London has been cloudly and rainy thus far.
Isn't that the norm, thought?
Not much going on in cloudy little Britain.
Isn't that the norm, thought?
Strange,I watched Roddick-Anderson,set of Janko-Murray and 2 sets of Nadal-Stepanek and it didn't seem that slow to me to be honest,there were still plenty of service and ground winners and Stepanek was able to use the net very well against Nadal.I'm not doubting grass is slower than before but it seems to me that they might be exaggerating a bit.
Wimbledon has been sun-drenched the last 2 years.They haven't been able to use the new Centre Court roof since it was installed in 2009 (apart from a very brief shower)!
"In couple of years I'll become clay court specialist. Because that will be the fastest."
Strange,I watched Roddick-Anderson,set of Janko-Murray and 2 sets of Nadal-Stepanek and it didn't seem that slow to me to be honest,there were still plenty of service and ground winners and Stepanek was able to use the net very well against Nadal.I'm not doubting grass is slower than before but it seems to me that they might be exaggerating a bit.
I only recall the Wimbledon roof being used twice so far, the first because of rain and bad light, and the second one because of bad light.
2009 Wimbledon R16: Andy Murray def. Stanislas Wawrinka (2-6, 6-3, 6-3, 5-7, 6-3) (the whole match)
2010 Wimbledon R128: Novak Djokovic def. Olivier Rochus (4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2) (sets 4 and 5)
Pretty much this.
We have posters telling us to trust the player(karlovic in this case) but when murray and rafa were saying in last uso that WB is one of the fastest surfaces on tour their opinions were dismissed by many TW'ers.
Grass(even slow grass) is one of the few surfaces where serve matters still.
To give an example, Nadal got taken to five in several WB by guys that hit big and/or served big in those matches.
Pretty much this.
We have posters telling us to trust the player(karlovic in this case) but when murray and rafa were saying in last uso that WB is one of the fastest surfaces on tour their opinions were dismissed by many TW'ers.
Grass(even slow grass) is one of the few surfaces where serve matters still.
To give an example, Nadal got taken to five in several WB by guys that hit big and/or served big in those matches.
Ok, so instead of using our own eyes to judge the height of bounce or the players own perceptions, we should judge court pace by how many sets a player can take off Rafa.
I have heard it all now, Rafa is a mathematical tennis constant.
5 Rafa sets= fast pace court
4 Rafa sets= medium pace court
3 Rafa sets= slow pace court
Of course not, but Nadal has a very Borg like pattern in how he wins Roland Garros vs. Wimbledon.
Go look at the scorelines for Borgs French vs. Wimby wins. He would usually breeze through RG with crushing style, and struggle mightily at Wimbledon, with many tight matches and some five setters. Seriously, go look it up. Nadal follows this pattern almost exactly. He's an all around player that is more comfortable on the higher bouncing surfaces, just like Borg. The grass really hasn't changed much. How could it? It's basically just grass. All of the evidence supports the fact that things haven't changed, except for Federer fans crying foul, and a few complaints from players here and there (while the players saying grass is still the fastest surface around are, at the same time, disregarded).
Nameless was simply saying that Nadal had touch matches against guys who were able to serve big at Wimbledon, and that that simply wouldn't be the case anywhere else. It's because grass still rewards big hitting and big serving more than any other surface. It's certainly not difficult to comprehend this.
This homogenization is terrible for the sport. Think how much more exciting it would be if guys like Karlovic, Isner and Roddick actually had chances to make big upsets and win on the grass.
If they're going to try to eliminate the differences between the different surfaces, why not just play all on one surface?
ok. the village dunce, tennis & music doesnt trust the word of Ivo Karlovic... he knows best than Dr K...!!!
Pretty much this.
We have posters telling us to trust the player(karlovic in this case) but when murray and rafa were saying in last uso that WB is one of the fastest surfaces on tour their opinions were dismissed by many TW'ers.
Grass(even slow grass) is one of the few surfaces where serve matters still.
To give an example, Nadal got taken to five in several WB by guys that hit big and/or served big in those matches.
What's interesting is that for all the hyped up slowing down of the courts, the percentage of service games being held is actually higher at Wimbledon than it was in the 90's.(someone posted stats a while ago comparing the decades) It seems the serve might matter even more than it did when the courts were still lightening quick. How do we explain this?
Hmm ok.
I've actually played on a world class grass court that they used for Davis Cup (America vs. Chile, played at Mission Hills in Palm Springs). Have you?
I've played on red and green clay courts. Have you?
Furthermore Murray and Nadal say the grass courts are faster than any other court in the world. Are they now dunces? Real smart there Gor.
Have you ever played on a grass court? After the 3rd or 4th time you slip and fall on your behind, you realize you can not cut as quick and need to stay on balance more, moving around the court.
It isn't just speed of the serve, accuracy of the serve is just as important, an accurate serve at the same speed and location on grass is harder to return than it is on a HC, because the player can not cut and react as explosively to get to the ball to return it.
Hmm ok.
I've actually played on a world class grass court that they used for Davis Cup (America vs. Chile, played at Mission Hills in Palm Springs). Have you?
I've played on red and green clay courts. Have you?
Furthermore Murray and Nadal say the grass courts are faster than any other court in the world. Are they now dunces? Real smart there Gor.
You're not a pro and you'll never be one, therefore your opinion means as much as nothing. If tens of professionals claim that clay is faster than grass nowadays, who are you to question them?
Nope, not a pro, but I am experienced. I've hit with a former number 1 US 16's junior (in the womens, that's where the pic in my avatar was from), and held my own just fine. I've played all over. I know how the surfaces play from personal experience.
But if the courts are so much slower than before, and the returning supposedly so much easier these days, then why would the percentage of serve held go UP at Wimbledon since the lightening quick days of the 90's grass. I'm not trying to be facetious, I genuinely want to know what would factor explain this.
you are second best thing that happened to tennis after Rafito. you are the best. btw, did i say that i have been to the moon? have you? i also have been to the center of the world. have you? i have saved Burkina Faso from starvation. have you?
now what the frack you know about what and where have i played to assume that i dont know the speed of different courts? and what does it relate the fact that you know the speed of one specific grass court to the fact that pros everywhere are feeling tired of the slowing down of surfaces?
fyi, i have played in all the most important surfaces - dumbo
sir... i think you have what it takes to beat Federer & Nadal!!!
Erm, didn't Murray comment that the grass was playing very slow at queens?
This homogenization is terrible for the sport. Think how much more exciting it would be if guys like Karlovic, Isner and Roddick actually had chances to make big upsets and win on the grass.
If they're going to try to eliminate the differences between the different surfaces, why not just play all on one surface?
Nope, not a pro, but I am experienced. I've hit with a former number 1 US 16's junior (in the womens, that's where the pic in my avatar was from), and held my own just fine. I've played all over. I know how the surfaces play from personal experience.
Well considering how many insults you throw around rather than making points, I think it's safe to say I've made my point.
So where have you played? I've played on more than one grass court actually, just that Mission Hills was definitely the best one. Roddick and his crew said it was as good as Wimbledon. Don't get mad at me just because I like to actually talk tennis.
Grass? Toronto Tennis Club ... HPC..
all the other surfaces, my dear tennis acrobat, i have tried all over from my country to canada, us, domincan, greece, france spain... pretty much everywhere i went for vacations or biz. just that i dont brag about playing former u16 female number ones...
Watching the same matches it appeared slower than I can ever recall, I don't think the players are exaggerating why would they? A player doesn't expect his volleys to bounce up above waist height on grass, yet that is exactly what I saw quite a few times in the Stepanek-Nadal match.
Here is what Marat Safin said after beat Djokovic in the first round.I've seen that happen on grass since about 2004.Of course the grass is much slower compared to the 90s but I still think said players were exaggerating a bit to prove their point.Grass still rewards aggressive play and big serving more than even FO this year I think.
Here's what Henman said back in 2002:
"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,” remarked Tim Henman after noticing a difference on his favourite surface that far from favoured his natural game". The link won't post,just take my word for it then.
This is just old news,they screwed up grass long time ago.
MARAT SAFIN: I played well because I think the courts, they has been getting slower and slower throughout the years. So it's not any more like they used to be like eight years ago. It was really fast, and now you can play from the baseline and nobody even getting close to the net
ROGER FEDERER: It's tough to say. I obviously came here in the year when I played Sampras, let's say, I was serve and volleying 80% of the first serve, 50% on the second serve.
I remember once speaking to Wayne Ferreira who I was playing doubles with that year actually. He said he used to serve and volley always first serve, 50% of the second serve. And towards the end of his career at Wimbledon, he used to serve and volley 50% of his first serve and not anymore on his second serve.
You wonder, how in the world has that happened? Have we become such incredible return players or can we not volley anymore or is it just a combination of slower balls, slower courts?
I think it's definitely a bit of a combination of many things. If I look back, I think we definitely had many more great volley players in the game back then. When you do have that, you are forced to move in, as well, because you don't want to hit passing shots against a great volleyer over and over again. But because we don't have that as much anymore, everybody's content staying at the baseline.
A bit unfortunate, I think, because I love guys moving in, like a Melzer match today who throws in the occasional serve and volley. You have to throw in great passing shots. It's unfortunate for the games. Unfortunately, they've slowed down everything, indoors, grass. Everything has become so slow, I think that is a bit of a pity.
Here is what Marat Safin said after beat Djokovic in the first round.
Also, Fed had the same opinion
does anyone really deny that grass courts are getting slower? every year for the past decade we've heard tons of pros saying the grass courts are getting slower. its too bad, id like to see more serve and volleying and guys with more offensive, attacking styles put up better results.