Why would anybody think tennis is not supposed to be played on grass-when the most revered of the four slams still is, the Aussie was played on it until 30 years ago & the US until the mid 1970's?
Why would anybody look at a worn out dirt patch that a grass court becomes when the modern game is played on it,
and think it's the way to go?
Hard to 'revere' those sadly worn out, anachronistic courts.
But hey, they're prestigious, so why ask why.
I would love for a surface that rewards attacking tennis no matter the type of player you are. I yearn for Wimbledon to go back to 90's type of grass which were mixed type of grass 30/70 ratio rather than 100 percent perennial rye grass. That type of grass encourages serve and volley even more. I think that the art of serve and volley is being lost. If they bring back serve and volley, it provides a greater variety to the tennis and different type of skill that is required to be successful on grass.
Remember the diving exploits of “Boom Boom” Boris Becker? The blinding pace of “Pistol Pete” Sampras’ serves and the inconsistent brilliance of Goran Ivanišević’s? If you had been gripped by the serve-and-volley duels of Wimbledon, you must have felt their absence of late. Players now inevitably camp at the baseline, churning out heavy-spun groundstrokes. The dash to the net after serving has become history. It isn’t that modern players don’t want to emulate the serve-and-volley greats of the past—it’s just that they can’t. Serve and volley as bread-and-butter tennis is now no more than a figment of tennis lore.
It all goes back to 2001, when The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC) got rid of its old turf at Wimbledon (a 70:30 mix of rye and creeping red fescue) and introduced 100% perennial ryegrass. This new grass is taller and more durable, allowing the courts to dry better (note that England is rainy), making them harder and helping the balls bounce higher. In comparison, 30% of the old surface was composed of a low-lying creeping grass that retained moisture and made the ball skid. This made for low bounce and the sliding effect which made underspin shots deadly.
It wasn’t a coincidence, then, that while the 2001 final was contested between two heavy servers and quintessential net-rushers—Ivanišević and Patrick Rafter—the 2002 event saw hard-core baseliners Lleyton Hewitt and David Nalbandian fighting for the trophy.
“Not only the courts, even the balls have changed over time. They used to be harder earlier and weren’t as heavy. It was easier to be more aggressive on the volleys,” says Leander Paes, India’s most successful player at Wimbledon with five titles (one men’s doubles and four mixed doubles) to his name. “It isn’t that easy to put away shots on these courts, especially with the balls feeling heavier.”
Jaidip Mukerjea, who reached the fourth round at The Championships four times, in 1963, 1964, 1966 and 1973, is even more vocal about the impact of the change in grass. “On these new courts, there is no way that even Sampras would have got anywhere near his seven titles. It’s a different kind of tennis Wimbledon now demands of its winners.”
It is widely believed that the blitz of aces and winners had made grass-court tennis a bit monotonous—this was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the change in grass.
“The 2001 final was considered one of the most boring as there were hardly any rallies,” says India’s Davis Cup captain Zeeshan Ali. “I am told that there was a meeting of the organizers after that, where it was decided that while grass would be retained, it would be slowed down” Ali played the singles at Wimbledon in 1989 and figured in four doubles draws, in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.
While old-school aficionados may not be too pleased, the slower pace on the refurbished courts since 2001 has led to longer matches and more value for money for fans, Ali points out.
I think the hate for clay comes partly from the fact that rallies are a bit more boring to watch on tv, but also for a large part because clay isn't a prevalent surface in the US. In most European countries it's the preferred surface.I love how grass court tennis gets romanticized here.
Yes, Federer on grass is the most beautiful thing in the history of tennis. Sampras on grass was also really pleasurable watch.
But if I gave you Isner vs. Raonic, how excited would you get?
You are definitely right. Clay court tennis and grass court tennis both take tennis-specific skills and general athleticism/fitness. Clay favors general athleticism/fitness over tennis-specific skills, whereas grass court tennis favors tennis-specific skills over general athleticism/fitness.Its certainly not a lazy man's surface.
You are definitely right. Clay court tennis and grass court tennis both take tennis-specific skills and general athleticism/fitness. Clay favors general athleticism/fitness over tennis-specific skills, whereas grass court tennis favors tennis-specific skills over general athleticism/fitness.
Accident versus stamina.Is Nick a TTW curmudgeon?
"People say tennis now doesn’t belong on the grass but that’s not true", said Kyrgios. "It is pure tennis at its finest. You have to be talented to play on grass. If you have a good serve and a good return, you get rewarded. If you come forward you benefit but if you do that on any other surface, you get punished".
"Clay-court tennis for me is not tennis at all. There is no creativity. It’s all about fitness and lasting out there. There’s none of the skill that is needed for grass", added Kyrgios.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/grass-pure-tennis-clay-nick-kyrgios/amp/
Chang won the USO , Moyá and Ferrero reached HC major finalsThink about the pre-Rafa days though, the list of French champs is full of one-hit wonders and guys who didn't/couldn't win anywhere else.
Chang, Gomez, Muster, Moya, Costa, Ferrero, Gaudio.
Wimbledon has Krajicek, Ivanesevic, and Stich...and has been dominated (much more so than the French) by players who backed up their results elsewhere (Sampras, Fed, Djokovic, Becker, Edberg, Hewitt)
Chang won the USO , Moyá and Ferrero reached HC major finals
True I forgot but he reached the AO and USO finals
If you want stamina watch a marathon, triathlon, or Tour de France. I'd rather watch creativity, adaptability, and variety than just a slugfest.Accident versus stamina.
Grass: Bad bounces, low bounces, players slipping, worn-out surface, short points.
Clay: grinding matches, endless points, endless rallies, slugfests, long points.
Take your pick.
BSIf all tennis were played on clay, TV ratings would be lower and interest in the sport would be lower. If all tennis were played on grass or fast hard courts, TV ratings would be as good or better as now and interest would be better.
Clay is part of history and it may be the best surface to play on as a rec player as it is easy on the body, but pro tennis on clay can get boring.
If you want stamina watch a marathon, triathlon, or Tour de France. I'd rather watch creativity, adaptability, and variety than just a slugfest.
One great thing about dirt ball is the added style, flair and creativity that is shown off. The slower conditions allow time for the players to take bigger swings and run down shots. Often, the dirt-ball strategy involves attacking deep then short to create openings. You can exploit these openings with shots you might not otherwise try on hard courts such as drop shots, lobs, slices, chips and sharply angled shots that will force opponents to defend the entire court, not just the backcourt.
Slices are not very effective on clay at the pro level other than on defense. Lobs are almost never utilized in the pro game. Sharply angled shots are just a variety of ground stroke which, again, you don't see that often because people are always focused on depth since it's easier to run down those angles on clay. Drop shots can be effective on clay, but you can't hit a good drop shot from behind the baseline consistently, which is where pros are staying 99% of the time on clay courts these days.Do you think Nick Bollettieri got it wrong in his recent article?
http://baseline.tennis.com/article/74438/nick-bollettieri-dirt-clay-court-secrets-lesson
So why couldn’t PETE do it?No one's good enough to play SnV at RG and win it. Atleast not for the last 15 years. I can't see how someone can play SnV on clay and win against Nadalovic. All you can do is identify the short ball and rush to the net to play a nice volley. Even this can't be done consistently.
Is Nick a TTW curmudgeon?
"People say tennis now doesn’t belong on the grass but that’s not true", said Kyrgios. "It is pure tennis at its finest. You have to be talented to play on grass. If you have a good serve and a good return, you get rewarded. If you come forward you benefit but if you do that on any other surface, you get punished".
"Clay-court tennis for me is not tennis at all. There is no creativity. It’s all about fitness and lasting out there. There’s none of the skill that is needed for grass", added Kyrgios.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/grass-pure-tennis-clay-nick-kyrgios/amp/
90's clay had a deep field.So why couldn’t PETE do it?
Kyrgios, this is rubbish. Sorry to tell you mate.Is Nick a TTW curmudgeon?
"People say tennis now doesn’t belong on the grass but that’s not true", said Kyrgios. "It is pure tennis at its finest. You have to be talented to play on grass. If you have a good serve and a good return, you get rewarded. If you come forward you benefit but if you do that on any other surface, you get punished".
"Clay-court tennis for me is not tennis at all. There is no creativity. It’s all about fitness and lasting out there. There’s none of the skill that is needed for grass", added Kyrgios.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/grass-pure-tennis-clay-nick-kyrgios/amp/
Not the case of sour grapes.Tilden never won the French, another case of sour grapes. Basically if I am not good on it, it has to be bad lol. Not very different from how clay courters used to skip Wimbledon. But to be fair, grass court tennis was quite different in Tilden's time. He had a big serve for his time, but the game wasn't serve dominated at all, people actually played a lot of rallies on grass as well. Now if you have a big serve, you can hide your other weaknesses on grass to an extent. Clay exposes servebots.
Grass court tennis is like a war.
There is pressure on every single point. Breaking someones serve on a grass court is a heavy blow and feels like a gladiator battle because its so hard, whereas on other surfaces you think I can break back later.
There seems to be drama in every game, every set, a match plays out like a story on grass court tennis.
Kyrgios has about the lowest IQ on tour.
Is Nick a TTW curmudgeon?
"People say tennis now doesn’t belong on the grass but that’s not true", said Kyrgios. "It is pure tennis at its finest. You have to be talented to play on grass. If you have a good serve and a good return, you get rewarded. If you come forward you benefit but if you do that on any other surface, you get punished".
"Clay-court tennis for me is not tennis at all. There is no creativity. It’s all about fitness and lasting out there. There’s none of the skill that is needed for grass", added Kyrgios.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/grass-pure-tennis-clay-nick-kyrgios/amp/
You been playing grass court competition for very long. Harder to find courts these days as most where in inner city affluent areas where I lived so real estate value became too high.Grass court tennis is like a war.
There is pressure on every single point. Breaking someones serve on a grass court is a heavy blow and feels like a gladiator battle because its so hard, whereas on other surfaces you think I can break back later.
There seems to be drama in every game, every set, a match plays out like a story on grass court tennis.
Grass court tennis is like a war.
As I said, take your pick.If you want stamina watch a marathon, triathlon, or Tour de France. I'd rather watch creativity, adaptability, and variety than just a slugfest.
For me, clay is the ultimate for the best tennis players. On clay, you have to rally well and you have to build up momentum from scratch on a regular basis. Nadal is the best at it. On grass, it's about taking chances and being aggressive, and riding momentum once you gain it. Grass kind of gives the underdogs more chance. On clay, you are not going to chance anything.
Would that not mean that grass court events are tougher to win?
In the sense that more players have a puncher's chance, yes. In the sense that the best tennis player over the long haul will almost certainly win, no. Clay is the toughest in the sense that it's a long war, and you must have the best strategy and the best tennis over the long haul. You aren't going to luck it out on clay.
For me, clay is the ultimate for the best tennis players. On clay, you have to rally well and you have to build up momentum from scratch on a regular basis. Nadal is the best at it. On grass, it's about taking chances and being aggressive, and riding momentum once you gain it. Grass kind of gives the underdogs more chance. On clay, you are not going to chance anything.
He deserves that, just to have his big mouth shut. Beating Nadal in the finals.Would be awesome if Kyrgios wins the FO and that is his only major!
Grass seems to be an all or nothing surface.I love how grass court tennis gets romanticized here.
Yes, Federer on grass is the most beautiful thing in the history of tennis. Sampras on grass was also really pleasurable watch.
But if I gave you Isner vs. Raonic, how excited would you get?
I love how grass court tennis gets romanticized here.
Yes, Federer on grass is the most beautiful thing in the history of tennis. Sampras on grass was also really pleasurable watch.
But if I gave you Isner vs. Raonic, how excited would you get?