L
Laurie
Guest
On the thread I started about the Greatest Hardcourt Players, I saw an interesting comment about "easy grass". Of course we all know tennis forums and forums in general are surreal places to be, and this comment is a great example of that 
So, it will be interesting to see what people think. This is all speculation and none of us are professional tennis players, I personally have played on grass over the years. So which grass would you say is more challenging and more true and a closer reflection of players' abilities?
Faster Grass:
With the exception of Bjorn Borg, more or less the domain of the hardcourt player between 1978 and 2007. During this period, a few factors determined Wimbledon champions:
Hand eye coordination - due to quicker conditions, ability to improvise due to awkward bounces, sharp movements and ability to change direction quickly.
Return of serve
This has been underestimated by tennis fans the world over during this period. Commentators and pundits have always identified the return of serve as what made the champions. Sampras has said it is the return of serve that won Wimbledon, not the serve. Against his fellow attacking players in latter stages, Sampras was able to return serve better, move better and hit passing shots better off both wings. The 2000 final against Rafter is a good example, Rafter was fighting hard to make it a scrap, to get to tiebreaks and take his chances, meanwhile Sampras was creating opportunity after opportunity with break points, but was only able to take control in the 3rd set after converting his 10th break point. Borg was before my time but I would assume that Borg was able to defeat those guys at Wimbledon because of his quick movement and return of serve. Agassi was able to win Wimbledon in 1992 by getting enough returns in against Ivanesivic to take the title.
The Big serve. This is somewhat overated. Probably Krajicek had the biggest serve out of all the winners during this period. But Krajicek won because he was a player who had good variety and talent. No doubt if Krajicek played today, I imagine him playing like either a Del Potro or perhaps a Raonic. Although Krajicek probably is faster than Raonic. But guys like Greg Rusedski, Alexander Popp, Marc Rosset, Magnus Larrson made no impression on Wimbledon, why? Because the rest of their game was not up to scratch.
Grass to Hardcourt – The winners since 1981 to 2007 – McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer were / are all great hardcourt players. Stich and Krajicek were both considered talented players. Ivanesivic can be described as a one off.
Slower Grass:
This discussion intensified sharply in July 2008, the night Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, you may recall forums around the world went into meltdown as fans cried foul that conditions were too slow allowing a clay court specialist to win Wimbledon:
Return of Serve:
Guys are serving just as fast today as in the late 1980s to mid 2000s. But the returner has split seconds longer to return serve. But not only that, the balls are actually heavier now, so the ball doesn’t come through quite as quickly. I understand the cut of the grass is slightly higher as well, so the ball won’t skid as much. But that is more a moot point, the cut has been higher since 1995, the ball has been bouncing higher on grass since the mid 1990s when the authorities started making changes to slow the game down.
Improvisation?
Perhaps to win Wimbledon today, hand eye coordination is no longer one of the key factors. As I said, returners have split seconds longer to make the ball. Also, because the game is played more from the back more often, players are not getting the opportunity to show improvisational skills around the net. Tsonga came close last year so will see if he has confidence this year.
Movement
Still vital to win Wimbledon. But with slower conditions, probably slightly more difficult to put the ball away. Also with string technology and with the guys playing with more topspin, there is a safety zone there and guys are not programmed to go for the lines and take risks as in previous years. On the womens side, Henin, Serena and Clijsters were the remaining players to play with full natural gut in their racquets, I assume on the mens side no one plays with natural gut exclusively. Therefore, the game on grass mirrors more or less the game on clay. Ironically, at the French they are using much lighter balls than in previous decades to speed the game up, and on grass heavier balls to slow the game down – as you can see there is a convergence.
Special mention to Petra Kvitova. She won the tournament due to taking risks, going for big returns and going for lines and coming to net. Maybe she has shown that state of mind and how you are trained and the belief you have in your game makes a difference regardless of conditions.
Back to the mens side, going forward, the physical players, grinders whatever you want to call them, are the ones who will win Wimbledon. The shotmakers like Federer and Tsonga are still there but the odds favour the out and out baseliners at present.
So what say you? Considering it reflects who the top dogs are in the world of tennis, do you prefer grass to be faster or slower?
So, it will be interesting to see what people think. This is all speculation and none of us are professional tennis players, I personally have played on grass over the years. So which grass would you say is more challenging and more true and a closer reflection of players' abilities?
Faster Grass:
With the exception of Bjorn Borg, more or less the domain of the hardcourt player between 1978 and 2007. During this period, a few factors determined Wimbledon champions:
Hand eye coordination - due to quicker conditions, ability to improvise due to awkward bounces, sharp movements and ability to change direction quickly.
Return of serve
This has been underestimated by tennis fans the world over during this period. Commentators and pundits have always identified the return of serve as what made the champions. Sampras has said it is the return of serve that won Wimbledon, not the serve. Against his fellow attacking players in latter stages, Sampras was able to return serve better, move better and hit passing shots better off both wings. The 2000 final against Rafter is a good example, Rafter was fighting hard to make it a scrap, to get to tiebreaks and take his chances, meanwhile Sampras was creating opportunity after opportunity with break points, but was only able to take control in the 3rd set after converting his 10th break point. Borg was before my time but I would assume that Borg was able to defeat those guys at Wimbledon because of his quick movement and return of serve. Agassi was able to win Wimbledon in 1992 by getting enough returns in against Ivanesivic to take the title.
The Big serve. This is somewhat overated. Probably Krajicek had the biggest serve out of all the winners during this period. But Krajicek won because he was a player who had good variety and talent. No doubt if Krajicek played today, I imagine him playing like either a Del Potro or perhaps a Raonic. Although Krajicek probably is faster than Raonic. But guys like Greg Rusedski, Alexander Popp, Marc Rosset, Magnus Larrson made no impression on Wimbledon, why? Because the rest of their game was not up to scratch.
Grass to Hardcourt – The winners since 1981 to 2007 – McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer were / are all great hardcourt players. Stich and Krajicek were both considered talented players. Ivanesivic can be described as a one off.
Slower Grass:
This discussion intensified sharply in July 2008, the night Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, you may recall forums around the world went into meltdown as fans cried foul that conditions were too slow allowing a clay court specialist to win Wimbledon:
Return of Serve:
Guys are serving just as fast today as in the late 1980s to mid 2000s. But the returner has split seconds longer to return serve. But not only that, the balls are actually heavier now, so the ball doesn’t come through quite as quickly. I understand the cut of the grass is slightly higher as well, so the ball won’t skid as much. But that is more a moot point, the cut has been higher since 1995, the ball has been bouncing higher on grass since the mid 1990s when the authorities started making changes to slow the game down.
Improvisation?
Perhaps to win Wimbledon today, hand eye coordination is no longer one of the key factors. As I said, returners have split seconds longer to make the ball. Also, because the game is played more from the back more often, players are not getting the opportunity to show improvisational skills around the net. Tsonga came close last year so will see if he has confidence this year.
Movement
Still vital to win Wimbledon. But with slower conditions, probably slightly more difficult to put the ball away. Also with string technology and with the guys playing with more topspin, there is a safety zone there and guys are not programmed to go for the lines and take risks as in previous years. On the womens side, Henin, Serena and Clijsters were the remaining players to play with full natural gut in their racquets, I assume on the mens side no one plays with natural gut exclusively. Therefore, the game on grass mirrors more or less the game on clay. Ironically, at the French they are using much lighter balls than in previous decades to speed the game up, and on grass heavier balls to slow the game down – as you can see there is a convergence.
Special mention to Petra Kvitova. She won the tournament due to taking risks, going for big returns and going for lines and coming to net. Maybe she has shown that state of mind and how you are trained and the belief you have in your game makes a difference regardless of conditions.
Back to the mens side, going forward, the physical players, grinders whatever you want to call them, are the ones who will win Wimbledon. The shotmakers like Federer and Tsonga are still there but the odds favour the out and out baseliners at present.
So what say you? Considering it reflects who the top dogs are in the world of tennis, do you prefer grass to be faster or slower?
