Grass has greater strength in depth of competition than clay

T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
 
TMF said:
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
Click to expand...

Thank You! And nadal on 90s wimbledon grass (with smaller tennis balls) against sampras would get blown off the court in straight sets.
 
Surely Cilic- Kyrgios final was exciting tennis. You remove all all 24 games and play just two toe-breakers. You see how many of sets are decided through a system called tie-breaker which is more of chance based system.

Grass court Tennis is on it's way out cause of the predictability of 90% of the time during a match.
 
ForumMember said:
Surely Cilic- Kyrgios final was exciting tennis. You remove all all 24 games and play just two toe-breakers. You see how many of sets are decided through a system called tie-breaker which is more of chance based system.

Grass court Tennis is on it's way out cause of the predictability of 90% of the time during a match.
Click to expand...

It's the exact opposite. Grass court tennis is waaay more unpredictable than clay court tennis. servebot vs servebot matches can be boring. but putting up with those matches is worth it, because you also get the great shotmaking fests also on grass. Patrick rafter's beautiful and sublime thinking man's tennis is a lost art.
 
ForumMember said:
Surely Cilic- Kyrgios final was exciting tennis. You remove all all 24 games and play just two toe-breakers. You see how many of sets are decided through a system called tie-breaker which is more of chance based system.
Click to expand...

Both Cilic and Kyrgios are match tough because of their big serves. They are a huge threat on grass than on clay. Even as great of a returner as Nole, it's a much more problematic for him return their serve on grass than other players to return on clay.
 
TMF said:
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
Click to expand...
The RG has less multiple champions than Wimby , The RG has 18 one time champions
 
What a BS thread....grass is also the surface where servebottimg can win you sets. Each surface has its own required skillsets, no need to degrade other surfaces to glorify grass. Screams of an extreme high degree of insecurity by a Federer fanatic
 
TMF said:
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
Click to expand...
Hard court has not ALWAYS been the toughest (if you are that rare beast that subscribes to the idea that tennis existed prior to 2003) it is now because it's what most of them learn on, and it's the closest thing to neutral (though there can be so much disparity from one to the next it's hard to group all hard courts together, but that's another conversation all together).

Some of the things you say make sense, but the fact is that you are speaking too broadly, and there are more high ranked players around right now whose way of playing is suited to clay than to grass.

Besides, even grass is barely 'grass' anymore. Cilic and Djokovic just played a three hour, three set match, and Cilic is one of the premier grass courters in the world right now. There were endless rallies, and there wasn't much pressing to end the points.

Also consider that grass has become such a minority surface in the game that most guys (and girls) hardly know how to move on it. It's pathetic watching half the time.
 
ibbi said:
Hard court has not ALWAYS been the toughest (if you are that rare beast that subscribes to the idea that tennis existed prior to 2003) it is now because it's what most of them learn on, and it's the closest thing to neutral (though there can be so much disparity from one to the next it's hard to group all hard courts together, but that's another conversation all together).

Some of the things you say make sense, but the fact is that you are speaking too broadly, and there are more high ranked players around right now whose way of playing is suited to clay than to grass.

Besides, even grass is barely 'grass' anymore. Cilic and Djokovic just played a three hour, three set match, and Cilic is one of the premier grass courters in the world right now. There were endless rallies, and there wasn't much pressing to end the points.

Also consider that grass has become such a minority surface in the game that most guys (and girls) hardly know how to move on it. It's pathetic watching half the time.
Click to expand...

This thread is a poorly disguised paean to Federer.
 
aman92 said:
What a BS thread....grass is also the surface where servebottimg can win you sets. Each surface has its own required skillsets, no need to degrade other surfaces to glorify grass. Screams of an extreme high degree of insecurity by a Federer fanatic
Click to expand...

servebotting can win you sets but look at the list of wimbledon champions on the old fast grass. only a couple of servebotters. you need all court shotmaking skill and variety and good volleying skills to win on true grass.
 
Take Nadal out and clay competition is just fine. Madrid, Rome and RG were very enjoyable events for me to watch. Yes, the fact Nadal is going to win does take the wind out of the sails, it is like watching the last scene in the movie first to see who lives and who dies, and then watching it all the way through....you know how it is going to end, despite all the curve balls the story may throw your way. But minus Rafa, clay has been enjoyable for me. RG 2018 was the best slam I have seen since AO 2017, despite knowing who was winning. Clay is just fine.
 
Clay will reward discipline, endurance and patient point construction, and is likely to punish aggressive risk-taking. Grass is the opposite, far more likely to reward aggressive risk-taking and instinct over discipline, patience and endurance.

Nadal is the best clay-court player, especially over best of 5 sets, because he has the best discipline, point construction and will wear his opponents down physically and mentally over the long haul. People with short attention spans, who desire very fast points, hate clay. Clay punishes players with that kind of attitude, too. Grass is for those that want fast points, to be aggressive and to take chances.
 
Hitman said:
Take Nadal out and clay competition is just fine. Madrid, Rome and RG were very enjoyable events for me to watch. Yes, the fact Nadal is going to win does take the wind out of the sails, it is like watching the last scene in the movie first to see who lives and who dies, and then watching it all the way through....you know how it is going to end, despite all the curve balls the story may throw your way. But minus Rafa, clay has been enjoyable for me. RG 2018 was the best slam I have seen since AO 2017, despite knowing who was winning. Clay is just fine.
Click to expand...

Both AO 2018 and RG 2018 had exciting early round matches. (before semis).....in fact, AO 2018 had more IIRC.
both SFs in AO 18 and RG were non-competitive (save for a pulse for Cecchinato in the 2nd set)

and of course AO 2018 final was dramatic, unlike RG 2018 final.

So not sure how RG 2018 was a better slam than AO 2018.
 
Hitman said:
Take Nadal out and clay competition is just fine. Madrid, Rome and RG were very enjoyable events for me to watch. Yes, the fact Nadal is going to win does take the wind out of the sails, it is like watching the last scene in the movie first to see how live and who dies, and then watching it all the way through....you know how it is going to end, despite all the curve balls the story may throw your way. But minus Rafa, clay has been enjoyable for. RG 2018 was the best slam I have seen since AO 2017, despite knowing who was winning. Clay is just fine.
Click to expand...

that's not true at all. there are no good clay court specialists today except for nadal. whereas in the 90s even the clay competition was deeper. A gustavo kuerten or a Thomas muster or a sergei brugera or even Ferrero in his prime would have put up a better fight against 2018 nadal than dominic thiem or any of the players he faced this tournament. I would say kuerten has a chance to even beat 2018 nadal on clay, who is not the same as nadal in his prime.
 
Mustard said:
Clay will reward discipline, endurance and patient point construction, and is likely to punish aggressive risk-taking. Grass is the opposite, far more likely to reward aggressive risk-taking and instinct over discipline, patience and endurance.

Nadal is the best clay-court player, especially over best of 5 sets, because he has the best discipline, point construction and will wear his opponents down physically and mentally over the long haul. People with short attention spans, who desire very fast points, hate clay. Clay punishes players with that kind of attitude, too. Grass is for those that want fast points, to be aggressive and to take chances.
Click to expand...

No, it is not just that. It is his footwork and movement on the clay which is vastly superior to anyone else. There are plenty of players who can construct points well also, but they do not have Nadal's movement and insane footwork on the surface.
 
Of course.Another interesting thing is that the grass season is shorter than the clay season but despite this it has more competition.There is far bigger chance you can upset Federer on grass like it happened today than Nadal on clay.
 
abmk said:
Both AO 2018 and RG 2018 had exciting early round matches. (before semis).....in fact, AO 2018 had more IIRC.
both SFs in AO 18 and RG were non-competitive (save for a pulse for Cecchinato in the 2nd set)

and of course AO 2018 final was dramatic, unlike RG 2018 final.

So not sure how RG 2018 was a better slam than AO 2018.
Click to expand...

Just stating my opinion that I enjoyed RG 2018 as a whole over AO 2018. AO 2018 had the best final since AO 2017, no doubt. But the numerous five set matches in the first week of RG for me was quite fun.
 
arvind13 said:
that's not true at all. there are no good clay court specialists today except for nadal. whereas in the 90s even the clay competition was deeper. A gustavo kuerten or a Thomas muster or a sergei brugera or even Ferrero in his prime would have put up a better fight against 2018 nadal than dominic thiem or any of the players he faced this tournament. I would say kuerten has a chance to even beat 2018 nadal on clay, who is not the same as nadal in his prime.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that there are good clay court specialists...I am saying that take Nadal out, and it is pretty much even among the rest. I fully agree the clay depth is weak compared to the 90s and other eras though.
 
Plamen1234 said:
Of course.Another interesting thing is that the grass season is shorter than the clay season but despite this it has more competition.There is far bigger chance you can upset Federer on grass like it happened today than Nadal on clay.
Click to expand...
Didn’t knew Nadal went undefeated in the Clay court season
 
Federer fans = Grass is the best :rolleyes:

Nadal fans = Clay is the best :rolleyes:

The answer is clearly...

Clay

b6a6619ade217752bfb2d0821b9605fa.jpeg
19%20Zverev%20Clive%20Brunskill.jpg
 
Last edited:
Do people realize other than servebots weaponless otherwise pretty much everbody can play on clay these days?

Playing on clay nowadays is much more similar to playing on the predominant slow-medium high-bouncing HC than grass is.
 
ibbi said:
Besides, even grass is barely 'grass' anymore. Cilic and Djokovic just played a three hour, three set match, and Cilic is one of the premier grass courters in the world right now. There were endless rallies, and there wasn't much pressing to end the points.
Click to expand...

Cilic hit 61 w / 39 e in three sets. He played attacking tennis. No doubt.
Novak hit 42 w / 26 e, but he also pushed in stretches of the match, providing us some "endless rallies"...

Cilic hit a lot more winners from the baseline and inside the court than Djokovic, whose majority of winners were serves. He served exceptionally well in the 2nd set.

And a 5-7, 7-6, 6-3 match usually lasts a while, especially with two of the best ball bouncers on the tour :)

Novak was over 40 seconds between points on many occasions...
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
Just stating my opinion that I enjoyed RG 2018 as a whole over AO 2018. AO 2018 had the best final since AO 2017, no doubt. But the numerous five set matches in the first week of RG for me was quite fun.
Click to expand...

you said best slam I've seen since AO 17, not most enjoyable....

AO 2018 had plenty of exciting early round matches as well :

Nadal-Schwartzmann 4R
Dimitrov-McDonald 2R
Dimitrov-Kyrgios 4R
Tsonga-Shapovalov 2R
Tsonga-Kyrgios 3R
Thiem-Sandgren 4R
Seppi-Karlovic 3R
Chung-Zverev 3R
and yes Chung-Djokovic 4R (even if it was a straight-setter)
 
TMF said:
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
Click to expand...

Not even. Grass is serve and blast, and thats about it. Clay levels the field because it takes a special talent to hit through the court, so all talents of point construction with depth, angles, finesse, and fitness/movement become exponentially more important.

Most grass matches you watch service aces and lots of winners with out the opponents even moving. That said, Fed, Kyrios, Cilic, and others are able to use more skills than most, but certainly not the norm.


Probably posting from the court between sets.
 
abmk said:
you said best slam I've seen, not most enjoyable....

AO 2018 had plenty of exciting early round matches as well :

Nadal-Schwartzmann 4R
Dimitrov-McDonald 2R
Dimitrov-Kyrgios 4R
Tsonga-Shapovalov 2R
Tsonga-Kyrgios 3R
Thiem-Sandgren 4R
Seppi-Karlovic 3R
Chung-Zverev 3R
and yes Chung-Djokovic 4R (even if it was a straight-setter)
Click to expand...

Best and enjoyable for me are interchangeable when it comes to what I find personally entertaining.
 
Mustard said:
Yes, the movement factor too.



Yet Nadal's movement on clay a decade ago was much better.
Click to expand...
Nadal has developed other weapons as he's aged so as to keep being a dominant force on clay. He's become a much more intelligent point constructor, adding more variety to his clay game -for example by using the dropshot more-, and he has also learned to use his backhand as a weapon on clay, both opening up angles and hitting it DTL aggressively more frequently. He's also added some "new" shots to buy himself time and make up for lost speed, like that deep loopy -it's really almost a lob- forehand he hits on the run, which is a hell of a shot as it gives him enough time to recover position and basically reset the point when pulled out wide. Young Nadal would either run down that ball more easily or go for a running banana shot when pushed too hard. This Nadal is smarter.
 
Hawaiian grip said:
Nadal has developed other weapons as he's aged so as to keep being a dominant force on clay. He's become a much more intelligent point constructor, adding more variety to his clay game -for example by using the dropshot more-, and he has also learned to use his backhand as a weapon on clay, both opening up angles and hitting it DTL aggressively more frequently. He's also added some "new" shots to buy himself time and make up for lost speed, like that deep loopy -it's really almost a lob- forehand he hits on the run, which is a hell of a shot as it gives him enough time to recover position and basically reset the point when pulled out wide. Young Nadal would either run down that ball more easily or go for a running banana shot when pushed too hard. This Nadal is smarter.
Click to expand...

He's smarter today, yes. Experience gives you smarts. Youthful Nadal had something special too though, as his desire for competing and his physical ability to just chase everything was incredible.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
A bit misleading given Coric's age, injuries and the length of the grass season.
Click to expand...
It's not like Coric is Ancic-level on grass, and it's got nothing to do with age, injuries and lenght of the grass season. Absolutely no excuses for Federer, couldn't attack the return, no direction with his shots, only his serve worked.
 
Mustard said:
He's smarter today, yes. Experience gives you smarts. Youthful Nadal had something special too though, as his desire for competing and his physical ability to just chase everything was incredible.
Click to expand...

Nadal still has a ferocious desire to compete, don't let his age fool you. He is still very hungry.
 
Fedeonic said:
It's not like Coric is Ancic-level on grass, and it's got nothing to do with age, injuries and lenght of the grass season. Absolutely no excuses for Federer, couldn't attack the return, no direction with his shots, only his serve worked.
Click to expand...
At least he managed to beat Stakhovsky unlike someone :p
Coric played well the entire tournament while Fed was a point away from losing to Paire.
 
Mustard said:
Oh yes, but he has to be more careful with how and when he moves these days.
Click to expand...

True, but they are two different things. Just because he is not running crazily for the ball, doesn't mean he is any less hungry, or the desire is simply not there.
 
THE GOOD
AlexanderTheGreat08 said:
The RG has less multiple champions than Wimby , The RG has 18 one time champions
Click to expand...
Hawaiian grip said:
A thread screaming insecurity after a Federer's loss. Delicious and pathetic all at once.

Calm down, Federer is still going to win Wimbledon. No need to make fool of ourselves just yet.
Click to expand...
Backspin1183 said:
It looks that way because Nadal is a league above evrryone else on clay. Federer is very strong on grass but not as great on grass as Nadal is on clay. Without Nadal, clay would appear far more competitive than grass.
Click to expand...
malbaker86 said:
Not even a post in and Nadal is mentioned lol
Click to expand...
Mustard said:
Clay will reward discipline, endurance and patient point construction, and is likely to punish aggressive risk-taking. Grass is the opposite, far more likely to reward aggressive risk-taking and instinct over discipline, patience and endurance.

Nadal is the best clay-court player, especially over best of 5 sets, because he has the best discipline, point construction and will wear his opponents down physically and mentally over the long haul. People with short attention spans, who desire very fast points, hate clay. Clay punishes players with that kind of attitude, too. Grass is for those that want fast points, to be aggressive and to take chances.
Click to expand...
aman92 said:
What a BS thread....grass is also the surface where servebottimg can win you sets. Each surface has its own required skillsets, no need to degrade other surfaces to glorify grass. Screams of an extreme high degree of insecurity by a Federer fanatic
Click to expand...

junior74 said:
Cilic hit 61 w / 39 e in three sets. He played attacking tennis. No doubt.
Novak hit 42 w / 26 e, but he also pushed in stretches of the match, providing us some "endless rallies"...

Cilic hit a lot more winners from the baseline and inside the court than Djokovic, whose majority of winners were serves. He served exceptionally well in the 2nd set.

And a 5-7, 7-6, 6-3 match usually lasts a while, especially with two of the best ball bouncers on the tour :)

Novak was over 40 seconds between points on many occasions...
Click to expand...
Hawaiian grip said:
Nadal has developed other weapons as he's aged so as to keep being a dominant force on clay. He's become a much more intelligent point constructor, adding more variety to his clay game -for example by using the dropshot more-, and he has also learned to use his backhand as a weapon on clay, both opening up angles and hitting it DTL aggressively more frequently. He's also added some "new" shots to buy himself time and make up for lost speed, like that deep loopy -it's really almost a lob- forehand he hits on the run, which is a hell of a shot as it gives him enough time to recover position and basically reset the point when pulled out wide. Young Nadal would either run down that ball more easily or go for a running banana shot when pushed too hard. This Nadal is smarter.
Click to expand...
Hitman said:
Nadal still has a ferocious desire to compete, don't let his age fool you. He is still very hungry.
Click to expand...
Gary Duane said:
Pretty obviously you did not watch the match with an open mind.

Among other things Coric was very good at the net, and at one point he served at least over 132 mph. That's not the play of a typical clay player.
Click to expand...

THE BAD
TMF said:
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
Click to expand...
arvind13 said:
Thank You! And nadal on 90s wimbledon grass (with smaller tennis balls) against sampras would get blown off the court in straight sets.
Click to expand...
GOATzilla said:
Federer lost a final? Lemme quickly make a thread about how much greater competition is on grass to help nurse my butthurt

Kudla and Coric are legends after all. LMAO
Click to expand...

THE UGLY
zverev2018 said:
Federer fans = Grass is the best :rolleyes:

Nadal fans = Clay is the best :rolleyes:

The answer is clearly...

Clay

b6a6619ade217752bfb2d0821b9605fa.jpeg
19%20Zverev%20Clive%20Brunskill.jpg
Click to expand...
 
TMF said:
Hard court has always been the toughest surface to win because most of the players on the tour are adept to this surface. But between grass and clay, I believe grass display higher quality tennis because a player can impose every of his arsenals on court. Grass rewards big serve, volley, touch, slices and approach shots on full display. Grass offers more all-court game makes it difficult to win, and prone for upset. Unlike clay, there's no place to play safe tennis, no endless rally, a player is pressed to end the points instead of waiting for an opponent to hit an error. Grass also rewards for great serve returner unlike clay big serve gets nullify. Basically, every shots are more effective on grass(except for topspin), and with more variety and tactics, grass has greater competition than clay. It takes more talent to win on grass than on clay.
Click to expand...

Eh, I think the fields are about the same competition-wise on grass and clay (HC is as always, the toughest). Grass as a surface lends itself to more upsets but it also allows guys like Fed and Sampras to squeak through even on off days because of their serve.

I agree though that grass surface/season catches too much flak here while clay "depth" is overrated to high heavens.
 
Tennis should be played on one surface (hard) as every other sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
More talent to play on grass ??
Replies
23
Views
2K
jhhachamp
J
counterloop
Clay Courts vs Grass Courts
Replies
12
Views
2K
Overdrive
Overdrive
SamprasisGOAT
Sampras is greater on grass than nadal is on clay. Opposition proves it.
2 3
Replies
117
Views
5K
RS
RS
P
Why is Murray good on grass/bad on clay and Djokovic vice versa?
Replies
11
Views
2K
xan
xan
Rovesciarete
The one-handed backhand and the three surfaces
Replies
11
Views
307
Rovesciarete
Rovesciarete
Back
Top