It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.
They slowed down the grass because the matches were often criticized as serving contests, the most boring brand of tennis known to man. With the power of modern racquets, the ball tended to skid low and move faster than the players could react. Thankfully, the courts have been slowed down. IMO, it was a good idea. The Federer-Nadal matches are more entertaining than those Sampras-Ivanisevic slugfests.
They slowed down the grass to allow Nadal to beat Federer, that's why it's called "green clay".
And AO surface is now "blue clay"?? :roll:
If anyone profited from the "green clay" it was Federer who won 5 times in a row on it. One can argue that it would not be a case on the "fast grass".
They slowed down the grass because the matches were often criticized as serving contests, the most boring brand of tennis known to man. With the power of modern racquets, the ball tended to skid low and move faster than the players could react. Thankfully, the courts have been slowed down. IMO, it was a good idea. The Federer-Nadal matches are more entertaining than those Sampras-Ivanisevic slugfests.
I don't know about the documentary but what you said is correct according to what Wimbledon has been saying.from what i remember from a tennis documentary type program coupla years ago that the "slowing down of the grass" was not intentional at all. It was the result of improved technology when it comes to the packing down of the dirt before the grass is laid down. apparently, and agassi commented on this too, the ground/dirt is packed more than before, which does two things: it causes a truer bounce (less uneven bounces) and it causes the bounce to be higher than before. . . makes sense if you think about it.
i could be wrong but i don't think they were slowed down on purpose. the main issue AFAIK was getting a truer bounce. anyone remembe hearing anything about this?
It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.
I would have liked to of seen a Fed-Nadal Wimby final on legit fast grass. Nadal did win queens lets not forget.
O. Rochus, Soderling and Safin all played a close match with Federer in Halle in 2005-2006, especially Rochus who I believe had 4 MPs. It's all about winning, no?He was 2 pts from defeat against Karlovic, Djokovic had him on the ropes, Nishikori took a set off him, and he didn't do much to Roddick who was coming off a rotator cuff injury. He's good on legit fast grass, but I'd say he's much more prone to being upset (unlike at Wimbledon where he literally steamrolled everyone).
O. Rochus, Soderling and Safin all played a close match with Federer in Halle in 2005-2006, especially Rochus who I believe had 4 MPs. It's all about winning, no?
I would have liked to of seen a Fed-Nadal Wimby final on legit fast grass. Nadal did win queens lets not forget.
How come a serving festival is more boring than baseball or cricket?
Winning convincingly shows how good you are on the surface. Kuerten won 3 FOs, but he had to struggle his way there. Sure, he's a great claycourt player, but not as good as Borg or Nadal. He could have won more if he could stay healthy; he just couldn't.
Nadal is good on faster surfaces, no doubt. However, he's very prone to upsets on faster surfaces, where at Wimbledon (which is a more medium type speed now) he had no trouble outside of Gulbis and Federer.
Did you ever go to a baseball game in the mid August heat to watch a no-hitter? Its pretty freaking boring!
I know nothing about cricket but its not all that popular here in the USA.
Have you ever thought it was the movement that gave Nadal more trouble on hardcourts then grass? Nadal moves very comfortably on grass but looks at times not comfortable on hardcourts.
Queen's comes right after the French Open. No time for Nadal to rest after 2 weeks of tennis. Beating Roddick in straight sets I would hardly call being lucky. Nadal is a beast on any type of grass. Sorry to burst your bubble. Hard courts at the Australian Open were very slow. Almost clay speed but Nadal still struggled. It is the SURFACE that hurts him the most. Not the speed.A. Nadal looked perfectly fine at the AO
B. HCs skid more and are generally faster than Wimbledon
C. Nadal looked totally out of place at Queens. Hate to say it, but he did have a little bit of luck to win that title.
He's perfectly fine at Wimbledon. At Queens or other fast surfaces, his movement doesn't look so great.
I don't know about the documentary but what you said is correct according to what Wimbledon has been saying.
They tried to get rid of the bad bounces as much as posssible and to make the surface more durable. They started using 100% rye grass with a firmer subsurface in 2001.
Higher bounces are a by-product of the change.
.
He was 2 pts from defeat against Karlovic, Djokovic had him on the ropes, Nishikori took a set off him, and he didn't do much to Roddick who was coming off a rotator cuff injury. He's good on legit fast grass, but I'd say he's much more prone to being upset (unlike at Wimbledon where he literally steamrolled everyone).
It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.
Queen's comes right after the French Open. No time for Nadal to rest after 2 weeks of tennis. Beating Roddick in straight sets I would hardly call being lucky. Nadal is a beast on any type of grass. Sorry to burst your bubble. Hard courts at the Australian Open were very slow. Almost clay speed but Nadal still struggled. It is the SURFACE that hurts him the most. Not the speed.
He beat Roddick straights, 7-5, 6-4 with Roddick coming off a rotator cuff injury, which visibly bothered him throughout the match. That shows that he's not that great on fast grass. Nadal was lucky against both Djokovic and Karlovic. He could have easily lost those matches had 2-3 points gone differently.
Again, you seem to love to leave out very important details.
im wondering why you cant serve and volley: alright the grass is slower. many players can serve harder than 10 years ago because of the racket technology. so i think grass still favours serve and volley game. the reason why nobody is doing it often, is because they're not good at it. my opinion, you can still serve + volley on every accurate first serve.
Yeah I don't understand this lucky business. Making excuses for Nadal winning Queens. Nadal should've been too tired to win that but defies the odds because he is good on grass. The key to Nadal's success on grass is how well he holds on to his serve. He gets broken many more times on hardcourts. Like I said earier. His lefty slice serve is most effective on grass. It stays low and slides away from the opponent. Also the fact Nadal has improved his serve a ton since 2005 really helped. Roddick even mentioned that exactly after his match with Nadal at Queens.Oh come on Nadal dominated Roddick in that match and Roddick never looked like winning.
Oh come on Nadal dominated Roddick in that match and Roddick never looked like winning.
Great post. I'm sick of all the sour grapes from Fed fans trying to discredit Nadal's achievements. How pathetic is that?The claycourters boycotted Wimbledon not because they didn't have a chance to win it, but because Wimbledon uses a different ranking system than other grand slams.
So if a claycourter was ranked #2, Wimbledon didn't rank them #2 but according to their past results. This put them at an unfair advantage as their real seeds were lowered making them vulnerable to the draw.
If one wants to be informed and not swayed by the spin google Spanish boycott Wimbledon.
The truth is there if one is really interested.
There was also the question of maintainence for the old grass, and the advent of today's baseliners that influenced the decision.
What is not true is that the system somehow was put in to aide Rafa, since the grass was installed in 2001 when Rafa was about 13 years old, a sole clay courter, and had not yet risen to prominence.
Many of the reasons given are nothing more than sour grapes.
it's really hard to do S&V today when there are so many good returners in game...
The claycourters boycotted Wimbledon not because they didn't have a chance to win it, but because Wimbledon uses a different ranking system than other grand slams.
So if a claycourter was ranked #2, Wimbledon didn't rank them #2 but according to their past results. This put them at an unfair advantage as their real seeds were lowered making them vulnerable to the draw.
If one wants to be informed and not swayed by the spin google Spanish boycott Wimbledon.
The truth is there if one is really interested.
There was also the question of maintainence for the old grass, and the advent of today's baseliners that influenced the decision.
What is not true is that the system somehow was put in to aide Rafa, since the grass was installed in 2001 when Rafa was about 13 years old, a sole clay courter, and had not yet risen to prominence.
Many of the reasons given are nothing more than sour grapes.
Yeah I don't understand this lucky business. Making excuses for Nadal winning Queens. Nadal should've been too tired to win that but defies the odds because he is good on grass. The key to Nadal's success on grass is how well he holds on to his serve. He gets broken many more times on hardcourts. Like I said earier. His lefty slice serve is most effective on grass. It stays low and slides away from the opponent. Also the fact Nadal has improved his serve a ton since 2005 really helped. Roddick even mentioned that exactly after his match with Nadal at Queens.