Courier Blog: Wimbledon's Changing Courts.
- Thread starter Al Czervik
- Start date
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
I actually just played on grass last week at Forest hills. I have to say that what they play on at Wimbledon is nothing like the grass at Forest Hills. If someone defensively lobs a ball up into your service box, you cannot hit an overhand, the ball simply does not bounce.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Sort of sad to hear. It would be nice to see some surface polarization today (ie grass fast and clay slow).
When you hear players say it's easier to hit winners at RG, then something has to be out of whack.
Bud
Bionic Poster
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
Lol!
You hit the nail on the head
Bottom line is the conditions (i.e. grass and balls) are the same today as they were nearly 10 years ago when they changed the grass and the sub-base.
What is an overhand?
Are you saying the balls on FH grass don't bounce at all from a lob?
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
People were complaining about it ever since 2002 when two baseliners faced off in the final for the 1st time ever.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Lol!
You hit the nail on the head
What is an overhand?
Are you saying the balls on FH grass don't bounce at all from a lob?
Yeah, thats what I am saying. Sorry I couldn't articulate earlier. The bounces were so erratic that the people you saw winning matches were the players attacking the net and taking the ball out of the air.
I'm not trying start a grass-**** war, I was really interested in playing on grass for the first time, and I must say, it was ridiculously difficult. Sometimes the ball would bounce, other times it would seemingly just start rolling haha. Average height of a groundstroke bounce was knee-thigh high.
Everyone at the facility was talking about how this is not the grass on TV
zasr4325
Professional
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
If almost every player is saying the surface feels slower, what is there to argue? It has nothing to do with Nadal winning the event - in fact I'm fairly sure many were questioning the speed of the courts back when two heavy baseliners contested the final (Lleyton and Nalbandian) in 2002. Its not like Nadal is the only baseliner to win the event; the slowing of the grass also benefited Federer to a degree, as he primarily wins his points from the baseline.
big ted
Legend
thats true, when i played on it, youre better off if you can hit the ball in the air before it bounces. when lendl played he methodically s/v'd on literally every single serve out of what he thought was necessity. on the other hand, baseliners have done well in the past before the change, i.e. - courier and agassi
zasr4325
Professional
Thats exactly the same as the grass we have at a club I play at here in the UK. There isn't any point at all in staying back as you literally can't win from the baseline. More often than not its a crappy bounce (the courts get pretty torn up), but also the ball skids off the surface so fast that you hardly get any time to prepare. Another major problem is the balls; obviously we aren't going to change balls during matches, so they end up getting very heavy and fluffed up, making it nigh on impossible to hit through the court. Its actually quite funny when we play on the grass, as the club has croquet lawns there as well. These are mowed and rolled to perfection, whereas the grass courts are bumpy and worn down only a few days into grass season.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
Yep Nadal is so good that everyone is scared to serve-and-volley against him. And Wimbledon is as fast as ever.
/********* mode
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
yeah....edit.. ha
Last edited:
jrachiever
Rookie
I think the surface is unquestionably better than in the 90s. It still rewards the guys who can play a classic grass court style (see relative success of Bjorkman, Mirnyi and a few others in the last 10 years), it's just no longer an imperative.
ksbh
Banned
Now don't get me wrong ... am I advocating a return to the old fast grass? Hell no! If the current grass is responsible for matches like the 2008 final, may the current grass be a permanent thing!
All I'm saying is that it's no longer the Wimbledon of old. To me, that's a good thing because for 3 straight years, we had the final going 5 sets!
All I'm saying is that it's no longer the Wimbledon of old. To me, that's a good thing because for 3 straight years, we had the final going 5 sets!
how so? you have the cause and effect mixed up.
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
Really?
There was an interview with some chief executive on BBC News who said they'd been altering conditions over the past few years to try to get a more consistent bounce.
EDIT: It's at the end of this, I think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/13876012.stm Starts at 1:35
Last edited:
ViscaB
Hall of Fame
Or not. Federer plays from the baseline on any surface...
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
They can't admit to that even though it is a fact and voted on by the same TW posters who did not understand the implications of making such a vote, ie the Federer is throwing games on purpose vote.
If they admit to the fact that in 2001 Wim was changed, then it invalidates their BS argument about Nadal since Federer won on the same surface that was just as slow.
ksbh
Banned
Exactly! Federer is simply a baseliner who benefited immensely from the slow grass.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
You act like Federer would have lost even if the grass had been lightning quick. Does that mean that no other Wimbledon champion of the past would have been able to win today?
ksbh
Banned
According to the Federer fans, that is correct ... no Wimbledon champion from the past can survive on the current grass.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
What I find amusing about the people complaining about the grass these days is that a lot of people used to complain in the 1990s about the dominance of the serve on grass and how there were hardly any rallies. Pundits like John Lloyd were even advocating the abolition of the grass surface at Wimbledon so that there would be rallies for people to see. These days, we have a lot of rallies at Wimbledon and yet some people just continue to moan.
Last edited:
ninman
Hall of Fame
The people whining about it back then were people who just watch wimbledon and no other tournament, not proper tennis fans who watch tennis all year round.
The people whining about it now are proper tennis fans who watch tennis all year round, and the reason they are complaining is because they see the exact same tennis at every tournament on every surface, i.e. baseline rallying.
There's just no variety left in the game anymore.
did he play from the baseline in 2001 when he beat sampras?
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
I posted this earlier, but removed it because i thought this thread was dying.
Not trying to start a grass-**** war.
I have a few clips from my first match ever on grass at Forest Hills this week. Most people expressed feelings that this grass at Forest Hills is nothing like you see on TV/at Wimbledon, where the grass seems to play more like a hardcourt. I lost 1-6 4-6, The club didn't even give players a chance to warm up on the grass beforehand. Just 5 minute warmup and play. That being said, I am not terribly upset with the result, I had chances in the 2nd, just couldn't capitalize, and my opponent said he has played a few grass court matches, so he had the slight upper hand in experience, and ranking. It took me the entire first set just to adjust to the conditions/bounces, the movement was ridiculously tricky and I fell a few times. It also took a handful of games just to figure out what works and what doesn't. The slice was king, the grass did skid often on hard shots. Baseline play, rarely worked, however I'm not Roger Federer or Rafa Nadal, neither were my opponents ( )
I drew a 5.0 player, I am 4.5. I am player with 2hand bh. I am posting this to attempt to illustrate the differences in the grass. Try to notice some of the bounces if possible, none were consistent, ever. IT was cool to use the white grass court balls, which eventually were green by the end of the match. Keep the hate to yourself, if possible.
Sorry for the bad quality/lack of zoom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFSWhvIKALU
Not trying to start a grass-**** war.
I have a few clips from my first match ever on grass at Forest Hills this week. Most people expressed feelings that this grass at Forest Hills is nothing like you see on TV/at Wimbledon, where the grass seems to play more like a hardcourt. I lost 1-6 4-6, The club didn't even give players a chance to warm up on the grass beforehand. Just 5 minute warmup and play. That being said, I am not terribly upset with the result, I had chances in the 2nd, just couldn't capitalize, and my opponent said he has played a few grass court matches, so he had the slight upper hand in experience, and ranking. It took me the entire first set just to adjust to the conditions/bounces, the movement was ridiculously tricky and I fell a few times. It also took a handful of games just to figure out what works and what doesn't. The slice was king, the grass did skid often on hard shots. Baseline play, rarely worked, however I'm not Roger Federer or Rafa Nadal, neither were my opponents (
)I drew a 5.0 player, I am 4.5. I am player with 2hand bh. I am posting this to attempt to illustrate the differences in the grass. Try to notice some of the bounces if possible, none were consistent, ever. IT was cool to use the white grass court balls, which eventually were green by the end of the match. Keep the hate to yourself, if possible.
Sorry for the bad quality/lack of zoom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFSWhvIKALU
Last edited:
The fact that defensive counter puncher players are able to go deep / win Wimbledon really shows that there is no safe place left anymore for guys who play offensive tennis except the USO. And no, please don't say this is about Nadal, because it's not.
Actually, the only reason why they changed the grass is because of people who complained about Goran/Sampras matches, which would have been boring no matter the surface they played on. They didn't want to see 1 shot tennis anymore, except Wimbledon was the only tournament in the world that really had 1 shot tennis in the first place.
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
People have been complaining about Wimbledon since 2002. So no, your theory is wrong. The funniest thing is biased Nadal fans from 2006 and on were saying that they knew just as much about the grass as the players who played on it.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Agassi? He won Wimbledon in 1992.
The point is that serve and volley hardly exists anymore, and it's not just about the surface. Players are now much better returners across the board and the poly strings on the racquets enable players to have more control over the ball in the rallies.
The 1994 Wimbledon final was a serving contest in the first 2 sets and then a bagel in the third set as Goran capitulated after losing the 2 tiebreaks. Their other Wimbledon matches in 1992, 1995 and 1998 were a lot more entertaining.
And some people now complain about the fact that the Wimbledon style of the 1990s has gone, like the people 20 years ago who thought that there was "too much power in the game", which is now powderpuff stuff compared to today's tennis. They need to understand that tennis changes and evolves like everything else in life. It does not stand still.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Ivo Karlovic would have exactly 0 Wimbledon titles on any kind of grass, the guy is a terrible athlete(for pro standards)and his ROS is one of the worst on tour, how the heck is he gonna break anyone on old grass?
mltaylor
Rookie
Lendl would have loved having this surface when he played.
Mac may not have beaten Borg in 1981.
Probably no Edberg/Becker for 3 years in a row.
Sampras may not have lost in 2002 on court 2.
Sampras may not have 7 WB's.
On and on.
I thought seeing Hewitt vs. Nalby was a strange final when it happened in 02 or 03.
Still think Agassi being able to win Wimbledon in 1992 was an immaculate achievement with his game against the S/V's of the day. I suppose he may not have played many strong grass court players (I don't remember who he played) leading up to the final against Goran.
Speaking of Goran, I wonder if he would've made any Wimbledon finals.
Mac may not have beaten Borg in 1981.
Probably no Edberg/Becker for 3 years in a row.
Sampras may not have lost in 2002 on court 2.
Sampras may not have 7 WB's.
On and on.
I thought seeing Hewitt vs. Nalby was a strange final when it happened in 02 or 03.
Still think Agassi being able to win Wimbledon in 1992 was an immaculate achievement with his game against the S/V's of the day. I suppose he may not have played many strong grass court players (I don't remember who he played) leading up to the final against Goran.
Speaking of Goran, I wonder if he would've made any Wimbledon finals.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Agassi's 1992 Wimbledon run:
R128: Andre Agassi def. Andrei Chesnokov (5-7, 6-1, 7-5, 7-5)
R64: Andre Agassi def. Eduardo Masso (4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Andre Agassi def. Derrick Rostagno (6-3, 7-6, 7-5)
R16: Andre Agassi def. Christian Saceanu (7-6, 6-1, 7-6)
QF: Andre Agassi def. Boris Becker (4-6, 6-2, 6-2, 4-6, 6-3)
SF: Andre Agassi def. John McEnroe (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
F: Andre Agassi def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4)
Of course he would have.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
No strong grass courters at all. Just Becker and McEnroe leading up to Goran.
egn
Hall of Fame
It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
Wrong.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/129589/Tim-court-in-slow-lane.html?print=yes
It's not always about Nadal.
More proof that it started well before 2008 and was mostly due to Tim Henman starting to bring it to light
http://www.sporttaco.com/rec.sport....on_is_a_slower_surface_than_US_Open_3907.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2405794/Henman-bemoans-the-new-go-slower-court.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...why-the-home-hero-needs-help-fast-540778.html
So now please stop.
Correct. And his backhand is appalling. Even club players have a better BH.
Rosco Tanner was a pretty similar player to Karlovic, got to the final and lost in 5. Karlovic is still pretty tough indoors. You're underestimating how important a big serve is on a very fast surface.
These are the only two good victories, and it took Agassi 5 sets to put away a guy who he favorably matches up well against (because Becker played so stubbornly against Agassi), and a guy who is an even bigger mental midget in finals than Agassi was in the early 90s.
And Agassi is the farthest thing from a defensive baseliner / counterpuncher.
S&V tennis died because players have an extra half second to respond. You take that half a second away by speeding up the surface and I guarantee you that net play becomes more prominent across the tour.
No one is saying we should go back to the S&V days of the 1990s. What we do want to see is more variety in the game, and there is absolutely none right now because everyone is making a concerted effort to homogenize the game across the board, thus why we have guys like Federer and Nadal dominating for years on end, because they are the best baseliners in the game.
I think it is bad for the game to move towards one speed, because you eliminate the unique aspect of tennis from other sports. That is that tennis players have to learn to give and take when they develop as players. Before, you had to focus on HCs, or grass, clay, etc.
Now tennis players these days can have their cake and eat it too, and alot of that has to do with the fact that alot of people were clamoring about dumb stuff back in the 90s about how there was too much power in the game.
Last edited:
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
That's called a **** poor grass court then. Tell them to cut the grass lower. It's not supposed to be a front lawn, it should be much more like a golf putting green.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Also, anyone who thinks the grass doesn't "play fast" is still kinda stupid. Just watch the matches. Look how low the ball bounces, and how quickly the points play out. You have no time to get to the ball (comparatively speaking) and that's why movement and athleticism is so important on grass. What's changed is the racquets, the strings, the players overall athleticism, and the fact that the grass courts are better (more durable, truer bounce).
You want old style Wimbledon? Then you need to get serve and volleyers with no poly, grass courts with bad bounces that wear out much faster etc.
Until then, which will be never I might add, just shutup and enjoy the best tennis tournament in the world.
Also, can someone please ask Courier how watered and cut rye grass is changing over the years? :lol:
You want old style Wimbledon? Then you need to get serve and volleyers with no poly, grass courts with bad bounces that wear out much faster etc.
Until then, which will be never I might add, just shutup and enjoy the best tennis tournament in the world.
Also, can someone please ask Courier how watered and cut rye grass is changing over the years? :lol:
Same guy who was complaining about shoes squeaking on clay and about Babolat Tennis balls, clay speeding up, altitude at Madrid, etc.
The grass only plays fast when it comes to the serve; it is no coincidence that the two best defenders in the game have dominated at Wimbledon for the past couple of years. Guys like Gilbert, Courier, etc. have all stated it, as have the players. You and other Nadal fans just refuse to admit it for whatever reason since you think it devalues Nadal's wins at Wimbledon (which it does not, he still had to win 7 matches versus tough opponents to win).
Last edited:
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
The grass is not **** poor at Forest Hills. I don't know if you have ever been to, or seen the facility tis where they held the US Open. Just about nothing there is **** poor, in fact, it the exact opposite, it's ridiculously nice, and well taken care of. It was cut like a putting green. They just don't compact the grass as hard as they do at Wimbledon, the grass is great....it just requires you to leave your clay court game 100 yards away at the red clay courts.
Tell me what other facility has better grass courts in the US? Newport? Maybe, other than that, you'd be hardpressed to come up with something better.
Tell me what other facility has better grass courts in the US? Newport? Maybe, other than that, you'd be hardpressed to come up with something better.
egn
Hall of Fame
I kind of like that TennisandMusic called Forest Hills **** poor...that's funny stuff. Agreed on most good grass courts you can not wait to the defensive lob bounces to hit the overhead.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
This is not the case. They haven't made any specific changes since 2001 but the courts have still changed regardless.It has been the same since 2001, but apparently it wasn't a problem then, it only became a problem recently, like around 2008
The head groundsman himself said the courts have changed in recent years because of the drying and compacting of the surface - which has led to a significantly higher bounce. Drier years (including the months before the tournament) means harder ground = higher bounce. Wetter years means slightly softer ground = lower bounce.
*note, this is not about speed, just the bounce height.
- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html
Djokovic also commented here: When he first played at Wimbledon, Djokovic said, it was “the fastest surface in the world.” Now, he said, “in my opinion, it got slower.” - so, according to Djokovic Wimbledon got slower between 2005 and 2010.
Last edited:
