Originally Posted by Brian Purdie
Grass is a tricky surface. It is definately the most fun to play on b/c you have to have talent to play. You can't really disguise any part of your game. We've seen good baseliners and good S&V prevail on the surface. It's not as expensive to build, but a pain to maintain. With the number of public courts that had to be built in the 70's, economically, they needed to built asphalt to meet the demands.
You cant really desguise any part of your game?
Ask Arthurs, Ivanisevic or Rusedski if the grass doesnt help them to desguise their poor groundstrokes and volleys.
Or Curren, remember him?
I liked rafter and edberg, I like escude and henman, but, if serve and volleys means matches with 70 aces then I am not sad it is going downhill.
I think people overrate the ammount of serve and volley you get to see on grass, now most serve and volleyers who "have big serves" only serve and volley with their first serves, and when the first serve of players like ivanisevic, falls inside the service box, the 80% of the times, the ball wont return, and the majority of times, when it returns, it returns as a very weak reply, a floater.
So you are stuck with minimal serve and volley on the first serve and baseline game on the second serves.
That is why on grass when you have 2 big servers, even if one rushes to the net after his first serve, and the other one plays from the baseline, there is no real contrast of style.
If you have 2 clay courters with great drop shots on clay you may even get to see flashier more exciting net points than on grass.
If tennis had been invented yesterday, with modern athletes and modern racquets , playing on grass would be considered a stupid idea.