PDA

View Full Version : What are your impressions of the court speed so far?


_maxi
06-22-2009, 05:18 AM
I'm watching Fed vs Lu in the center court I guess, and it doesn't seem to be faster than the wimbledon 2008, at all. Without comparison, I think it's pretty slow.. the ball is bouncing high.. that was my impresion. What's yours?

NastyWinners
06-22-2009, 05:21 AM
I'm not seeing the 'fast court' that we were told was going to happen. Maybe once the grass gets warn down a bit more it will quicken.

AAAA
06-22-2009, 05:29 AM
If we didn't see Lu play last year at Wimbledon there's no way to tell if his shots are slower this year compared to last.

This is Roger's first grass court match since the FO, he's hitting with a lot more spin on his shots atm which I think is because he's playing himself into form on grass after his 2 week lay-off.

Gorecki
06-22-2009, 05:36 AM
no idea... lets wait for the court speed Guru... ´
...the man who doesnt play tennis but dares to speak about the speed of surfaces like a pdh physicist...

Pwned
06-22-2009, 06:01 AM
no idea... lets wait for the court speed Guru... ´
...the man who doesnt play tennis but dares to speak about the speed of surfaces like a pdh physicist...
You must be talking about the resident physics expert!

Andres
06-22-2009, 06:03 AM
Who else but Quagmire!!??

GIGGITY GIGGITY GOO!!!

Sarzy
06-22-2009, 06:04 AM
The commentators on the bbc thought it was playing quite fast.

egn
06-22-2009, 06:11 AM
i was watching the blake match most of the morning great playing by seppi but anyway blakes court looked quite fast than i tuned into the fed match and suddenly it felt slow i think it is the way fed was playing we will have to see as the week progresses

Sentinel
06-22-2009, 06:16 AM
You must be talking about the resident physics expert!
Whose judgment is based on a player whom I don't see in the draw.

Don't think he will be wasting time watching Wimbledon, so we will NEVER know if the court is slow or fast.:):):):)

Gorecki
06-22-2009, 06:20 AM
Whose judgment is based on a player whom I don't see in the draw.

Don't think he will be wasting time watching Wimbledon, so we will NEVER know if the court is slow or fast.:):):):)

non-sense... does that man need to see the matches to make claims about court speed? he doesnt even play tennis and that hasnt kept him from doing so...

just hand him a few stats on serve brake percentage...

abmk
06-22-2009, 06:21 AM
Whose judgment is based on a player whom I don't see in the draw.

Don't think he will be wasting time watching Wimbledon, so we will NEVER know if the court is slow or fast.:):):)

correct :)

Sentinel
06-22-2009, 06:53 AM
non-sense... does that man need to see the matches to make claims about court speed? he doesnt even play tennis and that hasnt kept him from doing so...

just hand him a few stats on serve brake percentage...
Sir
I take my hat off to you. I am nowhere in the same league as you. You are so so right. I can hear him tell you:

Elementary, my dear Gorecki. You don't need to actually SEE a match to analyse court speed. Serve break percentages are enough!

The cerebrally challenged may however need to check how far back a player is standing from the baseline while returning Federer's serve.

coloskier
06-22-2009, 07:37 AM
The courts may not be fast, but they are definitely slippery. I know of at least one match where a player had to DNF because she slipped badly on the court, wrenching her knee, and Azarenka moves on to the 2nd round.

IvanAndreevich
06-22-2009, 09:15 AM
Looks fairly fast to me. Not sure if it's faster than last year, though.

Cesc Fabregas
06-22-2009, 09:19 AM
The courts are playing fast but the balls are heavy and slow.

Jchurch
06-22-2009, 09:21 AM
The courts may not be fast, but they are definitely slippery. I know of at least one match where a player had to DNF because she slipped badly on the court, wrenching her knee, and Azarenka moves on to the 2nd round.

I think I have seen someone fall in just about every match I have caught today. Sure seems slippery.

dincuss
06-22-2009, 09:22 AM
The courts are playing fast but the balls are heavy and slow.

especially the djoko match..
benneteu is playing so well :D

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Fast as it always is.

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 10:12 AM
Fast as it always is.




Yeah, I wonder what's faster, Madrid or Wimbledon. Madrid because of the ALTITUDE OMGZ)RER!@#U$!@%!#

dincuss
06-22-2009, 10:47 AM
Yeah, I wonder what's faster, Madrid or Wimbledon. Madrid because of the ALTITUDE OMGZ)RER!@#U$!@%!#

hahahah:twisted:

imjimmy
06-22-2009, 11:05 AM
I don't see anything wrong with what Nadal_Freak said. The grass is fast as usual, meaning it looks to be of the same speed as it was last yr. Of course the grass is slower than it was in the 90's. Did we expect any different this yr? (they always say they're gonna increase the speed, but they never do) From where did Madrid come into discussion?

_maxi
06-22-2009, 11:15 AM
Nicolas Almagro said after beating Monaco that the balls were very heavy, and with the humidity difficult to handle.

(In Spanish)

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/news/story?id=857861&s=ten&type=story

ChanceEncounter
06-22-2009, 12:08 PM
I don't see anything wrong with what Nadal_Freak said. The grass is fast as usual, meaning it looks to be of the same speed as it was last yr. Of course the grass is slower than it was in the 90's. Did we expect any different this yr? (they always say they're gonna increase the speed, but they never do) From where did Madrid come into discussion?
This whole thread talks about a "resident physics expert" for a reason.

egn
06-22-2009, 12:22 PM
The courts are playing fast but the balls are heavy and slow.

Agreed here. I think someone mixed up the shipment of balls and wimbledon's balls wind up at rolland garros and vice versa

dincuss
06-22-2009, 12:24 PM
Agreed here. I think someone mixed up the shipment of balls and wimbledon's balls wind up at rolland garros and vice versa

No they purposely did that to mess up the players:twisted::twisted:

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 12:25 PM
I don't see anything wrong with what Nadal_Freak said. The grass is fast as usual, meaning it looks to be of the same speed as it was last yr. Of course the grass is slower than it was in the 90's. Did we expect any different this yr? (they always say they're gonna increase the speed, but they never do) From where did Madrid come into discussion?



The grass isn't even that fast. Some of the HC events look way faster, such as Dubai. N_F is never consistent with his surface arguments anyways. One year he said the AO was painfully slow, then another he said it was extremely quick. He said Nadal likes slow surfaces and quick conditions, but when Nadal got beat by quick conditions, he said it the reverse. It's simply a matter of multiple contradictions and ignorant statements that just crack us up.

gj011
06-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Fast as it always is.

Yes I agree with this. I don't see why would grass this year be faster than last year.

Feņa14
06-22-2009, 12:36 PM
It's going to get quite hot as the tournament goes on, the temperatures expected are said to be around the highest since the record was broken in the 1970's.

They should be playing pretty fast before long.

Cesc Fabregas
06-22-2009, 12:42 PM
The grass is actually pretty fast not 90's fast but still fast its the heavy balls that make it look slow.

Cyan
06-22-2009, 12:50 PM
Fast.............................

drakulie
06-22-2009, 12:52 PM
It was playing so fast, I couldn't see the ball.

<<<sarcasm>>>>

ACE of Hearts
06-22-2009, 12:54 PM
LMAO, fast?Did u see the Djoker match?I hope that was sarcasm.No wonder Nadal has gotten to the final.

zagor
06-22-2009, 12:56 PM
It's medium-slow as it was for the last like 7 years.Doesn't seem like they sped it up at all this year to me(a they said they will).

Lsmkenpo
06-22-2009, 12:56 PM
The Slavenger/Dunlop balls they use at Wimbledon are big, slow and heavy.

Slowest ball used out of the 4 slams.

ACE of Hearts
06-22-2009, 12:58 PM
I think it aint the balls.Its gotta be the court, u get so many different bounces and the rallies are a joke!!!!!The high bounce has helped Nadal win wimbledon.

Cyan
06-22-2009, 01:03 PM
It is fast but the balls are the ones that should have been used at RG.... Looks like the messed up the balls. RG had the W balls and W has the RG balls.

CountryHillbilly
06-22-2009, 01:58 PM
Surface was fast, but the balls were slow.

Gorecki
06-22-2009, 02:12 PM
no idea... lets wait for the court speed Guru... ´
...the man who doesnt play tennis but dares to speak about the speed of surfaces like a pdh physicist...

You must be talking about the resident physics expert!

Whose judgment is based on a player whom I don't see in the draw.

Don't think he will be wasting time watching Wimbledon, so we will NEVER know if the court is slow or fast.:):)

non-sense... does that man need to see the matches to make claims about court speed? he doesnt even play tennis and that hasnt kept him from doing so...

just hand him a few stats on serve brake percentage...

correct :)

Sir
I take my hat off to you. I am nowhere in the same league as you. You are so so right. I can hear him tell you:

Elementary, my dear Gorecki. You don't need to actually SEE a match to analyse court speed. Serve break percentages are enough!

The cerebrally challenged may however need to check how far back a player is standing from the baseline while returning Federer's serve.


Fast as it always is.

Gotta love this man's Realiability. always one to trust for!

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 02:45 PM
I think the court needs to be played on ice to satisfy some of you fans. Djokovic had a really tough time breaking Benneteau. It is a fast surface. It's pathetic some of you won't admit to it because you hate Nadal.

slicefox
06-22-2009, 02:46 PM
ye its always about nadal

everything...

Lotto
06-22-2009, 03:00 PM
McEnroe was saying during the Federer match about the balls being quite heavy and getting "fluffed up" quite easily and quickly but that when you hit the ball cleanly it was really sliding through the surface...he thinks the balls are slow but surface is fast so. I dont know?

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 03:01 PM
I think the court needs to be played on ice to satisfy some of you fans. Djokovic had a really tough time breaking Benneteau. It is a fast surface. It's pathetic some of you won't admit to it because you hate Nadal.



Yes, because surface complaints about grass have been going on only because Nadal made it to the final.



NOT.

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 03:03 PM
Yes, because surface complaints about grass have been going on only because Nadal made it to the final.



NOT.
It got talked about a bunch more once Nadal started to win there. Blame the ESPN crew for starting this junk up. The courts are fast. I don't know what proof there was that it played any other way. The serve is very tough to handle here.

Mansewerz
06-22-2009, 03:05 PM
How can you guys tell the difference between surfaces and balls?

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 03:08 PM
How can you guys tell the difference between surfaces and balls?
You can tell by the balls on how fast the serves are coming in. The surface is how low and skidding are the courts going.

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 03:29 PM
It got talked about a bunch more once Nadal started to win there. Blame the ESPN crew for starting this junk up. The courts are fast. I don't know what proof there was that it played any other way. The serve is very tough to handle here.



It got talked ALOT more in 2002 when Hewitt and Nalbandian were in the final, two counterpunching baseliners. It is not an anomaly for an offensive baseliner like Agassi or Washington, or even Courier to make it to the final. However, Nalbandian has NO business whatsoever being in the final of Wimbledon. Especially a pre-prime Nalbandian.


There has been talk from pros (pros who are completely unbiased and third parties to this whole Nadal/Federer thing), analysts, former pros, and so on and so on. BBC did an analysis of one of Federer's serves. The ITF itself said Wimbledon was slower. The former Wimbledon CEO said there was a concentrated effort into slowing down Wimbledon.


I don't know how much more evidence you need. I think it's very clear to me that you are not only biased, but ignorant and totally oblivious. You are so far up Nadal's *** that you have forgotten what it is to be a fan of tennis. All you can see is Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal. And to be quite honest, I'm really getting sick of it.

Andres
06-22-2009, 03:29 PM
It got talked about a bunch more once Nadal started to win there. Blame the ESPN crew for starting this junk up. The courts are fast. I don't know what proof there was that it played any other way. The serve is very tough to handle here.
I'm sure you haven't heard what Henman had to say about the courts at Wimbledon.

leonidas1982
06-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Courier's blog:

I recall very well making the transition from clay to grass and it was never easy or much fun for me. The better you play in Paris the tougher it is to be ready both physically and mentally for the big W but you do what you have to do. In my case, due to the way the grass played, I had to shelve my normal game, suck it up as best I could (trying to smile at least once during the tournament) and grind my way through the grass court world for a few weeks if I could last that long. It was Wimbledon after all...In my early years there I felt like I had absolutely no choice other than to serve and volley on both serves, which was not a recipe for success with my volleys (to say the least). After a few frustrating years and few wins I ended up trying to mix it up, staying back quite a lot and throwing in the serve and volley at times, but always going for quick points, trying to hit winners if I had a look. It lead to a little more success but one thing was consistent; it always took me a full week of practicing on a hard court after I would lose at Wimby to feel like a tennis player again. Wimbledon would take my game away from me and the hard courts would give it back. How things have changed...From what the players tell me now, the surface transition isn't as severe due to how firm the grass courts are, how heavy the balls are and how level the courts are compared to how they were back in the 20th century. I was astounded to hear consistently at the US Open last year that the Open was playing faster than Wimbledon. Are you kidding me? It blew my mind and was a far cry from the Sampras-Ivanisevic Wimby era for sure. It also explained to me how the players were able to consistently have lengthy baseline exchanges of extremely high quality, which were rare in my years of playing big W tennis. I would have liked Wimby to play slower than the Open a few yrs in the 90's. I doubt I would have won but at least I wouldn't have lost a week a year trying to find my game again!

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6634920

zagor
06-22-2009, 03:41 PM
I'm sure you haven't heard what Henman had to say about the courts at Wimbledon.

Here I'll remind him:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

But not everyone was happy with the new surface, especially those who contend the change may have robbed England of its best chance of crowning a homegrown Wimbledon champion since Perry took the title in 1936. 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.' " Veteran tour pro and former Wimbledon doubles champion Jonas Bjorkman says the slower grass courts have homogenized the professional game. "There is a danger that we will have only one type of player soon because everyone is growing up on courts that are roughly the same speed," he says. To underline the point: Federer's great rival, Rafael Nadal, is widely considered a clay-court specialist, but has still made the final at Wimbledon the last two years

Al Czervik
06-22-2009, 03:44 PM
The grass isn't even that fast. Some of the HC events look way faster, such as Dubai. N_F is never consistent with his surface arguments anyways. One year he said the AO was painfully slow, then another he said it was extremely quick. He said Nadal likes slow surfaces and quick conditions, but when Nadal got beat by quick conditions, he said it the reverse. It's simply a matter of multiple contradictions and ignorant statements that just crack us up.

lol, I can't make any sense of it. Some days heavy, slow clay is good, but not if it's low bouncing like Hamburg. It also has to be dry and baked so the ball kicks up high, but then you'd think those conditions would be quicker. I dunno. :confused:

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 04:05 PM
I'm sure you haven't heard what Henman had to say about the courts at Wimbledon.
Yes and his comments were sour grapes. He never won any grass titles in his career. So it was a joke to think he could win Wimbledon. He could always be the British hope though. :lol:

Andres
06-22-2009, 04:15 PM
Yes and his comments were sour grapes. He never won any grass titles in his career. So it was a joke to think he could win Wimbledon. He could always be the British hope though. :lol:
He was a four times Wimbledon SF and four times quarterfinalist. He reached the QF or better 8 times in 13 attempts. No, not sour grapes. But whatever floats your boat.

jimbo333
06-22-2009, 04:16 PM
I think I have seen someone fall in just about every match I have caught today. Sure seems slippery.

Yes, I was there today, and lots of players slipped and fell over!!!

However, I think this is as much the players fault, as the grass court itself. I think lots of them have forgotten they are actually playing on grass on the first day of a grass court championship!!!

A new grass court is always a bit slippery!!!

pmerk34
06-22-2009, 04:17 PM
It got talked ALOT more in 2002 when Hewitt and Nalbandian were in the final, two counterpunching baseliners. It is not an anomaly for an offensive baseliner like Agassi or Washington, or even Courier to make it to the final. However, Nalbandian has NO business whatsoever being in the final of Wimbledon. Especially a pre-prime Nalbandian.


There has been talk from pros (pros who are completely unbiased and third parties to this whole Nadal/Federer thing), analysts, former pros, and so on and so on. BBC did an analysis of one of Federer's serves. The ITF itself said Wimbledon was slower. The former Wimbledon CEO said there was a concentrated effort into slowing down Wimbledon.


I don't know how much more evidence you need. I think it's very clear to me that you are not only biased, but ignorant and totally oblivious. You are so far up Nadal's *** that you have forgotten what it is to be a fan of tennis. All you can see is Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal. And to be quite honest, I'm really getting sick of it.

Soderling had 31 aces in rd 1. If this were 90's Wimby he'd had about 40. I don't think we want to go back to that.

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 04:19 PM
Soderling had 31 aces in rd 1. If this were 90's Wimby he'd had about 40. I don't think we want to go back to that.



I don't see the point of changing the surface when the French don't change theirs.




Regardless, there will always be big servers in any era of tennis, and most of the time they will be boring. Karlovic plays 2-3 point rallies on clay; going to say it's because of the clay? No.

jimbo333
06-22-2009, 04:20 PM
McEnroe was saying during the Federer match about the balls being quite heavy and getting "fluffed up" quite easily and quickly but that when you hit the ball cleanly it was really sliding through the surface...he thinks the balls are slow but surface is fast so. I dont know?

Again, having seen it myself today, the balls did seem to "fluff up", and they actually looked huge!!!

The courts did not appear fast at all, actually very similar to last year!!!

Slices kept low and slid, and top spin bounced high (sometimes surprisingly so).

Anyway, when they dry out next week, courts will get faster I hope:)

Hirotto
06-22-2009, 04:21 PM
One of the commentators today said that the court suface will be fast if you hit a firm fast shot but weak shots will sit up more easily.

pmerk34
06-22-2009, 04:32 PM
I don't see the point of changing the surface when the French don't change theirs.




Regardless, there will always be big servers in any era of tennis, and most of the time they will be boring. Karlovic plays 2-3 point rallies on clay; going to say it's because of the clay? No.

The problem became in the 90's that the whole sport was becoming exceedingly boring, especially at Wimbledon. Guy today hit harder and serve harder than ever. Becuase of changes to the balls and surfaces we actually see rallies.

sheets
06-22-2009, 04:33 PM
I heard that too. Court are playing fast in my opinion. Not really fast but not slow by any means. the surface also seems to be taking slice really well this year.

<3tennis!!!
06-22-2009, 04:34 PM
How can you guys tell the difference between surfaces and balls?why dont you ask our physics expert???

zagor
06-22-2009, 04:34 PM
Soderling had 31 aces in rd 1. If this were 90's Wimby he'd had about 40. I don't think we want to go back to that.

Why not? Sure.baseline tennis is great but you can watch it in AO,FO,USO and all the 9 masters.Why not have one slam which forces the players to actually adapt and not play the same way they do the whole year,one slam which gives big servers and adept volleyers a big edge? What's wrong about a little variety? Wimbledon was special and unique,now it's just another baseliner(and yes that includes Fed as well)heaven.

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 04:39 PM
The problem became in the 90's that the whole sport was becoming exceedingly boring, especially at Wimbledon. Guy today hit harder and serve harder than ever. Becuase of changes to the balls and surfaces we actually see rallies.




This is total bollocks. Guys hit no harder today than they did in the 90s. Agassi somehow was able to go from a 110-120 serve to 130 at times. Even he was surprised by the radar guns of today (which are all obviously slightly juiced).




Also, the boring argument holds no water because tennis was at it's peak in the 70s/80s when there were a plethora of S&V players, and short rallies.

jimbo333
06-22-2009, 04:42 PM
One of the commentators today said that the court suface will be fast if you hit a firm fast shot but weak shots will sit up more easily.

That was probably Andrew Castle on the BBC, he is an absolute ****!!!

(censored myself out of politeness)

ACE of Hearts
06-22-2009, 04:48 PM
My problem with this so called grass is the enormous high bounce.We have the australian and french open for that!!U would be an idiot not to think that the high bounce and the topspin has helped Nadal win wimbledon!!

pmerk34
06-22-2009, 05:26 PM
Why not? Sure.baseline tennis is great but you can watch it in AO,FO,USO and all the 9 masters.Why not have one slam which forces the players to actually adapt and not play the same way they do the whole year,one slam which gives big servers and adept volleyers a big edge? What's wrong about a little variety? Wimbledon was special and unique,now it's just another baseliner(and yes that includes Fed as well)heaven.

I agree, except that it had become a haven for huge serves and no returns.

pmerk34
06-22-2009, 05:29 PM
This is total bollocks. Guys hit no harder today than they did in the 90s. Agassi somehow was able to go from a 110-120 serve to 130 at times. Even he was surprised by the radar guns of today (which are all obviously slightly juiced).




Also, the boring argument holds no water because tennis was at it's peak in the 70s/80s when there were a plethora of S&V players, and short rallies.


It was boring which is why it was changed.

NamRanger
06-22-2009, 08:39 PM
It was boring which is why it was changed.



Couldn't have been boring if the Goran and Rafter final completely sold out and had one of the highest TV ratings. Couldn't have been boring when McEnroe and Borg went at it. Couldn't have been boring when Becker and Lendl around, or Becker and Edberg.



Wanna know why? Because TV Ratings in the 70s/80s/90s were all RIDICULOUSLY higher than today's ratings. Not just in the U.S. either, but across the world as a whole.

alienhamster
06-22-2009, 09:07 PM
I don't know about speed yet, but I definitely felt like the bounces during rally shots were lower than I remember from early on last year.

I wish they could find a way to create a "truer" bounce without sacrificing speed. Grass SHOULD be faster than the other surfaces and the bounces SHOULD be the lowest on tour at this time. It's part of what makes the game interesting. (I like seeing more slice shots and volleys, personally.) Perhaps the best way to do this is to pick a lighter ball.

As for Nadal's success on the surface: while I certainly think he benefitted from the changes they've made, I have a feeling his topspin would still get pretty good kick off the pre-2002 surface. But, yeah, when you see Nadal's forehand shots kicking up to Federer's forehead, you know something's not right with the grass.

pmerk34
06-23-2009, 04:40 AM
Couldn't have been boring if the Goran and Rafter final completely sold out and had one of the highest TV ratings. Couldn't have been boring when McEnroe and Borg went at it. Couldn't have been boring when Becker and Lendl around, or Becker and Edberg.



Wanna know why? Because TV Ratings in the 70s/80s/90s were all RIDICULOUSLY higher than today's ratings. Not just in the U.S. either, but across the world as a whole.

Yes you could watch a ton of tennis on what we then called regular network TV. I guess when the ratings fell off it all went to ESPN and now the Tennis Channel which is not carried by my provider.