grass better than clay


New User
Alright clay court lovers: you talk and talk about how great watching clay court tennis is and how it is the truest game. In one sense, this may be true. However, grass is, in a way, even more entertaining. Think about serve and volley tennis. If ever there were a tennis analogy, this is the classic duel. One man taking his best shot, casting his lot on the point, and the other fires back with the best he can muster. Two guys going for the best shots they can right off the bat. Granted, not of enough players today are playing s&v, which is maybe why watching grass can suck sometimes, but the serve and volley game is much more interesting to me than watching two sweaty men run around their backhands to hit inside out forehands fifteen times in a row.
well grass is super entertaining IF THERE WAS ANY SIGNIFICANT SERVE AND VOLLEYERS LEFT. You gotta have grass and serving and volleying together for it to be entertaining. But I think the new breed of players, you will see more the hewitt-nalbandian deal in the future, which really in the latter half of wimbledon they're kind of like dirtballing there too with the grass half worn off and you see the dirt underneath. I love wimbledon too but without lots of serve and volleyers its missing its main ingredient for entertainment.


I think we should have variety of surfaces.
We now have good variety unlike up until 1960s which
had grasses and muds.
Now we have concret, clay, indoor carpet and grass.
I think we need more of grass court tourneies.
I personally have played on hard courts, clay courts
and indoor carpet on wooden floor.
They all have unique fun to play with !
Grass courts are kinda disappearing but I hope
Wimbledon keep grass courts forever !

Kevin T

Hall of Fame
I'm with you guys. I much prefer hard and grass courts to clay. To reiterate my argument in other threads, clay court tennis is tough and I enjoy watching it. But I'm tired of hearing this, "clay courters are court magicians, masters of spin and's a war of attrition....all about mental toughness and endurance...." blah, blah, blah. The proof is in the Grand Slam pudding. For the most part, French Open winners in the last 30 years are one trick ponies. When you look at the last 30 US Open Champs, only Orantes in "75 (maybe '74) and Safin haven't won at least one of the other slams (Roddick is too young to include, likely as is Safin). Of the last 30 Wimby Champs, only Goran, Krajicek, Stich and Cash didn't win one of the other slams. Cash and Kraj were famously hobbled by injuries, Stich made it to a French and US Open final and Goran is without a doubt one of the biggest underachievers of all-time (God love him, I sure do!!). How about the French? Sure, Agassi completed his Grand Slam. Lendl, Wilander, Borg and Courier fared well. How about the other champs of the past 30 years? Could they collect any other Slam titles? Ferrero is too young to include. Costa?...not a chance. Kuerten?....probably on the downside of a fine career. Muster? dice. Bruguera?... :lol:
Gomez? Double :lol: Chang?...fat chance. Noah?...his only miracle. Moya and Kafelnikov won their second slam in the land of the misfit Slam (sorry Aussies but it's true-ie., Korda, Johannson). Can you tell I'm not a clay court fan? 8)


Hall of Fame
Moya has only won RG, kevin, no other slams. He made that Aussie final, so add him to your list too.


It wasn't too long ago that the tennis cognoscenti were complaining about how boring grass court tennis was with the quick points. Ace. Service winner. Serve, return, easy knock-off volley for server. Ace.

I understand the All England Club has slowed down their lawns by going to a different strain of grass. That and the dearth of S&V'ers has led to what we see today. Improvement? Depends on whom you ask. Certainly the points are a little longer which was the goal the All England Club had.


Hall of Fame
There are fast court only ponies and clay court only ponies.

Without collecting the statistics it seems those who win any of Wimby, US, and Aus are far more likely to win another distinct slam from those three rather than win the FO.

Likewise, those who win the FO often really struggle to win any of the other three.

So that's why I see the playing surfaces as fast courts and clay courts and some players as fast court only ponies and others as clay court only ponies.

It takes a very special, no an exceptional, player to win more than one FO and any multiple number from Wimby, US, and Aus.

Bjorn Borg was 5 and 6 or was that 6 and 5. Anyway Borg was a world beater going from one extreme to the other. Plus he lost a few US Open finals so he was no mug on hard courts either. Truly exceptional.


Hall of Fame
French Open winners often do well at the Aussie, and vice versa. These two slams seem to be connected at the hip.

Brian Purdie

Does anyone know when grass was phased outfrom being the predominant surface to the nil that presently exists? late, middle, or early 70's.

Grass is a tricky surface. It is definately the most fun to play on b/c you have to have talent to play. You can't really disguise any part of your game. We've seen good baseliners and good S&V prevail on the surface. It's not as expensive to build, but a pain to maintain. With the number of public courts that had to be built in the 70's, economically, they needed to built asphalt to meet the demands.

That being said, grass should have faded from the scene, but did it really deserve to be put at 4 weeks? (I don't count New port b/c no one really plays there in the top 10. Expand to 6 wks and we may be happier.


New User
Brian Purdie said:
Grass is a tricky surface. It is definately the most fun to play on b/c you have to have talent to play. You can't really disguise any part of your game. We've seen good baseliners and good S&V prevail on the surface. It's not as expensive to build, but a pain to maintain. With the number of public courts that had to be built in the 70's, economically, they needed to built asphalt to meet the demands.
You cant really desguise any part of your game?

Ask Arthurs, Ivanisevic or Rusedski if the grass doesnt help them to desguise their poor groundstrokes and volleys.

Or Curren, remember him?
I liked rafter and edberg, I like escude and henman, but, if serve and volleys means matches with 70 aces then I am not sad it is going downhill.

I think people overrate the ammount of serve and volley you get to see on grass, now most serve and volleyers who "have big serves" only serve and volley with their first serves, and when the first serve of players like ivanisevic, falls inside the service box, the 80% of the times, the ball wont return, and the majority of times, when it returns, it returns as a very weak reply, a floater.

So you are stuck with minimal serve and volley on the first serve and baseline game on the second serves.

That is why on grass when you have 2 big servers, even if one rushes to the net after his first serve, and the other one plays from the baseline, there is no real contrast of style.

If you have 2 clay courters with great drop shots on clay you may even get to see flashier more exciting net points than on grass.

If tennis had been invented yesterday, with modern athletes and modern racquets , playing on grass would be considered a stupid idea.

Brian Purdie

Okay, I phrased that wrong. Let me dig myself out of this one. You can't disguise yourself as a strong player. You actually have to be a strong player. You have to be able to dominate the other player and have a style that works, be it groundstroke or S&V.


IMO, hard courts should be banned from the Slams. The US and Aussie Opens should go to either clay or grass. I much prefer a natural surface to hard courts. I find it a more difficult game on either surface for completly different reasons.

With clay, you are forced to think and play percentage tennis. Neither of which I am very good at (ok, it's funny when I say it, no help please). On grass, technique is everything. You have to focus on the ball and get to the net.

Brian Purdie

I think the current slams on hard courts are good. They're a nice balance between clay and grass. Besides, I used to rag on how boring the hard courts were before I ever played on clay and grass. I've spent a good number of times on both since, and I can say that most people don't recognize a good thing when they see it. Hard courts are ideal. They represent a true bounce, not skidding off the lines or off a bump. They reward a persons precision and stroke, as well as most any all court, back court or S&V game.


Hall of Fame
It is too bad that they don't have a fifth major on Har-Tru. I think clay is the greatest surface out there. It is easy on the body and tuff on the wimps. Clay is no place for people who dislike earning their points.