PDA

View Full Version : Ball/Speed Comparison at Wimbledon 2003/2008


JamaicanYoute
04-04-2010, 03:30 PM
Not to bring up an old and much debated subject regarding the courts being slowed down at Wimbledon, but I was watching the 2008 Wimbledon Final and it's the BBC version. I'm here in the States and usually catch the NBC version. During one of the change overs they had a ball-speed comparison from Federer 2003 to Federer 2008.

My apologies if this has been shown or mentioned before, just thought a few people might want to see this as I'm sure there are still people out there who don't believe they've slowed the courts (everywhere) and the balls (everywhere).

forward to 6:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8Uyu2ovtA

MethodTennis
04-04-2010, 03:47 PM
nice I remember seeing that before

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-04-2010, 03:51 PM
Interesting video. Thanks for sharing! Confirms what we already could tell from watching Wimbledon over the last several years. It's nice to have confirmation. Good find

Li Ching Yuen
04-04-2010, 05:04 PM
The BBC coverage is just immense.
Those guys bring sports broadcasting to the rank of art. Amazing.

djokovicgonzalez2010
04-04-2010, 05:07 PM
Wow, I approve this. The day Ivo Karlovic wins a slam I quit tennis...

Lsmkenpo
04-04-2010, 05:08 PM
They also started using a ball that is six percent larger in diameter at Wimbledon, which has been shown to give the receiver, ten percent more reaction time to return.

The ball is bigger but the same weight, which makes it easier to hit, it slows down faster and bounces higher, resulting in longer rallies.

TennisandMusic
04-04-2010, 05:15 PM
How much spin are on those serves? Simply showing an example of one serve struck at the same initial speed with no other information (and look at how the trajectories are immediately different!) is completely useless. The point above about the balls is a good one too.

Federer also plays differently than he did in 2003. So...

Semi-Pro
04-04-2010, 06:20 PM
Great video! Never saw that before. I actually didn't know there was such a significant difference until now.

Thanks for sharing.

kishnabe
04-04-2010, 06:41 PM
Wow, I approve this. The day Ivo Karlovic wins a slam I quit tennis...

Ya true i guess!

swordtennis
04-04-2010, 07:13 PM
Good archival stuff. Yes Wimbledon is almost like clay now. Tragic it was slowed down. The US Open is becoming the last place for all court tennis.

Lion King
04-04-2010, 07:15 PM
They also started using a ball that is six percent larger in diameter at Wimbledon, which has been shown to give the receiver, ten percent more reaction time to return.

The ball is bigger but the same weight, which makes it easier to hit, it slows down faster and bounces higher, resulting in longer rallies.

This is not correct. If the ball were bigger but weighed the same, it would slow down more as it traveled through the air. That BBC video demonstrated that this was not so: the two serves were almost identical as they traveled to their bounce point, and then the 2008 serve, which was supposed to bounce lower due to the lower angle actually bounced higher and slower.

OddJack
04-04-2010, 07:55 PM
Yes, they should have analysed the spin on the balls too, but there is no doubt they slowed it down, and Nadal would have never won that match otherwise.

spacediver
04-04-2010, 08:24 PM
i hope they didn't just use that one sample to generalize, and rather used it as an illustration of some legitimate findings they discovered.

NamRanger
04-04-2010, 08:36 PM
How much spin are on those serves? Simply showing an example of one serve struck at the same initial speed with no other information (and look at how the trajectories are immediately different!) is completely useless. The point above about the balls is a good one too.

Federer also plays differently than he did in 2003. So...



So BBC is so dumb to use two totally different serves? Right.



It's almost irrefutable to say the grass has not changed speeds at all. There's just way an overwhelming amount of evidence that says that the tour overall slowed down in the early 2000s.

slicefox
04-04-2010, 09:06 PM
its not even a secret anymore.

tennis was a boring serve-fest, they slowed it down to prevent extinction of the sport.

imagine 1990s court speeds with today's equipment (strings, frames, etc).

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-04-2010, 09:09 PM
^^^^To each his own, I guess. I thought the days of S&V were pretty darn entertaining. I thought points were A LOT more exciting. Baselining has its place too

Lsmkenpo
04-04-2010, 10:52 PM
This is not correct. If the ball were bigger but weighed the same, it would slow down more as it traveled through the air. That BBC video demonstrated that this was not so: the two serves were almost identical as they traveled to their bounce point, and then the 2008 serve, which was supposed to bounce lower due to the lower angle actually bounced higher and slower.

No, I am correct, and here is the evidence that supports my original post.




The ITF voted "overwhelmingly to use new balls in future play. Ball type 1 (fast speed) is identical in size to the standard ball except it is manufactured with harder rubber. Ball type 2 (medium speed) is the standard ball and ball type 3 (slow speed) is six percent larger in diameter than the standard ball and tends to move slower in flight
. All are the same weight as a standard ball.

The ITF said the larger type 3 ball flies off the racket at the same speed as a standard ball, but will slow down during flight to give the receiver about 10 percent more reaction time.

It's report said during two years of experimentation, including testing at Davis Cup and Fed Cup ties and men's professional events, the larger ball improved accuracy, allowed for longer rallies at all levels of play and increased ball visibility for players and spectators.

The ITF said a study by the South Bank University in London showed players could play for 35 percent longer when using a type 3 ball. The type 1 ball has a harder specification which produces a lower angle of bounce on surfaces such as clay, making it faster.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/itf-introduces-three-types-of-balls-to-counter-power-game-670049.html

JamaicanYoute
04-05-2010, 06:43 AM
The BBC coverage is just immense.
Those guys bring sports broadcasting to the rank of art. Amazing.

I couldn't agree more. I wish Tennis Channel would step up their game, get better commentators, technology (or ideas I guess), and get better coverage.

borg number one
04-05-2010, 06:51 AM
That's an excellent video demonstration. See this related Time article:

At Wimbledon, It's the Grass Stupid

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

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0806/wimbledon_0622.jpg

See excerpt:
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.

NamRanger
04-05-2010, 06:58 AM
That's an excellent video demonstration. See this related Time article:

At Wimbledon, It's the Grass Stupid

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

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0806/wimbledon_0622.jpg

See excerpt:




The durability argument that AELTC created was an attempt to cover up their slowing attempts. If you read interviews from the 1990s (especially after the Goran / Sampras final) you will see that the head of AELTC insisted that Wimbledon was finding ways to slow down the game intentionally to create more rallies.

Anaconda
04-05-2010, 07:01 AM
^^^By the way. Who is it who decided to slow the surfaces down? ATP or just the owner of the tournament.

NamRanger
04-05-2010, 07:02 AM
^^^By the way. Who is it who decided to slow the surfaces down? ATP or just the owner of the tournament.



The ITF decided it as you can see from the increase in ball size.

JamaicanYoute
04-05-2010, 07:18 AM
That's an excellent video demonstration. See this related Time article:

At Wimbledon, It's the Grass Stupid

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

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0806/wimbledon_0622.jpg

See excerpt:

Yeah, I remember reading that. Thanks for the link.

swordtennis
04-05-2010, 10:02 AM
Not sure about that.
Lots of people tuning into the Exciting S&V final in 2001. Slowing Wimbledon down was a tragic disaster that took big chunks of variety out of Tennis and the GS's. Killing the sport one surface at a time.
Wimbledon had more variety in play when it was faster. Now grinding baseline play is dominating.

KHSOLO
04-05-2010, 10:12 AM
Great video! Never saw that before. I actually didn't know there was such a significant difference until now.

Thanks for sharing.

Same though exactly

Anaconda
04-05-2010, 10:15 AM
The ITF decided it as you can see from the increase in ball size.

Cheers. I got told that the grass at Wimbledon is thicker too. I'm not sure if this is true or whether this would make a difference either.

okdude1992
04-05-2010, 12:42 PM
I like the new Wimbledon surface. Yes it is slower but I think now you can be successful with more styles of play there (imo leading to more exciting tennis) The comments about it being "green clay" are crazy. You can still play good old attacking tennis there and be rewarded for it. The reason we never see S&V at Wimbledon anymore is because that style of play is lacking in this generation of players. Even on the fastest indoor courts nobody serves and volleys. That is the fault of instant-gratification coaching (because developing an all court game, or S&V takes longer), not the balls or the court surface

JamaicanYoute
04-05-2010, 01:18 PM
I like the new Wimbledon surface. Yes it is slower but I think now you can be successful with more styles of play there (imo leading to more exciting tennis) The comments about it being "green clay" are crazy. You can still play good old attacking tennis there and be rewarded for it. The reason we never see S&V at Wimbledon anymore is because that style of play is lacking in this generation of players. Even on the fastest indoor courts nobody serves and volleys. That is the fault of instant-gratification coaching (because developing an all court game, or S&V takes longer), not the balls or the court surface

I agree with a lot of your quote, but I think in general you can play attacking tennis on any surface and be rewarded.

They should not have slowed it down. It was tennis at its beginning, why change it. They aren't going to speed up the clay to help out the more aggressive players so why do it to grass. Yeah, the rallies can be fun, but to me it takes away from Wimbledon. It should and always has benefited the aggressor, not a baseline player.

I fully agree with the coaching (or lack thereof) and that no one really comes in regardless of the surface. The top 'volleyers' today are horrible volleyers when you compare them to a decade ago.

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-05-2010, 01:19 PM
Since Wimbledon has slowed down so much, is it not fastest Slam surface anymore?

JamaicanYoute
04-05-2010, 01:27 PM
Since Wimbledon has slowed down so much, is it not fastest Slam surface anymore?

I don't know. While it may be untrue, or hype or whatever, I've heard that the US Open plays faster... Anyone here know for a FACT? Played on either?

ttbrowne
04-05-2010, 01:48 PM
Nadal might not even be a force at Wimby if not for the change in grass. How fortunate for him.

Charles Norris
04-06-2010, 06:06 AM
The BBC coverage is just immense.
Those guys bring sports broadcasting to the rank of art. Amazing.

I agree. That was a first of hearing the BBC coverage for me and I admit that it was very easy on the ears. Good stuff and great video. Thanks for the share.

rk_sports
04-06-2010, 01:20 PM
Very interesting topic and now its clear to me that Wimbly has slowed down.
We got enuf material out there that Aussie Open has slowed down too. Not sure if anything changed at the USO.
Now, just wondering if anything changed in French Open Clay? Has it sped up? ..thus maybe explaining Soderling hard court like bashing of Rafa!

NamRanger
04-06-2010, 01:38 PM
I agree with a lot of your quote, but I think in general you can play attacking tennis on any surface and be rewarded.

They should not have slowed it down. It was tennis at its beginning, why change it. They aren't going to speed up the clay to help out the more aggressive players so why do it to grass. Yeah, the rallies can be fun, but to me it takes away from Wimbledon. It should and always has benefited the aggressor, not a baseline player.

I fully agree with the coaching (or lack thereof) and that no one really comes in regardless of the surface. The top 'volleyers' today are horrible volleyers when you compare them to a decade ago.





Actually they did speed up clay.

TennisandMusic
04-06-2010, 01:41 PM
If Wimbledon were "slow", Roddick and Venus would not have their greatest yearly success there. These are FAST COURT players...their weakest surfaces are slow. There are plenty of reasons why grass still plays quite fast.

NamRanger
04-06-2010, 01:50 PM
If Wimbledon were "slow", Roddick and Venus would not have their greatest yearly success there. These are FAST COURT players...their weakest surfaces are slow. There are plenty of reasons why grass still plays quite fast.



Then what explains the Spanish Armada making 3rd and 4th round finishes (sometimes even QF with Ferrero) when before they couldn't even make it out of the first round.



No one actually believes it is slower than clay, but it certainly isn't fast as it once was, otherwise some of these players would never have success.

bluetrain4
04-06-2010, 02:19 PM
The "old" Wimbledon could be thrilling, but I also throught it could be boring serve-fests.

That said, I still don't think they should have changed it. All playing conditions had their place in the game, and I could always appreciate that Wimby was a different condition, which required a different skill set than other surfaces. Wimbledon was about weapons, about shot making, not about grinding. If the points were short, so be it.

I think that the AELTC had good intentions. They may have simply wanted to allow more balls to get in play, even if the point still ended after a few shots. Do you think they really planned on making it "green clay" (which I really don't agree it is).

Agassifan
04-06-2010, 02:22 PM
I hope they don't slow down the US Open like they've done at the other **** slams.

ninman
04-06-2010, 02:36 PM
I think the unique thing about tennis unlike other raquet sports, is that it is played on different surfaces. But not making the differences as extreme as they once were they are basically now all playing on the same surface just different colours. The differences are superficial and it's killed the game.

Don't Let It Bounce
04-06-2010, 06:04 PM
The three different ball sizes was an ITF ruling (http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/newballstandard.htm) in 1999 to establish a two-year (2000-2001) experiment in varying ball size. It was a reaction to several years' complaints that the game was too fast. Several companies released larger balls at that time, anticipating a grassroots change in the game. The Wilson Rally (http://www.amersports.com/media/releases/view/b3fdfa56e995947d1116ff2433ac836f.html) (6% larger in diameter) was the best known of these, but it was discontinued years ago. I found them fun to hit with, but normal-size balls never seemed to me in any danger of vanishing from the scene.

The complaints were not that there were too many serve & volley players; in fact, the style was already 10 years past its tour heyday by the late 90's. Rather, viewers complained that there were too many unreturnable serves and that rallies were too short. Big serves followed by putaway forehands (if not by missed returns) were far more common that S&V attacks. Thus, the good ol' days that S&V fans long for are the 80's, not the 90's.

I've never heard before this thread that the current Wimby slowdown is due to balls as well as court. Though I don't know for sure, it seems to me unlikely: it was always pretty obvious when someone was using the Rally ball.

Is it possible previous comments were assumptions that a temporary experiment was a permanent rule change? Can anyone post a link about whether the ball size experiment was extended, or confirmation that Wimby currently uses Rally-size balls?

JamaicanYoute
04-07-2010, 04:47 AM
Actually they did speed up clay.

Really?.... That's interesting. But I'm quite sure it has not sped up as much as Wimbledon has slowed down.

Li Ching Yuen
04-07-2010, 06:41 AM
But the current Wimbledon surface bounces much higher than the old one, why is everyone forgetting that?...it's not all about speed...

Datacipher
04-07-2010, 08:06 AM
Interesting video. Thanks for sharing! Confirms what we already could tell from watching Wimbledon over the last several years. It's nice to have confirmation. Good find

COme on kids, think first. There's no way to draw any conclusions from a sample of ONE. And a sample, who's validity is extremely questionable. Matching ball incoming ball speed only. The trajectory is different, undoubtedly the ball spin is different, judging by the trajectory, which DOES affect bounce, as does the fact that one ball appeared to have hit the line.

It's neat, but meaningless.

bluetrain4
04-07-2010, 08:31 AM
But the current Wimbledon surface bounces much higher than the old one, why is everyone forgetting that?...it's not all about speed...

Good point. Sometimes, I think bounce is more important than speed.

Lsmkenpo
04-07-2010, 08:40 AM
Higher bounce = slower speed, whether perceived or measured.

JamaicanYoute
04-07-2010, 03:29 PM
But the current Wimbledon surface bounces much higher than the old one, why is everyone forgetting that?...it's not all about speed...

Very true - you rarely hear the argument of higher bounce compared to the speed argument. With the way most pros hold their racquets today it definitely plays a part.

ODYSSEY Mk.4
04-07-2010, 04:21 PM
How much spin are on those serves

good point no one can really say but, by just looking at the flight path before the bounce they look damn close. really interesting to say the least, thank you for the link though!:)

Mansewerz
04-07-2010, 04:25 PM
How much spin are on those serves? Simply showing an example of one serve struck at the same initial speed with no other information (and look at how the trajectories are immediately different!) is completely useless. The point above about the balls is a good one too.

Federer also plays differently than he did in 2003. So...

Seriously? You think they'd be dumb enough to not consider spin?

The-Champ
04-07-2010, 04:56 PM
Then what explains the Spanish Armada making 3rd and 4th round finishes (sometimes even QF with Ferrero) when before they couldn't even make it out of the first round.



No one actually believes it is slower than clay, but it certainly isn't fast as it once was, otherwise some of these players would never have success.

Ferrero is a bad example. He was a USO finalist, thumping Hewitt and Agassi to the ground on the way to the final.

NamRanger
04-07-2010, 05:00 PM
Ferrero is a bad example. He was a USO finalist, thumping Hewitt and Agassi to the ground on the way to the final.



Yes but the years Ferrero made the QF of Wimbledon are 2007 and 2009, and by that point, Ferrero is predominantly a clay specialist. You would be hard pressed to make the argument that Ferrero is anything but a clay specialist from 2007 and on.

Lsmkenpo
04-07-2010, 06:09 PM
Very true - you rarely hear the argument of higher bounce compared to the speed argument. With the way most pros hold their racquets today it definitely plays a part.

Because they are directly related, a higher bounce = a greater coefficient of restitution
which = slower court speed, whether measured or perceived. If the ball is bouncing higher at impact it is losing some forward velocity.

http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/image/staticarticle/IO_39412_staticarticle.JPG

ITF court pace rating program http://www.itftennis.com/technical/equipment/courts/class.asp

mindgrinder
04-07-2010, 06:22 PM
well i think the same thing is stated on wikipedia too, some type of grass change led to this...may be they wanted lower maintainence cost and longer rallies.

Lsmkenpo
04-07-2010, 06:27 PM
The three different ball sizes was an ITF ruling (http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/newballstandard.htm) in 1999 to establish a two-year (2000-2001) experiment in varying ball size. It was a reaction to several years' complaints that the game was too fast. Several companies released larger balls at that time, anticipating a grassroots change in the game. The Wilson Rally (http://www.amersports.com/media/releases/view/b3fdfa56e995947d1116ff2433ac836f.html) (6% larger in diameter) was the best known of these, but it was discontinued years ago. I found them fun to hit with, but normal-size balls never seemed to me in any danger of vanishing from the scene.

The complaints were not that there were too many serve & volley players; in fact, the style were already 10 years past its tour heyday by the late 90's. Rather, viewers complained that there were too many unreturnable serves and that rallies were too short. Big serves followed by putaway forehands (if not by missed returns) were far more common that S&V attacks. Thus, the good ol' days that S&V fans long for are the 80's, not the 90's.

I've never heard before this thread that the current Wimby slowdown is due to balls as well as court. Though I don't now for sure, it seems to me unlikely: it was always pretty obvious when someone was using the Rally ball.

Is it possible previous comments were assumptions that a temporary experiment was a permanent rule change? Can anyone post a link about whether the ball size experiment was extended, or confirmation that Wimby currently uses Rally-size balls?

No assumptions, what I stated prior is a fact , it was a rule change the ITF put it into effect in 2002 http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/history/ . Buy some Slazenger Wimbledon Balls and you can see for yourself that they are slightly bigger, bounce higher and play slower. Notice the larger diameter for type3 ball in diagram I have included, and which surface category the type3 is used for in the appendix.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/history/

The ITF test method used for determining the pace of a court surface is test method ITF CS 01/01 (ITF Surface Pace Rating) as described in the ITF publication entitled “An initial ITF study on performance standards for tennis court surfaces”.

Court surfaces which are found to have an ITF Surface Pace Rating of between 0 and 35 shall be classified as being Category 1 (slow pace). Examples of court surface types which conform to this classification will include most clay courts and other types of unbound mineral surface.

Court surfaces which are found to have an ITF Surface Pace Rating of between 30 and 45 shall be classified as being Category 2 (medium/medium-fast pace). Examples of court surface types which conform to this classification will include most hardcourts with various acrylic type coatings plus some textile surfaces.

Court surfaces which are found to have an ITF Surface Pace Rating of over 40 shall be classified as being Category 3 (fast pace). Examples of court surface types which conform to this classification will include most natural grass, artificial turf and some textile surfaces.

Note: The proposed overlap in ITF Surface Pace Rating values for the above categories is to allow some latitude in ball selection.

Case 1: Which ball type should be used on which court surface?

Decision: 3 different types of balls are approved for play under the Rules of Tennis, however:
a. Ball Type 1 (fast speed) is intended for play on slow pace court surfaces
b. Ball Type 2 (medium speed) is intended for play on medium/medium-fast pace court surfaces
c. Ball Type 3 (slow speed) is intended for play on fast pace court surfaces


http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/equipment/appendixi.asp
http://i44.tinypic.com/3090u2a.jpg

surfvland
04-07-2010, 06:37 PM
I wonder why they would decide to slow the courts down. Since the faster courts would suit their boy Timmy Henman's serve volley game. We all know it's been forever since someone from the UK has won.

pmerk34
04-07-2010, 07:36 PM
Good archival stuff. Yes Wimbledon is almost like clay now. Tragic it was slowed down. The US Open is becoming the last place for all court tennis.

Seriously? Wimbledon had become one nonreturnable serve after another. Incredibly boring

NamRanger
04-09-2010, 03:52 PM
Seriously? Wimbledon had become one nonreturnable serve after another. Incredibly boring



So let's turn it into a baseline rally surface that is more neutral than anything? Old grass had it's place in tennis; there was no reason to change it. If you want neutral surfaces, you watch hardcourt events. If you want to watch defensive baselining, you watch clay tournaments. If you want big serving and great netplay, you watch Wimbledon.



There are virtually only 3 "major" grass tournaments now; there is no reason to make them play like hardcourts at all. If you want to do that, why don't you just rip the grass out and just make it a hardcourt?

pmerk34
04-09-2010, 03:58 PM
So let's turn it into a baseline rally surface that is more neutral than anything? Old grass had it's place in tennis; there was no reason to change it. If you want neutral surfaces, you watch hardcourt events. If you want to watch defensive baselining, you watch clay tournaments. If you want big serving and great netplay, you watch Wimbledon.



There are virtually only 3 "major" grass tournaments now; there is no reason to make them play like hardcourts at all. If you want to do that, why don't you just rip the grass out and just make it a hardcourt?

The problem was there less and less great anything except serving, which for male pros was incredibly easy at Wimbledon. The only skill that mattered was serving bombs.

NamRanger
04-09-2010, 04:23 PM
The problem was there less and less great anything except serving, which for male pros was incredibly easy at Wimbledon. The only skill that mattered was serving bombs.




Uh, what? Who was winning Wimbledon based purely on their serve on the 90s? No one. The only skilled that mattered was serving bombs? Then why is it from 1990-2000, the guy who won Wimbledon 7 times also was one of the most versatile players ever?

pmerk34
04-09-2010, 06:07 PM
Uh, what? Who was winning Wimbledon based purely on their serve on the 90s? No one. The only skilled that mattered was serving bombs? Then why is it from 1990-2000, the guy who won Wimbledon 7 times also was one of the most versatile players ever?

Yeah and most of the points were easy volleys and near aces against people like Ivanisevic. It got boring so they changed it.

NamRanger
04-09-2010, 08:33 PM
Yeah and most of the points were easy volleys and near aces against people like Ivanisevic. It got boring so they changed it.




Goran vs Sampras is boring regardless of surface, that is not a good example. Knee jerk reaction at best.

NLBwell
04-09-2010, 09:48 PM
Seriously? Wimbledon had become one nonreturnable serve after another. Incredibly boring

If you don't like it now, you really wouldn't have wanted to see Stich's matches at Wimbledon.

I think Stich's win over Edberg where he never broke Edberg's serve the entire match was one of the matches that led to the change in the grass. Also, if I remember right, there was a Becker-Stich match where there was only 9 minutes of actual tennis in a 5 set match.

pmerk34
04-10-2010, 05:59 AM
Goran vs Sampras is boring regardless of surface, that is not a good example. Knee jerk reaction at best.

Knee jerk reaction? I saw all those matches. They sucked. As did Stich-Edberg, Becker -Curran, Becker-Lendl, Becker-Edberg, anything with Philipousis etc.

pmerk34
04-10-2010, 06:02 AM
If you don't like it now, you really wouldn't have wanted to see Stich's matches at Wimbledon.

I think Stich's win over Edberg where he never broke Edberg's serve the entire match was one of the matches that led to the change in the grass. Also, if I remember right, there was a Becker-Stich match where there was only 9 minutes of actual tennis in a 5 set match.

I saw Stichs matches including his yawn inspiring serve-a-thon final with Becker in 91. There were matches were there wasn't one "rally" longer than 3 strokes over 5 sets. Graphite frames really hurt Wimbledon on the men's side starting with Becker - who although an exciting player other wise led the way to this type of grass court tennis which they had to change.

NamRanger
04-10-2010, 07:21 AM
Knee jerk reaction? I saw all those matches. They sucked. As did Stich-Edberg, Becker -Curran, Becker-Lendl, Becker-Edberg, anything with Philipousis etc.



So that justifies the change that everything should play the same right? Why don't they just rip everything out and make everything a HC then? Because everything is pretty much playing very close to each other, even the clay at RG has sped up tremendously.



I'm sorry, I liked my serve fests at Wimbledon, and those with big serves should be rewarded. Baseliners shouldn't be rewarded everywhere just because they got blasted off at Wimbledon.

dmt
04-10-2010, 07:23 AM
namranger, do u have any sources about the claycourt speed change at roland garros?

NamRanger
04-10-2010, 07:30 AM
namranger, do u have any sources about the claycourt speed change at roland garros?




None currently, but if you seriously think this plays anything like the clay of before, you've got to be kidding me


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a43Q22VDP_U

dmt
04-10-2010, 07:32 AM
i agree it looked alot faster though it may have been the weather conditions, i dont know for sure.

NamRanger
04-10-2010, 07:54 AM
i agree it looked alot faster though it may have been the weather conditions, i dont know for sure.



Look at how Soderling is moving on the clay like it's a HC. You can see there is visibly less top layer dust.

dmt
04-10-2010, 07:57 AM
maybe you are right, ill be curious to see how it is this year.

pmerk34
04-10-2010, 08:41 AM
So that justifies the change that everything should play the same right? Why don't they just rip everything out and make everything a HC then? Because everything is pretty much playing very close to each other, even the clay at RG has sped up tremendously.



I'm sorry, I liked my serve fests at Wimbledon, and those with big serves should be rewarded. Baseliners shouldn't be rewarded everywhere just because they got blasted off at Wimbledon.

I actually don't disagree here. I just think with the racquets and strings now it's impossible to find the nice balance that we used to have in the 70's and early 80's. An attacking style was key but it wasn't all about ace, ace, framed, return etc etc. The grass has now swung too far but I think luxilon has a lot to do with it, it's so easy to pass now at the pro level, I don;t know what the answer is.

Djokovicfan4life
04-10-2010, 08:50 AM
I actually don't disagree here. I just think with the racquets and strings now it's impossible to find the nice balance that we used to have in the 70's and early 80's. An attacking style was key but it wasn't all about ace, ace, framed, return etc etc. The grass has now swung too far but I think luxilon has a lot to do with it, it's so easy to pass now at the pro level, I don;t know what the answer is.

Well, making the grass faster would make approach shots skid more and not sit up. Regardless of the string technology, it's still a lot harder to hit a topspin pass off a low ball that's shooting through the court.


I agree with Namranger, the surfaces should have more variety. Grass should be fast, clay should be slow, with hard courts in the middle.

NamRanger
04-10-2010, 06:42 PM
I actually don't disagree here. I just think with the racquets and strings now it's impossible to find the nice balance that we used to have in the 70's and early 80's. An attacking style was key but it wasn't all about ace, ace, framed, return etc etc. The grass has now swung too far but I think luxilon has a lot to do with it, it's so easy to pass now at the pro level, I don;t know what the answer is.



Increase in power of the frames has alot to do with the slowing down of the grass; the advent of the synthetic strings becoming the "normal" string on the pro tour happened during the late 90s to the early 2000s. Is it a coincidence that this was also the time when all the surfaces began converging all towards one speed? I think not.

KHSOLO
04-10-2010, 09:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a43Q22VDP_U

Thats an amazing tennis match right there

Don't Let It Bounce
04-15-2010, 03:26 PM
No assumptions, what I stated prior is a fact , it was a rule change the ITF put it into effect in 2002 http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/history/ . Buy some Slazenger Wimbledon Balls and you can see for yourself that they are slightly bigger, bounce higher and play slower. Notice the larger diameter for type3 ball in diagram I have included, and which surface category the type3 is used for in the appendix....Thanks for posting the link about the 2000-2001 ruling becoming permanent. Having played with the Wilson Rally balls and noticing the difference, I'm surprised the ball change isn't spoken of as often as the court slowdown is. Sometime I intend to pick up a can of Slaz Wimbledon and see if they are like the old Rally balls.