I didn't go to Wimbledon and do the research first-hand.

Stop acting like a troll.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:07 PM
Let's start from the beginning :


1. Professional players said grass is slower
2. Former professional players said grass is slower
3. Australian Open Tournament Director said grass is slower
4. Former Wimbledon CEO said there was a concentrated effort into slowing down the grass
5. Clay court specialists such as Ferrero and Coria all of a sudden making the 2nd week out of the blue
6. BBC Analysis showing that the grass is slower
7. Head groundskeeper of Wimbledon contradicting many of his previous statements in his interviews
Ferrero got to the finals of the US Open and Cincinnati. Both are very fast hardcourts. The rest is just speculation. Nadal, Verdasco, Federer, Venus Williams, Andy Murray, Mauresmo, and Haas think it is very fast. They play the surface like it is so with S&V and Verdasco said just recently that Wimbledon is playing very fast. Nadal said Wimbledon is the fastest slam in his blog. Murray said Wimbledon is no slower than Queen's last year. Mauresmo S&V'd. So many aces between Roddick and Melzer and Tsonga and Karlovic these last 2 days. Overall the ace count is above the US Open as well as the break percentage. We have no idea where the BBC got the data for their computer and how consistent it was from one serve to the next. Maybe they waited for the biggest change to prove their point.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:07 PM
Oh, I forgot, you're a Nadal ****. Let me put it to you this way.



Throughout Safin's whole Wimbledon career before 2008, he was able to muster one QF throughout his whole career, where it took a monumentally easy draw for him to get there.



You are using what I call "Nadal fan strategy" where you nitpick errors that mean really not much at all and try to avoid the center of our argument.



You said Safin was good on grass. I said he sucks. All evidence points towards the fact that he sucked on grass until that random 2008 year where he decided to make a run out of nowhere.

Ok, whatever, NamRanger. We won't agree on Safin, but can we agree that he is not a claycourter?

I think this is irrelevant to the big picture.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:07 PM
You want proof that Wimbledon was slowed down starting in the early 90's?


I never said it started slowing down in the 90s. However, there was an effort into figuring out how to slow the grass down in the 90s. All of a sudden it went all hush hush in 2002 though when players started complaining about the grass.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:08 PM
Ok, whatever, NamRanger. We won't agree on Safin, but can we agree that he is not a claycourter?

I think this is irrelevant to the big picture.



We won't agree on Safin? Please do ask any sane person if Safin is good on grass. Ask any of our resident tennis historians in the former pro section if Safin is a good grass player. They will flat out tell you he sucks, and he had one anomaly year where he somehow managed to get to the SF.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:08 PM
Here is another one disproving you, and your expert source (Professor Nadal Freak) LMAO!

The Evans Report: Breathtaking Brilliance Nadal Wins Wimbledon
By Richard Evans
Sunday, July 06, 2008

In a fascinating statistic BBC television used their technological bank to offer up a comparison of the speed of Federer’s serve in 2003 and today. A serve leaving his racket at the same speed on both occasions would now reach the returner 9 mph slower after it had hit the modified grass — a type of Welsh rye grass called Aberelf — that had been sown on the All England’s Club lawns about six years ago. It also bounced considerably lower than it does today. In other words a serve should be easier to return. http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fulls...newsid=6613296 (http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6613296)

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:09 PM
Ferrero got to the finals of the US Open and Cincinnati. Both are very fast hardcourts. The rest is just speculation. Nadal, Verdasco, Federer, Venus Williams, Andy Murray, Mauresmo, and Haas think it is very fast. They play the surface like it is so with S&V and Verdasco said just recently that Wimbledon is playing very fast. Nadal said Wimbledon is the fastest slam in his blog. Murray said Wimbledon is no slower than Queen's last year. Mauresmo S&V'd. So many aces between Roddick and Melzer and Tsonga and Karlovic these last 2 days. Overall the ace count is above the US Open as well as the break percentage. We have no idea where the BBC got the data for their computer and how consistent it was from one serve to the next. Maybe they waited for the biggest change to prove their point.



My number of sources far outweigh yours and you have yet to counter the argument of the ITF, which has far more access and far better instruments of measurement than you do.



Let's put it this way. Federer, Nadal, Verdasco, or any of Nadal's Spanish friends will never admit that the grass changed. Why? Because it benefits them. Venus can win on any type of grass; it doesn't matter. She is so far above the field it means crap. Both Haas and Mauresmo are two other players who benefit from the new grass. You do realize that Haas and Maursemo are traditionally better on slower surfaces right? Haas' best results have come at the AO and other such slow HCs. He has never been good on grass in his entire career, and neither was Maursemo until the year she beat Henin in the final.



And Murray saying it's fast? Uh, how would he know the difference between the 90s grass and the new grass? He never played on the old grass.

malakas
06-27-2009, 03:09 PM
That BBC is clearly a hater.

icedevil0289
06-27-2009, 03:09 PM
Isn't there a website that talks about surfaces speeds? I'm pretty sure the USO is faster than wimbly.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:10 PM
I never said it started slowing down in the 90s. However, there was an effort into figuring out how to slow the grass down in the 90s. All of a sudden it went all hush hush in 2002 though when players started complaining about the grass.

I can bring up a link to an article where a Wimbledon official says Wimbledon grass has gradually slowed down for the past decade. He said it in 2002, so that would mean the change started in 1992, right?

The link is somewhere in this thread, I'll find it if you want to look at it.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:11 PM
We won't agree on Safin? Please do ask any sane person if Safin is good on grass. Ask any of our resident tennis historians in the former pro section if Safin is a good grass player. They will flat out tell you he sucks, and he had one anomaly year where he somehow managed to get to the SF.

Like I said, I think this is irrelevant to our discussion. Safin is not a slow court player.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:13 PM
Like I said, I think this is irrelevant to our discussion. Safin is not a slow court player.



Then why is it he has had his best success at the AO, a traditionally slow HC?

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:13 PM
I can bring up a link to an article where a Wimbledon official says Wimbledon grass has gradually slowed down for the past decade. He said it in 2002, so that would mean the change started in 1992, right?

The link is somewhere in this thread, I'll find it if you want to look at it.


They didn't change the grass in the 90s as far as I know, but I do know they did experiment with balls after that Sampras Goran final.


But if you want to post the link, go ahead. I'm sure that does nothing but not help your argument at all.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:14 PM
Then why is it he has had his best success at the AO, a traditionally slow HC?
I thought you said Australian Open was faster than Wimbledon? lol Owned again. He also won the US Open. The slam considered by you the fastest now.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:14 PM
He doesn't have to be an expert.


You sure he is not an expert??? I mean,,,,, seriously...... look at how innovative he is: :roll:

Speed does not increase the weight of the ball. It decreases it.




LOLOLOLOLOLOOL, mauahahahahahahahahhahah. I just can't get over it. LOLOLMAO

malakas
06-27-2009, 03:15 PM
maybe he's an expert in making rum.Or in ethnology.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:15 PM
I thought you said Australian Open was faster than Wimbledon? lol Owned again. He also won the US Open. The slam considered by you the fastest now.



He won one USO. Where was the consistency after that? His best results are at the AO which is a traditional slow HC.


I didn't say the AO is faster than Wimbledon. The Australian Open Tournament director and the ITF did. So take it up with them. And do remember, Safin's success came on REBOUND ACE YOU IDIOT. Not what they use now.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:16 PM
You sure he is not an expert??? I mean,,,,, seriously...... look at how innovative he is: :roll:






LOLOLOLOLOLOOL, mauahahahahahahahahhahah. I just can't get over it. LOLOLMAO
Old news. I don't save your old failed posts and play it over and over again. Maybe I should but I got better things to do.

Serve_Ace
06-27-2009, 03:17 PM
Someone please tell me how is it freaking possible to tell surface speed using SERVE BREAK PERCENTAGES? There is no logical way to do that.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:17 PM
Then why is it he has had his best success at the AO, a traditionally slow HC?


These are the type of things I like about Blind*ism. >>> his attention to detail. :roll:

LMAO @ him citing Nadal_Freak as some sort of expert, and some stats of his as evidence of the court speed. LOLOLOLOLLOOLOLOLOLOL

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:18 PM
Someone please tell me how is it freaking possible to tell surface speed using SERVE BREAK PERCENTAGES? There is no logical way to do that.



The logic is that the faster the serve, the harder it is to break. That is not necessarily true as not all statistics tell the story. For instance, Nadal has one of the highest serve winning percentages and one of the highest break percentages currently on the tour (pretty sure he was top 5 in both categories last year). However, no one is going to say Nadal has an amazing serve nor he has an amazing return game.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:18 PM
They didn't change the grass in the 90s as far as I know, but I do know they did experiment with balls after that Sampras Goran final.


But if you want to post the link, go ahead. I'm sure that does nothing but not help your argument at all.

Here's the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tenn...on/2088800.stm

Now, the reason I posted this is not because I believe what the article says is true, but to say that sometimes Tennis officials can say something, but it can still be false.

I mean, who actually believes that Wimbledon started slowing down their surface in 1992?

You can't always trust people's opinions 100% of the time.

I'm not using people's opinion in my argument. It's FACT that the amount of clay courters doing well at Wimbledon is still a small number, and the players who do well at Wimbledon play their best tennis on faster surfaces.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:18 PM
He won one USO. Where was the consistency after that? His best results are at the AO which is a traditional slow HC.


I didn't say the AO is faster than Wimbledon. The Australian Open Tournament director and the ITF did. So take it up with them. And do remember, Safin's success came on REBOUND ACE YOU IDIOT. Not what they use now.
It's the same speed to plexicushion they use now. Rebound ace is slower than the US Open but much faster compared to RG. Nadal didn't have much success there btw. Safin is a hard court player. Fast or slow hardcourts. It doesn't matter. The slowest of all surfaces did not suit him though.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:19 PM
It's the same speed to plexicushion they use now. Rebound ace is slower than the US Open but much faster compared to RG. Nadal didn't have much success there btw. Safin is a hard court player. Fast or slow hardcourts. It doesn't matter. The slowest of all surfaces did not suit him though.



This is funny because I'm 100% sure you said it was much faster when Tsonga blew Nadal out of the water.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:20 PM
The logic is that the faster the serve, the harder it is to break. That is not necessarily true as not all statistics tell the story. For instance, Nadal has one of the highest serve winning percentages and one of the highest break percentages currently on the tour (pretty sure he was top 5 in both categories last year). However, no one is going to say Nadal has an amazing serve nor he has an amazing return game.
The point is you go through the whole field. There will be exceptions but with more data comes the truth. Every year, Wimbledon leads the slams with the lowest breaking percentage. Coincidence? I don't think so.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:20 PM
Here's the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tenn...on/2088800.stm

Now, the reason I posted this is not because I believe what the article says is true, but to say that sometimes Tennis officials can say something, but it can still be false.

I mean, who actually believes that Wimbledon started slowing down their surface in 1992?

You can't always trust people's opinions 100% of the time.

I'm not using people's opinion in my argument. It's FACT that the amount of clay courters doing well at Wimbledon is still a small number, and the players who do well at Wimbledon play their best tennis on faster surfaces.


I do? There was a "concerted effort into slowing down the game at Wimbledon" according to the FORMER WIMBLEDON CEO. If you seriously think that the Rye grass was a "durability" issue you really need to pull your head out of your ***.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:21 PM
The logic is that the faster the serve, the harder it is to break. That is not necessarily true as not all statistics tell the story. For instance, Nadal has one of the highest serve winning percentages and one of the highest break percentages currently on the tour (pretty sure he was top 5 in both categories last year). However, no one is going to say Nadal has an amazing serve nor he has an amazing return game.

But why would the break percentages vary from surface to surface?

Surely, if speed is not involved then Nadal should have very serving numbers and break percentages across all surfaces.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:21 PM
Here's the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tenn...on/2088800.stm



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/error/img/bbc_news_sport.gif
404 - Page Not Found

This might be because you typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling ensuring that it does not contain capital letters or spaces.
It is possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted.
Please click the back button to try another link.
Or

Visit the BBC News Home Page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/).
Visit the BBC Sport Home Page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/).
Explore our full list of sites and services (http://www.bbc.co.uk/a-z/).

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:21 PM
This is funny because I'm 100% sure you said it was much faster when Tsonga blew Nadal out of the water.
Similar beatdown to what Gonzo did to Nadal. I found out later they were quite similar. The stats told me I was wrong later.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:21 PM
The point is you go through the whole field. There will be exceptions but with more data comes the truth. Every year, Wimbledon leads the slams with the lowest breaking percentage. Coincidence? I don't think so.


So am I going to trust numbers or literally pro opinions that literally almost number over 100? I think I'll take the pros on this one. Unless they are all ******s (which somehow I highly doubt).

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:22 PM
I do? There was a "concerted effort into slowing down the game at Wimbledon" according to the FORMER WIMBLEDON CEO. If you seriously think that the Rye grass was a "durability" issue you really need to pull your head out of your ***.

You misunderstand me. What I'm saying, is I doubt that people will agree that Wimbledon slowed down from 1992 to 2001.

Especially not Sampras fans.

malakas
06-27-2009, 03:23 PM
Sooo...now it's 2 on 2.Who is going to win???May I hear your bets!
My money is on Nam.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:23 PM
Similar beatdown to what Gonzo did to Nadal. I found out later they were quite similar. The stats told me I was wrong later.


So you are admitting that when Nadal is involved, you can easily become biased? So doesn't that throw your whole statistical analysis out of this argument? Nadal is involved, so you could have easily tainted those statistics.

Blinkism
06-27-2009, 03:24 PM
For some reason I can't get the link to work now but it still works in my old post.

I don't know what that's about, but my old post is #22 in this thread

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3451077&postcount=22

That's the link to my old post which links to the article.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:25 PM
So you are admitting that when Nadal is involved, you can easily become biased? So doesn't that throw your whole statistical analysis out of this argument? Nadal is involved, so you could have easily tainted those statistics.
I would not dare taint those stats. I admitted that I was wrong about the Australian Open speeding up. Nadal just was not comfortable on hardcourts unless he is in a zone.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:25 PM
The International Tennis Federation has devised a pace-rating scale for the various courts on the tour.

On the scale, a rating below 30 is "slow", 30-34 medium, 34-38 was designed medium-fast, while anything above 38 was considered "fast".

Tiley said the new Plexicushion had a speed rating of "34 to 38", which defined it as medium-fast.

Surprisingly, this was quicker than Wimbledon — historically, the tournament that had always favoured serve-and-volley tennis, in which rallies were relatively short.

"Wimbledon is actually slower," Tiley said. "Because Wimbledon is medium … the grass is new grass, a new kind of grass. The French is obviously very slow. So we're faster than Wimbledon, faster than the French, and a little bit below the US Open — not much though … US Open is 38, 39, they're faster."

Tiley said Wimbledon's grass had been changed five years ago.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/melbourne-slicker-than-wimbledon/2007/12/17/1197740182164.html




Feel free to argue against this. Concrete proof.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:26 PM
I would not dare taint those stats. I admitted that I was wrong about the Australian Open speeding up. Nadal just was not comfortable on hardcourts unless he is in a zone.


But you would dare make excuses for your hero. I don't think it would be out of the question that you would taint those stats just to make Nadal look good.



Anyways, the AO is faster in reality. Check the link above.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:26 PM
Sorry, but this is just too much of a gem to pass up.

I think all the research that I've done and Nadal_Freak has done on break of serve percentages at all tournaments is much stronger than some random video with no written context.

Speed does not increase the weight of the ball. It decreases it.



LOL, hehehehehheheehe, muahahahahahaha, lmao, lmao, lmao Lololol

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:28 PM
But you would dare make excuses for your hero. I don't think it would be out of the question that you would taint those stats just to make Nadal look good.



Anyways, the AO is faster in reality. Check the link above.
That right there proves Tiley is full of it. Australian Open is obviously slower. What makes his opinion better than anyone elses? He doesn't work for Wimbledon. He was there to promote the Australian Open. There was an article soon after to counter his claims. I can look it up.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:28 PM
Wimbledon has made a concerted move to slow the courts over the last decade, but Perkins insisted the change would not be discernible from one year to another.

"Over the last 10 years the courts have gradually been firmed up in line with the movement of the game," said Perkins.

"As the number of serve-volleyers decreased it was just felt that the ball was going through a bit too quickly.

"But it has been a gradual change and not enough that you would notice in one particular year."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2088800.stm



The most fun part is catching AELTC lying.

icedevil0289
06-27-2009, 03:29 PM
I don't know if the AO is faster than wimbly, but imo from what I've read and seen, the USO is faster than wimbly.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:29 PM
That right there proves Tiley is full of it. Australian Open is obviously slower. What makes his opinion better than anyone elses? He doesn't work for Wimbledon. He was there to promote the Australian Open. There was an article soon after to counter his claims. I can look it up.


Tiley didn't do any of the measuring of the court speeds. The ITF did. And I do trust the ITF more than a college dropout to be quite honest.

malakas
06-27-2009, 03:29 PM
That right there proves Tiley is full of it. Australian Open is obviously slower. What makes his opinion better than anyone elses? He doesn't work for Wimbledon. He was there to promote the Australian Open. There was an article soon after to counter his claims. I can look it up.

omg......plz someone shoot me!

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 03:31 PM
Tiley didn't do any of the measuring of the court speeds. The ITF did. And I do trust the ITF more than a college dropout to be quite honest.
I'm going back to College. And I got an Associates of Arts. Just didn't have an idea of a career to go with that. I'm going to be a Physical Therapy Assistant.

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:32 PM
Look, I'll admit that they sped up the clay Nadal_freak if you admit the grass is slower. I think this article from 94 does prove that we are both right.


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis-ball-is-left-in-wimbledons-court-new-regulations-will-speed-up-the-game-on-clay-but-grass-court-question-still-has-to-be-tackled--john-roberts-on-the-problems-of-power-that-are-facing-the-all-england-club-1450037.html

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:32 PM
I'm going back to College. And I got an Associates of Arts. Just didn't have an idea of a career to go with that. I'm going to be a Physical Therapy Assistant.



Never said it as an insult, just saying that the ITF does hold abit more prestige when it comes to tennis than you do.

drakulie
06-27-2009, 03:33 PM
I'm going back to College. And I got an Associates of Arts. Just didn't have an idea of a career to go with that. I'm going to be a Physical Therapy Assistant.


Thank god you decided to not become a rocket engineer.


Speed does not increase the weight of the ball. It decreases it.


anyway, maybe one day you could help nadal not skip wimbledon.

VivalaVida
06-27-2009, 03:33 PM
I'm going back to College. And I got an Associates of Arts. Just didn't have an idea of a career to go with that. I'm going to be a Physical Therapy Assistant.
good for you man! Best of luck in that.

nothingfails
06-27-2009, 03:36 PM
It's not about being slow or fast anyway. It's still grass, which means LOW BOUNCES. Have you ever wondered why Venus is so good at Wimbledon but sucks at RG ?

NamRanger
06-27-2009, 03:36 PM
It's not about being slow or fast anyway. It's still grass, which means LOW BOUNCES. Have you ever wondered why Venus is so good at Wimbledon but sucks at RG ?


Because she is simply a better mover on grass than everyone else. On clay though, different story.