Aust Open Surface not so Fast

krystlel

New User
TheNatural: Philippoussis has already said himself that he had been having trouble with his knees for months now which would restrict him from doing much training so he already knew there was a problem there and that he was in denial.

"I'll be honest: I've known for the past few months there's something not right. I know my body, and I try to be positive. I try and get up and I try and tell myself 'there's a bit of pain, you'll get up, you'll be fine', and every time I stepped up my training it would swell up again … I was enjoying the training, but it's your body saying 'you can't do it, you can't do it'."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/out-on-a-limb/2007/12/19/1197740381086.html
 
Federer had a fluke loss in Indian Wells. It happens. In Paris, Nadal and Federer both lost to a red hot Nalbandian, Federer's loss to Nalbandian was very competitive, Nadal's loss to Nalbandian was a spanking, if it had not been for Nalbandian then Federer would have gone on to destroy Nadal in the final just like he did at the year end Masters. Federer is far superior to Nadal on any type of hard court. The two arent even in the same league on hard courts, fast, slow, burnt, sunny side up, any kind.

explain to me how nadal beat federer in the Dubai finals in 06 then, or in miami in 04?
 

dh003i

Legend
It was someone else. If they were going to make a season, they should cut down on the hard court season. Otherwise leave it as it is.

I would agree with that. Replace some hard-court events wit grass-court events. I'm not sure how the scheduling would work out, with Wimbledon being so close to the French. Ideally, Wimby would be moved back, but you could also have an "after-Wimbledon" grass-court season, or a grass-court season between the AO and the FO, instead of hard-court.

Then again, Dubai is I think a favorite among players, and I don't see them having grass there; just because, well, I don't see how grass could grow there.
 
explain to me how nadal beat federer in the Dubai finals in 06 then, or in miami in 04?

Federer had a mental block with Nadal then. It is receding now. He has won their last 4 sets on hard courts. I doubt Nadal will ever beat Federer on a hard court again, although their meetings on hard courts will be far and few between since Nadal isnt strong enough on hard courts to get that far very often. Also todays slowed down grass is actually a much stronger surface for Nadal then hard courts, and Nadal isnt even able to beat Federer there, were as you point out he used to beat him on hard courts were Nadal is nowhere near as good as todays slowed down grass.

Lastly Nadal's adequate career success vs Federer on hard courts is no indication of his overall ability on the surface compared to Federer. Just like Blake and Berdych's success vs Nadal on hard courts is no indication of their overall ability on the surface compared to Nadal. Federer piles hard court slams like candy, Nadal cant even get past the quarters of a hard court slam. Any kind of hard court, fast, slow, icy, slippery, muddy, frosty, Federer is far superior and has far more chance then Nadal.
 
Last edited:

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Federer had a mental block with Nadal then. It is receding now. He has won their last 4 sets on hard courts. I doubt Nadal will ever beat Federer on a hard court again, although their meetings on hard courts will be far and few between since Nadal isnt strong enough on hard courts to get that far very often. Also todays slowed down grass is actually a much stronger surface for Nadal then hard courts, and Nadal isnt even able to beat Federer there, were as you point out he used to beat him on hard courts were Nadal is nowhere near as good as todays slowed down grass.

Lastly Nadal's adequate career success vs Federer on hard courts is no indication of his overall ability on the surface compared to Federer. Just like Blake and Berdych's success vs Nadal on hard courts is no indication of their overall ability on the surface compared to Nadal. Federer piles hard court slams like candy, Nadal cant even get past the quarters of a hard court slam. Any kind of hard court, fast, slow, icy, slippery, muddy, frosty, Federer is far superior and has far more chance then Nadal.
I'll say it again since you don't seem to understand. Not all hardcourts are equal. The courts in Shanghai suit Federer perfectly. Low bounce, indoors, and fast courts. I can't think of a tournament that suits Federer more against Nadal. I definitely would love to see Nadal play Federer again on a slow hardcourt which I guess Miami is that. They are 1-1 so far on slow hardcourts. Nadal struggles against certain players on hardcourt because some like the high ball (especially 2 hand backhands). Federer is not one of those type of players.
 

Zaragoza

Banned
Nothing is wrong with fast courts or low bounces. Historically, we had Wimbledon > USO > AO > FO in terms of speed. Now, the USO is the fastest and the Wimbledon is 2nd slowest. Thus, the AO should be increased in speed to replace the position of USO, not be slower, so that we have 3 slow slams and 1 fast one.

3 Slams, 6 Masters Series and the Masters Cup are played on fast surfaces. You can rate them from really fast to simply fast but all of them are fast so it´s ridiculous to demand even faster surfaces.
Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.
 

Steve132

Professional
3 Slams, 6 Masters Series and the Masters Cup are played on fast surfaces. You can rate them from really fast to simply fast but all of them are fast so it´s ridiculous to demand even faster surfaces.
Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.

Neither Indian Wells nor Miami can plausibly be considered a fast surface, unless you regard every surface other than clay to be fast. If anything, we need a Masters Series event on grass as well as one on indoor carpet.

Incidentally, Wimbledon was the world's most prestigious tournament long before the All England Club slowed the surface.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
3 Slams, 6 Masters Series and the Masters Cup are played on fast surfaces. You can rate them from really fast to simply fast but all of them are fast so it´s ridiculous to demand even faster surfaces.
Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.


Wimbledon is a tournament of prestige and tradition. It was tradition to have an all court / S&V type game to win Wimbledon (see past champions such as Sampras, Laver, Edberg, etc)



When they started slowing down the surface, you have players just sitting on the baseline now adays.
 

Zaragoza

Banned
Neither Indian Wells nor Miami can plausibly be considered a fast surface, unless you regard every surface other than clay to be fast. If anything, we need a Masters Series event on grass as well as one on indoor carpet.

Incidentally, Wimbledon was the world's most prestigious tournament long before the All England Club slowed the surface.

Indian Wells and Miami are not fast for a hardcourt but they´re still fast surfaces, both are hardcourts after all. I wouldn´t say Rome is a fast surface just because it´s faster than Hamburg, both are into the clay category.
A MS on grass should replace some of the MS on hardcourts but it´s not going to happen anytime soon.
 

Zaragoza

Banned
Wimbledon is a tournament of prestige and tradition. It was tradition to have an all court / S&V type game to win Wimbledon (see past champions such as Sampras, Laver, Edberg, etc)



When they started slowing down the surface, you have players just sitting on the baseline now adays.

I don´t think the tradition at Wimbledon is about the type of game to win. Anyway you cannot pretend that players play the same style than in 1877.
The reason players don´t volley so much is not that Wimbledon slowed down the grass. You don´t see serve-volley on the fastest surfaces either. Mahut at Queens was the exception.
IMO the serve and return of serve are so powerful today with these racquets that the serve-volley game turned to be useless. Players either win the point with the serve or from the baseline, the serve-volley mentality isn´t there, even on the fastest surface you can imagine today.
A faster surface would only benefit the Karlovic and Guccione types and I don´t think that´s the kind of game most of us want to see.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I don´t think the tradition at Wimbledon is about the type of game to win. Anyway you cannot pretend that players play the same style than in 1877.
The reason players don´t volley so much is not that Wimbledon slowed down the grass. You don´t see serve-volley on the fastest surfaces either. Mahut at Queens was the exception.
IMO the serve and return of serve are so powerful today with these racquets that the serve-volley game turned to be useless. Players either win the point with the serve or from the baseline, the serve-volley mentality isn´t there, even on the fastest surface you can imagine today.
A faster surface would only benefit the Karlovic and Guccione types and I don´t think that´s the kind of game most of us want to see.


At the US Open many players came to net, see Feliciano Lopez, Isner, Roddick, Federer, and a whole slew of list. Heck, even Davydenko made his way there at times, and he NEVER goes to net. A faster surface benefits the player who is more agressive.


The players I listed were playing Wimbledon during the 90s. You sir need to go read some history books. The tradition of Wimbledon has been to be the fastest surface of the slams, and IT IS tradition to have an allcourt game to win, as REAL GRASS is tennis played with allcourt games. You have to know how to lob, how to volley, baseline, return, and everything in the book to win on grass. Although Pete Sampras was a great server, he didn't just win Wimbledon purly on his serve. He had an extremely underrated return game, and was a great defensive player, especially off the forehand side. Even Borg who is primarily known as a baseliner was S&Ving and using allcourt tactics to win Wimbledon.
 

stadiumking

New User
I had a feel of the surface today; you can sure see why the balls are fluffing up. I spose we can only hope that they'll play a bit better once they've had some use.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
At the US Open many players came to net, see Feliciano Lopez, Isner, Roddick, Federer, and a whole slew of list. Heck, even Davydenko made his way there at times, and he NEVER goes to net. A faster surface benefits the player who is more agressive.


The players I listed were playing Wimbledon during the 90s. You sir need to go read some history books. The tradition of Wimbledon has been to be the fastest surface of the slams, and IT IS tradition to have an allcourt game to win, as REAL GRASS is tennis played with allcourt games. You have to know how to lob, how to volley, baseline, return, and everything in the book to win on grass. Although Pete Sampras was a great server, he didn't just win Wimbledon purly on his serve. He had an extremely underrated return game, and was a great defensive player, especially off the forehand side. Even Borg who is primarily known as a baseliner was S&Ving and using allcourt tactics to win Wimbledon.

I´m compelled to jump into this one. Yes there were some people who came to net but most of them Lopez, Isner have very patchy games outside of their serves. So of course they´re gonna do everything possible to avoid baseline rallies, which in the end they had to put themselves into not by choice but by the fact that today´s players can hit pssing shots much easier than 15 or more years ago. Even if those guys didn´t run into Federer they were gonna get taken down by someone else anyway. I don´t care how fast a surface is if the guy can pass a net rusher the net rusher is in a tough position (i.e Agassi vs McEnroe, Becker and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon 1992). Especially if so many guys are doing it today. Back then Agassi and (on his day) Courier were the main guys serve and volleyers had to worry about.

Today so many guys can hit winners on the run or even in defensive positions that serve and volleyers would be downright stupid to employ that strategy. Hell even a guy with a serve like Karlovic can´t win even on fast surfaces. Oh yeah, as for Borg, he served and volleyed mainly because he had to take the net away from net rushers. Back then a wood racquet wasn´t going to help you blow winners by net rushers, especially if you were in a defensive position. You make it sound like no one goes to net at all. If you watch matches from beginning to end you´ll see that pretty much everybody comes to net, at least to finish off short balls, mix it up, or set up approach shots, even on clay. And yes Davydenko does come to net, on clay too. In his matches with Nadal in Rome and Nalby in Roland Garros all he did was fnish points at net. And he was doing good, quite good. Better than everyone thinks. He´s just net shy, perhaps because of his height. But the guy can volley better than Roddick.

As for Roddick if he could avoid the net he would, but everybody knows that he can´t beat Fed from the back so he´ll come to net at every chance, even on slow rebound ace. I´d be willing to bet that if they met on clay he´d try to come to net every chance he gets. It´s his only real shot to make it less of a massacre. But you can see he´s a deer in headlights at net, no matter the surface. You can blame slower courts but the real culprit is the racquets combined with the strings. The racquet head speed generated with the string that help you hit with more spin and pace without fear of hitting the ball out is what killed serve and volley. Plus the fact that players have evolved, so many guys can hit winners from compromising postiions. Nadal, Joker, Fed, Murray, Ferrer, Nalby, Hewitt, Davydenko, etc. It goes on and on. It´s a primary asset in most players today. If you can´t do this you won´t make the top 10, maybe 20. Unless you have a crazy good, big booming serve like Lopez, Isner or Karlovic and what are they ranked by the way? How many titles do they have, hmm?

Now you can hit winners from literally anywhere, we´ve seen Nadal do it millions of times and from places that fans are drinking their soda and line judges are standing. Yeah, I´ve seen him do it on fast indoor courts and I´ve seen Hewitt do it to Sampras at the Open in 2001. Players can change defensive to offensive more often than in the past and much quicker too. All you gotta do is get enough balls back from a big server, preferably at their feet and make them volley up and you have yourself a very good shot at hitting winners. Either way, I´m glad serve and volley is gone because I hated it in the 90´s. I enjoy the chess match and positioning of baseline rallies. Federer vs Safin 2005 and Nadal vs Federer Wimby 2007 were legendary matches. I doubt the matches would have been as interesting if they were basically big bomb aces and serve and volleying all the time. I remember the borefest of Ivanisevic vs Krajicek Wimbledon SF 1998. Even though it ended with Goran winning 16-14 in the 5th set I was ready to sleep it was so one dimensional and boring. Ace, ace, unreturned serve, big serve, easy volley, game. Repeat this pattern for 4 hours. No thanks. I´m happy with today´s era of tennis. I hope it stays like this for many many years to come. :-D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zaragoza

Banned
At the US Open many players came to net, see Feliciano Lopez, Isner, Roddick, Federer, and a whole slew of list. Heck, even Davydenko made his way there at times, and he NEVER goes to net. A faster surface benefits the player who is more agressive.


The players I listed were playing Wimbledon during the 90s. You sir need to go read some history books. The tradition of Wimbledon has been to be the fastest surface of the slams, and IT IS tradition to have an allcourt game to win, as REAL GRASS is tennis played with allcourt games. You have to know how to lob, how to volley, baseline, return, and everything in the book to win on grass.

You name 3 out of 4 guys who base their game on serve. They simply come to the net to hide their deficiencies from the baseline, not because they´re great volleyers. Even on clay they would come to the net.
Federer has never been a serve-volleyer and he will never be remembered as one. Occasionally, he goes to the net, that´s all, and the same could be said about most of the players in the tour. Maybe it breaks the tradition you´re talking about but he didn´t win 5 Wimbledons and 4 US Opens coming to the net.
Sorry but Laver didn´t play in the 90´s and I don´t think the tradition you´re talking about started in the 90´s anyway.
You need to understand the evolution of the game, don´t blame the surface. It wasn´t tradition that players could serve at 150 mph, tell me why you need to volley serving those bombs. So should they play with wood racquets to keep the tradition?
Sure, you need many things to win on the so-called (especially in the last 2 years) "real grass" but Ivanisevic and Krajicek were not exactly players with all-court games who won Wimbledon when it was considered "real grass" by some fans.
Do you know who did win at Queens, which is considered real grass by some fans, 4 times in the last 5 years? Roddick,where is his all-court game? He is not Karlovic or Guccione but...all-court game?
The current grass at Wimbledon is a FAST but FAIR surface and we watched a great final this year on this grass.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
You name 3 out of 4 guys who base their game on serve. They simply come to the net to hide their deficiencies from the baseline, not because they´re great volleyers. Even on clay they would come to the net.
Federer has never been a serve-volleyer and he will never be remembered as one. Occasionally, he goes to the net, that´s all, and the same could be said about most of the players in the tour. Maybe it breaks the tradition you´re talking about but he didn´t win 5 Wimbledons and 4 US Opens coming to the net.
Sorry but Laver didn´t play in the 90´s and I don´t think the tradition you´re talking about started in the 90´s anyway.
You need to understand the evolution of the game, don´t blame the surface. It wasn´t tradition that players could serve at 150 mph, tell me why you need to volley serving those bombs. So should they play with wood racquets to keep the tradition?
Sure, you need many things to win on the so-called (especially in the last 2 years) "real grass" but Ivanisevic and Krajicek were not exactly players with all-court games who won Wimbledon when it was considered "real grass" by some fans.
Do you know who did win at Queens, which is considered real grass by some fans, 4 times in the last 5 years? Roddick,where is his all-court game? He is not Karlovic or Guccione but...all-court game?
The current grass at Wimbledon is a FAST but FAIR surface and we watched a great final this year on this grass.


Grass favors the agressor. Roddick comes to net quite often, despite what most people think. He came to net plenty of times during his span at Queens, even before Conners. I've seen him at net plenty of times even when he was with Gilbert.


Then tell me why Davydenko, Haas, Blake, Hyung Taik Lee, Andy Murray, Myrini, Safin, Robredo, etc. who generally aren't at net were there more at the U.S. Open then at Wimbledon? Explain to me why Karlovic and Myrini, who are considered S&V players didn't come to net at all at Wimbledon, but at the U.S. Open they were all over it?
 

Fedace

Banned
I had a feel of the surface today; you can sure see why the balls are fluffing up. I spose we can only hope that they'll play a bit better once they've had some use.

So are you saying it is playing really slow. this could be great news for Nadal. how does it feel on your feet, does it feel soft and cushioned ? I just hope i isn't hard like a cement court.??
 
Last edited:

Fedace

Banned
Yes they have, twice in Key Biscayne. Nadal owned Federer 6-3, 6-3 in their first match on these slowish hard courts. Nadal was up 2 sets to 0 in their second match... but Fed came back to win in 5.

Problem is Djokovic will take out federer before he gets to the final to play nadal. :-?
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.
You believe those Press Releases??? AELTCC caved to the dirtballers; that's why they changed the subsurface and the grass. Wimby is too slow ... but the clay courters are happy.

- KK
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Brand new courts are always sandy and slow. it plays like the clay courts with consistant bounce. this means trouble for federer, Nadal's serve is so much more effective on slow sandy surface cause it takes spin so well.

I understand that courts get "broken in", but how much faster can they get in a few weeks. The gap between expectations and actual court speed seems to be big in this instance.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
You believe those Press Releases??? AELTCC caved to the dirtballers; that's why they changed the subsurface and the grass. Wimby is too slow ... but the clay courters are happy.

- KK

Then explain to me why the only ¨clay courter¨ Nadal has been the only one to do consistently well on grass? What exactly have the rest done on the ¨slower¨grass? Last I checked no other clay courter has done anything (at least anything equivalent to Nadal) on grass. If the AELTC caved in then they only caved to Nadal because I´m sure the rest are wondering where the ¨slow¨ grass must have gone. I´m sure if there were message boards back in 1980 people would have complained about Borg winning so many Wimbledon´s being primarily a baseline player with a wood racquet. I suppose the grass was slow back then too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

flyer

Hall of Fame
I understand that courts get "broken in", but how much faster can they get in a few weeks. The gap between expectations and actual court speed seems to be big in this instance.

I guess you question of exactly how much will be answered come the start of the AO, until then we can only speculate and see what happen the closer we get
 

tintin

Professional
Blake will take out Federer.

puleeeeeeeeez!:rolleyes:
Blake was 0-10 before in 5 set matches before he beat a 35 yo man in a 5 set matc,playing on his worse surface and on Blake's favorite one.
Has been to just 2 quarterfinals in a slam in what 14 years on the tour at the USO and hasn't made it past I believe the 3th round in Australia
1st round in Paris
3th round in London!

he's what?0-10now against Federer and you think that Blake's going to take Federer now?
Blake's 2nd serve is weak
he's a hit or miss player
really doesn't have plan B when plan A(hit or miss) isn't working.

he won the DC with the help of Roddick and Bob and Mike but before that match against Youzhny had a terrible record in DC ties.A win in DC doesn't mean Blake is going to make the semis anywhere when you look at the Djokovic,Roddick;Nalbandian; and to name a few who are mentally stronger during the grand slams than James.
The guy is turning 28 if he hasn't already this month.Blake is a nice player;seems like a great guy but simply not slam material!
 

Eviscerator

Banned
Sounds good. They make it sound like it is a negative. The only concern is the injuries which isn't good. Australian Open should be the second slowest surface and not be so similar to the US Open.

Well how much slower could you possibly want things to get? Fans new to the game seem to think the US Open is too fast, yet it is slower compared with the way it use to be. The same applies for Wimbledon. Even the traditionally fast indoor carpet tourneys have slowed down the surfaces, so there is nothing left except slow and slower.

I guess if you are a fan of mindless baseline bashing, or a player like Nadal, you are personally happy, but what of the health of tennis overall?
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Then explain to me why the only ¨clay courter¨ Nadal has been the only one to do consistently well on grass? What exactly have the rest done on the ¨slower¨grass?
The dirtballers used to not even ENTER Wimby; they got so tired of being dusted-off in the 1st Round. In the early '80s (I think) they "boycotted" and held a bunch of Press Conferences to let everyone know they were boycotting Wimby. (It's a good thing they had those press briefings; otherwise nobody would have known they were protesting. They were total non-factors at AELTCC prior to then.)

They wanted the money they could earn by getting into the 3rd and 4th Rounds -- which is significant in the Majors. They were not trying to change the courts so much they could last deep into the 2nd week.

Amazingly, AELTCC chose to give them more credence than they deserved. AELTCC changed the subsurface. They watered more ... they opened the balls two weeks early ... they changed the grass.... (We, who appreciate the subtleties of Serve & Volley tennis scoffed that AELTCC turned Wimbledon into a clay court event ... clay courts with some grass on them.)

Rafael Nadal didn't personally have anything to do with those protests. But he surely benefitted from them, didn't he?

I´m sure if there were message boards back in 1980 people would have complained about Borg winning so many Wimbledon´s being primarily a baseline player with a wood racquet. I suppose the grass was slow back then too.
This is nonsense. Borg changed his game during his fantastic run at Wimby. He played a LOT of S&V tennis in winning all those Wimbledons.


Well how much slower could you possibly want things to get? <snip>

I guess if you are a fan of mindless baseline bashing, or a player like Nadal, you are personally happy, but what of the health of tennis overall?
I'm with Eviscerator. I see baseline blasting as "mindless". (And I do get a grin when I read baseliners saying S&V tennis is "mindless".) I guess "one man's pleasure is another man's poison...."

- KK
 

Mike Bulgakov

G.O.A.T.
It appears that the courts are low-bouncing as well as being slow. This will hurt the extreme Western forehands of the clay court players and put the ball in Federer's strike zone. Nadal may not be so pleased after all.

Jones happy to go slow and low on new surface
John-Paul Moloney

Canberra tennis professional Alun Jones doubts the new court surface at Melbourne Park will speed up in time for next month's Australian Open.

Jones, who played at Melbourne last week and on the same surface in Adelaide yesterday, said he'd be happy if it stayed slow and low-bouncing.

"The courts are pretty slow, with nowhere near as much bounce as the Rebound Ace, but that suits me, because I just run all day and make a lot of balls," Jones said.

"When everyone heads back to Melbourne in a couple of weeks it might quicken up a bit, but I'm not sure how much they can quicken up in a couple of weeks.

"For someone like Hewitt, he'll probably like the fact that it's low bouncing, because he plays quite flat. He may want it a touch quicker though."
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/ne...o-go-slow-and-low-on-new-surface/1152891.html
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
The dirtballers used to not even ENTER Wimby; they got so tired of being dusted-off in the 1st Round. In the early '80s (I think) they "boycotted" and held a bunch of Press Conferences to let everyone know they were boycotting Wimby. (It's a good thing they had those press briefings; otherwise nobody would have known they were protesting. They were total non-factors at AELTCC prior to then.)

They wanted the money they could earn by getting into the 3rd and 4th Rounds -- which is significant in the Majors. They were not trying to change the courts so much they could last deep into the 2nd week.

Amazingly, AELTCC chose to give them more credence than they deserved. AELTCC changed the subsurface. They watered more ... they opened the balls two weeks early ... they changed the grass.... (We, who appreciate the subtleties of Serve & Volley tennis scoffed that AELTCC turned Wimbledon into a clay court event ... clay courts with some grass on them.)

Rafael Nadal didn't personally have anything to do with those protests. But he surely benefitted from them, didn't he?

This is nonsense. Borg changed his game during his fantastic run at Wimby. He played a LOT of S&V tennis in winning all those Wimbledons.


I'm with Eviscerator. I see baseline blasting as "mindless". (And I do get a grin when I read baseliners saying S&V tennis is "mindless".) I guess "one man's pleasure is another man's poison...."

- KK

So when Agassi won Wimby in 1992 I suppose the grass was slow then right? Even when Hewitt played Nalby in 2002 I guess it was just slow. Even though the year just prior we had Ivanisevic vs Rafter. Or when Courier made the 1993 final. Heck even Guga made the QF in 1999 with net game that's possibly worse than Roddick's. I remember well about the dirtballers like Muster, Corretja, Costa and Bruguera complaining and boycotting Wimby. But those guys were much more clay court oriented players than Nadal. Nadal, Moya, Lopez and Ferrero are really the only guys to do well outside of the dirt and the rest struggled to do something special outside of the red stuff.

In the last two Wimby finals Nadal has been to net and succeeded more than Fed. Difference being that Nadal doesn't have a big enough serve for the grass and was crucial to Fed's win this year. The main difference at Wimby recently compared to the past is the hardness and consistency of the surface. You get a cleaner bounce and the court is harder than before. You won't get rough or "dead" spots like in the past. The only bad bounces come from worn out spots. Basically making it a hardcourt with soft grass on top. The bounce is still lower due to it being grass and it stilll takes the slice very well. Even players with big serves still have the advantage. Hewitt and Roddick who play their best on faster surfaces did relatively well until they ran into Joker and Gasquet. But in all honesty those guys would have won even at the US Open. Maybe Roddick wouldn't have choked the lead away but they didn't lose because the court was too slow.

As for baseline tennis being boring, some of us happen to appreciate point construction, endurance, the ability to change defense to offense and the chess match that baseline rallying brings to tennis. The mindless bashing of the ball in the 90's with serve and volleying drove me straight to bed. I posted about this on page 4 and I'll say it again. Watching matches that involved Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Philippousis, Becker were the very things I didn't like about tennis. Just do this pattern for 3-4 hours. Ace, ace, unreturnable serve, big serve/weak reply= easy volley and stay this way all day long. No thanks. Those days are long gone and I hope they never come back. The only time S & V'ing was interesting was when it was against a baseliner. Serve and volleying died due to the racquet and string technology of today. Also players evolving. Combine more powerful racquets with polyester or a gut/poly hybrid and you can hit clean winners by the net rusher without fear of overhitting. That is my pleasure and thankfully my poison is no longer prevalent in tennis anymore. Hallelujah!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Morrissey

Guest
I wonder if Nadal's knees will give him any problems on these "sandpaper" courts. Can't wait until January ;)

Probably not, but those high bouncing balls on that slow surface on hot summer days will certainly give many opponents (especially Fed) alot of trouble. I know I can't wait for the Aussie to start next month. :-D
 

superman1

Legend
So when Agassi won Wimby in 1992 I suppose the grass was slow then right? Even when Hewitt played Nalby in 2002 I guess it was just slow. Even though the year just prior we had Ivanisevic vs Rafter. Or when Courier made the 1993 final. Heck even Guga made the QF in 1999 with net game that's possibly worse than Roddick's.

Wimbledon was fast until the grass change in 2002. Agassi is the only example of a pure baseliner consistently doing well at Wimbledon on fast grass against top serve and volleyers, and that's because he is Agassi. Take a look at Kuerten's draw in '99 - he didn't play anyone until the quarters, where he got spanked by none other than Agassi, who then spanked Rafter and then got spanked by none other than Sampras.

I preferred the days when we had a mix of serve and volleyers and baseliners, and they had to duke it out on all of the surfaces.

By the way, it's no coincidence that if you look at all of the great highlights throughout tennis history up until the present, the vast majority of them involve someone at some point going up to net.
 
Last edited:

Grigollif1

Semi-Pro
So when Agassi won Wimby in 1992 I suppose the grass was slow then right? Even when Hewitt played Nalby in 2002 I guess it was just slow. Even though the year just prior we had Ivanisevic vs Rafter. Or when Courier made the 1993 final. Heck even Guga made the QF in 1999 with net game that's possibly worse than Roddick's. I remember well about the dirtballers like Muster, Corretja, Costa and Bruguera complaining and boycotting Wimby. But those guys were much more clay court oriented players than Nadal. Nadal, Moya, Lopez and Ferrero are really the only guys to do well outside of the dirt and the rest struggled to do something special outside of the red stuff.

In the last two Wimby finals Nadal has been to net and succeeded more than Fed. Difference being that Nadal doesn't have a big enough serve for the grass and was crucial to Fed's win this year. The main difference at Wimby recently compared to the past is the hardness and consistency of the surface. You get a cleaner bounce and the court is harder than before. You won't get rough or "dead" spots like in the past. The only bad bounces come from worn out spots. Basically making it a hardcourt with soft grass on top. The bounce is still lower due to it being grass and it stilll takes the slice very well. Even players with big serves still have the advantage. Hewitt and Roddick who play their best on faster surfaces did relatively well until they ran into Joker and Gasquet. But in all honesty those guys would have won even at the US Open. Maybe Roddick wouldn't have choked the lead away but they didn't lose because the court was too slow.

As for baseline tennis being boring, some of us happen to appreciate point construction, endurance, the ability to change defense to offense and the chess match that baseline rallying brings to tennis. The mindless bashing of the ball in the 90's with serve and volleying drove me straight to bed. I posted about this on page 4 and I'll say it again. Watching matches that involved Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Philippousis, Becker were the very things I didn't like about tennis. Just do this pattern for 3-4 hours. Ace, ace, unreturnable serve, big serve/weak reply= easy volley and stay this way all day long. No thanks. Those days are long gone and I hope they never come back. The only time S & V'ing was interesting was when it was against a baseliner. Serve and volleying died due to the racquet and string technology of today. Also players evolving. Combine more powerful racquets with polyester or a gut/poly hybrid and you can hit clean winners by the net rusher without fear of overhitting. That is my pleasure and thankfully my poison is no longer prevalent in tennis anymore. Hallelujah!


I agree with most of your points. The pattern of play, Serve, Weak Reply, Unterunable and such drove me nuts also. But I do have some remarks, I enjoy variety in style of Play and surfaces and I belive that needs to stay evident for the benefit of the game. I dont like Just serve and volley bashing but I also dont like Mindless Topspin baseline Bashing with no creativity envolved, I think a good mix between the two makes a great player to watch. Or One really good at one and the opposite with another.

Another thing that I dont agree with. There were pure serve and volley players that were a great to watch Such as Sampras, Rafter, Becker. The Sampras game over the last years of his career became one dimensional with just a serve and Pick ups but Sampras from 1993-1997 or so Was pure classical Tennis, with a little bite of everything including great BASELINE game. Sampras and Agassi was always a treat to watch. I do agree with you when it came to Players completely dependent on serve and nothing else to show for... I enjoy very much tennis today but, I belive the different in styles and courts needs tp stay apparent as well.
 
Last edited:
Agassi is the only example of a pure baseliner consistently doing well at Wimbledon on fast grass against top serve and volleyers, and that's because he is Agassi.

Come to think of it this is true, I was going to suggest Lendl, but for how very well Lendl did consistently at Wimbledon, he still usually lost to Becker, Edberg, Cash, Connors (who played all court), which is why he never quite won there.
 

johnny ballgame

Professional
By the way, it's no coincidence that if you look at all of the great highlights throughout tennis history up until the present, the vast majority of them involve someone at some point going up to net.

This idea that nobody goes to net anymore is dead wrong. Take a look at some match stats. Fed, Gasquet, Roddick, Haas, Tsonga, etc finish points at net all the time. Even guys like Hewitt, Nadal, Baghdatis are approaching the net ~40 times in many matches.
 
This idea that nobody goes to net anymore is dead wrong. Take a look at some match stats. Fed, Gasquet, Roddick, Haas, Tsonga, etc finish points at net all the time. Even guys like Hewitt, Nadal, Baghdatis are approaching the net ~40 times in many matches.

I am not sure I agree with that. The match stats show ratio of points they come to net relative to the points played for the match is still very low and heavily leaning towards baseline tennis. Getting into double digit points at the net isnt much how many points are in a match. Not that I mind that since I prefer baseline tennis myself anyway.
 

tkauffm

Rookie
Wasn't rebound ace a medium paced surfaced that sat up more so than the USO courts anyway? It sounds as though the courts will play more or less the same. Somebody correct me if i'm wrong
 

grafrules

Banned
I'm hoping it stays slow. Would be a fun Australian Open this year to see Fed and Nadal on an equal surface.

You are looking forward to nothing then. For Nadal to play Federer he would have to reach the final. The Australian Open is played on a hard court, regardless what speed it is. Nadal in the final of grand slam event on hard courts? Dream on.
 

Fedace

Banned
I wonder if Nadal's knees will give him any problems on these "sandpaper" courts. Can't wait until January ;)

You think the courts feel like sandpaper ? this court surface from what i know isn't that slow but this one maybe different since it is so new. If it is like sandpaper, it will be super slow like the wimbledon grass courts without the bad bounce. This is really bad news for federer, since this would suit Nadal to perfect tee. Nadal will really be able to hurt federer with his slice serves and topspin forehands.:)
 
Top