junior74
Bionic Poster
It's not matching the advantage of a slower surface for those who build their game on defence.
3 points more is enough to win a match, but not always.
Grass and clay are now more similar?
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
It's not matching the advantage of a slower surface for those who build their game on defence.
3 points more is enough to win a match, but not always.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
I didn’t claim that it was. It’s also not just the slower surface, but what modern racquets and poly let you do with a return you get your racquet on, even at full stretch with a very truncated swing
junior74
Bionic Poster
Absolutely. Even at club level, the difference in returning with poly strings and a 100 square inch racquet is huge. But equipment has also made the serve more precise.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Everyone has his own view. The difference between me and most people is that I back up my opinion with stats.
This thread has some more extensive data
The tinypic links don't work, so here is a link via imgur
https://imgur.com/poxrBq9
https://imgur.com/u52yok4
https://imgur.com/7TGwuQq
It may be in a a bit of a mixed order, but it should be understandable.
I have stopped updating it because I think nothing much is changing. The methodology is simple so anyone can update it who wishes.
The bottom line: looking at the statistics for all rally lengths, not just stats on aces, there has been a clear convergence of all slam venues since the late 70s/early 80s. The convergence is particularly marked since around 2000/2001. The number of 10+ stroke rallies at the FO has dropped significantly, while the number of 1-3 stroke rallies (ie aces or short rallies) has also reduced at Wimbledon. So overall they are much more similar in how they are actually played than in the late 70s/early 80s.
The tinypic links don't work, so here is a link via imgur
https://imgur.com/poxrBq9
https://imgur.com/u52yok4
https://imgur.com/7TGwuQq
It may be in a a bit of a mixed order, but it should be understandable.
I have stopped updating it because I think nothing much is changing. The methodology is simple so anyone can update it who wishes.
The bottom line: looking at the statistics for all rally lengths, not just stats on aces, there has been a clear convergence of all slam venues since the late 70s/early 80s. The convergence is particularly marked since around 2000/2001. The number of 10+ stroke rallies at the FO has dropped significantly, while the number of 1-3 stroke rallies (ie aces or short rallies) has also reduced at Wimbledon. So overall they are much more similar in how they are actually played than in the late 70s/early 80s.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Why so much difference in the ace rate then?
The length of rallies is interesting, but the movement/endurance skills of players affect it a lot (players today are obviously fitter) Returning a fast serve has a lot more to do with the surface instead. You have time to run to a 80 mph shot (forehand/backhand), not to a 130 mph shot (serve).
Why the difference in ace rate? I don't know. I do know there is a lot of evidence that service games across all surfaces have become easier to win in recent years. If you search for serve statistics by poster NonP you will see a lot of discussion about that. Remember that aces are a small fraction of what happens in a match. Let us say there are 5-6 aces per set, 10 games per set, average 6 points per game, average 4 strokes per point. That means there are roughly 240 strokes per set, of which 5 or 6 are aces. That is only 2-2.5% of all the strokes in a set. It is a small subset of all the strokes played.
I would say that the length of rallies is what defines how tennis is actually being played. As others have said, you need to look at all the stats to see how tennis is being played.
One reason for the difference in aces between clay and grass changing might be the move from one-handed to two-handed backhands. The two-hander has more limited reach. An ace is quite specific - a serve where the returner does not touch the serve. So maybes the ace stats are just showing that the serving benefits of modern rackets on grass, rather than clay, is enough when combined with two-handed backhands, to just move a particularly good serve out of reach.
With regard to 80 mph ground strokes vs 130 mph serves remember that a serve is into only half the court. A ground stroke may be slower, but an angle can open up a lot more than half a court.
The point is the lists of Wimbledon and RG champions are quite different, indicating there's still a wide gap between the two surfaces.
I don't agree about Borg. He played a baseline game at both. Borg looked awfully awkward at the net. Nadal certainly looks more adept at the net!
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
And the Earth is flat.
People say that when they don't have anything worthwhile to say! Adieu!
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
People Borg won Wimbledon by baseline play when they don't know what they're talking about.
D
Deleted member 765728
Guest
There are tones of videos on youtube of Borg playing at Wimbledon. You just need to watch one of them and realize that the guy employed the S&V tactics quite often, even though he was a natural baseliner.
It is hard to fathom how can one not see it this way.
It is hard to fathom how can one not see it this way.
Last edited by a moderator:
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
jmacyoucannotbeserious.gif
People who think Borg won Wimbledon by serve and volley don't trust their own eyes.
The serve and volleyers were going to die out no matter what Wimbledon and the other slams were doing to their surfaces!
Ken Rosewall was way ahead of his time. Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg were the vanguard of the baseliners. Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic are the rearguard, and just stuck the death knell of S&V!
The serve and volleyers were going to die out no matter what Wimbledon and the other slams were doing to their surfaces!
Ken Rosewall was way ahead of his time. Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg were the vanguard of the baseliners. Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic are the rearguard, and just stuck the death knell of S&V!
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Now that the virus will get everything cancelled the two surfaces are more similar than ever.
Similar threads
- Poll
