Grass has greater strength in depth of competition than clay

[JasonZ]

It us impossible to dominate grass as nadal dominates clay.

On clay the better player wins. On grass a player can be saved by his serve and then teal the tiebreak.

The possibulity of upset is much higher in grass than on clay. So fir me Federers 8 or Sampras 7 are not less impressive than Nadals 11.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

It us impossible to dominate grass as nadal dominates clay.

On clay the better player wins. On grass a player can be saved by his serve and then teal the tiebreak.

The possibulity of upset is much higher in grass than on clay. So fir me Federers 8 or Sampras 7 are not less impressive than Nadals 11.

Nonsense. Before Nadal the guy who had won the most GS on grass -Sampras- had won more than the guy who had won the most GS on clay -Borg-. Roland Garros has always had the lowest winners' age average, still does, so history tells us it's the hardest GS to win as you age. What Nadal has done on the surface is unprecedented.

Nadal 11 at RG are indeed more impressive than Sampras's 7 or Federer's 8 at WB. Anyone saying otherwise is either delusional or has an agenda to put down Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Tennis should be played on one surface (hard) as every other sport.

@Lew what are you starting now? Please don’t tell me you have some stats to back this one up.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Nonsense. Before Nadal the guy who had won the most GS on grass -Sampras- had won more than the guy who had won the most GS on clay -Borg-. Roland Garros has always had the lowest winners' age average, still does, so history tells us it's the hardest GS to win as you age.

Nadal 11 at RG are indeed more impressive than Sampras's 7 or Federer's 8 at WB. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional or has an agenda.

Why’d that pesky Nadal have to go and win 11 of the damn things? Couldn’t he have been satisfied with eight?

Both would dominate their respective events and this thread wouldn’t have happened.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

Tennis should be played on one surface (hard) as every other sport.

Heck no. There is already too much HC tennis. We need for the natural surfaces to gain ground and carpet to be brought back for the last part of the season. Variety is part of tennis legacy.

 

[Slightly D1]

Grass and clay both produce different styles of tennis and some great matches but grass more than clay has more absolutely awful matches to sit and watch if it doesn’t involve 2 solid grass court players.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

how dare you rate a slam Nadal won over a slam that Fed won?

Just stating my honest opinion. RG this year exceeded my expectations, I saw many matches and most of them were fun to watch. It has to be about the tennis first for me, not about who wins it.

 

[Rafa24]

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.

Exactly. Grass court tennis sucks. Any surface that allows servebots to go far isn't the greatest surface. It's the worst of the 3.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat08]

It us impossible to dominate grass as nadal dominates clay.

On clay the better player wins. On grass a player can be saved by his serve and then teal the tiebreak.

The possibulity of upset is much higher in grass than on clay. So fir me Federers 8 or Sampras 7 are not less impressive than Nadals 11.

Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times in 8 years , Borg won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, Federer won Wimbledon 5 times in a row and 6 in 7 years, There are more multiple champions than one time champions , Nadal’s RG record is greater than Federer and Sampras Wimby record

 

[Deleted member 512391]

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.

And yet, a ball-basher won the FO in 2015 and reached another final in 2017. I can't remember if such thing ever happened at Wimbledon.

Also, you haven't mentioned the athleticism as a ''must have" ingredient for a successful grass court player.

 

[abmk]

Best and enjoyable for me are interchangeable when it comes to what I find personally entertaining.

well, they are 2 different terms and mean different things. Best not to mix them.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

well, they are 2 different terms and mean different things. Best not to mix them.

I ate this steak the other day...It was the best steak I have had in a long time
I ate this steak the other day...it was the most enjoyable steak I have had in a long time

I have said both these phrases to someone, and they got it, because the context in which those words were used was interchangeable in their mind.

This leg workout was the best workout I have done in a while
This leg workout was the most enjoyable leg workout I have done in a while

I have said both to a friend in the gym, and they got it, because they understood the context behind it.

Do not worry about me mixing them, the people I speak to get it.

 

[Chadillac]

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.

Comes down to the skill cap. Its not very high on clay, thats why rec players enjoy it. They would get blown out on a fast hardcourt or grass, but can have a nice match on clay.

 

[Mustard]

And yet, a ball-basher won the FO in 2015 and reached another final in 2017. I can't remember if such thing ever happened at Wimbledon.

Agassi won Wimbledon in 1992. Courier reached the Wimbledon final in 1993.

 

[Rafa24]

Comes down to the skill cap. Its not very high on clay, thats why rec players enjoy it. They would get blown out on a fast hardcourt or grass, but can have a nice match on clay.

Amazing fed can't beat the bull at RG if it doesn't take much skill.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Agassi won Wimbledon in 1992. Courier reached the Wimbledon final in 1993.

These guys aren't ball-bashers, come on.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Agassi won Wimbledon in 1992. Courier reached the Wimbledon final in 1993.

Seriously? Agassi a ball basher? And a grinder like Courier, a ball basher?

 

[Mustard]

These guys aren't ball-bashers, come on.

What's your definition of a ball basher? Why is Wawrinka one, while Agassi and Courier from 25 years ago aren't?

 

[Mustard]

Seriously? Agassi a ball basher? And a grinder like Courier, a ball basher?

When Agassi was coached by Bollettieri, he went for his shots a lot more and much more of a "ball basher". Courier was full of intensity when at his best, using the big forehand and a lot of power shots.

 

[Chadillac]

Amazing fed can't beat the bull at RG if it doesn't take much skill.

You dont understand what a skill cap is. The surface negates skills, whereas on grass its multiplied.

This is why they teach little kids with red dot balls.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

What's your definition of a ball basher? Why is Wawrinka one, while Agassi and Courier from 25 years ago aren't?

A ball basher is a player who lacks your favorite () quality - the ability to construct the points and who, instead, crushes every ball in order to finish the point quickly and take the racquet out of player's hands. That's how Wawrinka plays and that's not how Agassi (or Courier) used to play. Just because someone is going for his shots (more often that the other players), doesn't mean that he's a ball-basher (Federer or Sampras, for example).

 

[Rafa24]

You dont understand what a skill cap is. The surface negates skills, whereas on grass its multiplied.

This is why they teach little kids with red dot balls.

I disagree. Servebots go much further on grass than clay.

 

[Chadillac]

I disagree. Servebots go much further on grass than clay.

Faster is harder in every other sport, more so in tennis. Out of curiousity do you play or just watch?

Slow courts are much easier to play on, more energy/stamina but the skill just isnt the same.

 

[Rafa24]

Faster is harder in every other sport, more so in tennis. Out of curiousity do you play or just watch?

Slow courts are much easier to play on, more energy/stamina but the skill just isnt the same.

Can you explain why servebots do better on grass even though they have much less skill than their counterparts that have well rounded games? Since grass is all about skill you know.

 

[Chadillac]

Can you explain why servebots do better on grass even though they have much less skill than their counterparts that have well rounded games? Since grass is all about skill you know.

Some would argue the serve is the hardest part of tennis.

You dont start juniors hitting serve's, you have them hit groundstrokes with dead balls (slow), easiest stroke.

Its hard to explain if you dont play, its one of those things that is a given.

Do you consider Coric a serve bot? Its not like brown and karlovic are winning grass court events.

Which player do you consider "well rounded", i cant think of many besides fed. Everyone else is a one trick pony

 

[Atennisone]

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.

Grass requires almost nothing compared to Clay. On Grass, you only need to have a good serve, then you have a chance. On clay, you have to have good speed, amazing stamina, solid forehand and backhand, and you have to fight for every rally!. On Grass, you hit a shot, 50% of it being a winner,

 

[van_Loederen]

let's not forget that Wimbledon saved the 2nd week by artificially slowing down the surface.

grass itself is pretty dull.

 

[Bobby Jr]

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...

Your headline conflicts with everything you in your post.

If a surface requires more skills, more talent, a broader range of shots, is more difficult to win on and all of the other things you say correctly about it - it reduces the proportion of players who can potentially excel on it - which is the opposite of "strength in depth."

 

[zagor]

Grass requires almost nothing compared to Clay. On Grass, you only need to have a good serve, then you have a chance. On clay, you have to have good speed, amazing stamina, solid forehand and backhand, and you have to fight for every rally!. On Grass, you hit a shot, 50% of it being a winner,

No, no matter how many times people repeat that nonsense, it doesn't make it true.

You can't even win Halle/Queens with just a serve, let alone something like Wimbledon.

 

[Atennisone]

No, no matter how many times people repeat that nonsense, it doesn't make it true.

You can't even win Halle/Queens with just a serve, let alone something like Wimbledon.

I said then you have a chance, there is a difference between having a chance, and winning Wimbledon. But if you have good serve, then you already are 90% prepared for winning a Grass title.

 

[Raz11]

Can you explain why servebots do better on grass even though they have much less skill than their counterparts that have well rounded games? Since grass is all about skill you know.

Sure servebot go further on grass but surely that makes it much harder to win on grass cause of how easier it is to play better than your opponent but still lose to a servebot due to a couple of points.

Clay rewards point construction and etc so obviously better players will more likely win in the end. So if you have a great player on clay and an equally great player on grass, the player on grass will have a harder time winning cause there is a higher chance of an upset.

You said that talent levels the playing field on clay but it actually the opposite since grass levels the playing field since even the better talented player on the day can be lose and be upsetted by a lower player. So a case can be made that a player can win 10 clay slams more easily compared to 10 slams on grass.

 

[Tennisanity]

The slower you make a surface, the less skill required. We know this by looking at extreme conditions. Slow a surface down so much and an unathletic person can get to the ball and give Nadal a run for his money.

 

[zagor]

But if you have good serve, then you already are 90% prepared for winning a Grass title.

Once again, no. There's a reason a guy like Murray is one of the best grasscourt players of his era despite his mediocre (relatively speaking) serve.

A big server can cause an upset or too but any grasscourt title with a semi-decent field will end up going to more complete and well-rounded player.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

I said then you have a chance, there is a difference between having a chance, and winning Wimbledon. But if you have good serve, then you already are 90% prepared for winning a Grass title.

You might, might win a grass title in a very small tournament with a fairly easy draw (Nottingham , Eastbourne, etc), but no way you're winning any major (and by major, I mean at least 500 ATP tournament) on grass with your serve as the only weapon and no other skills (like a good return or movement). There is a reason why the players like Isner or Karlovic haven't been dominant on grass even though their serves are thomahaws.

 

[Atennisone]

Once again, no. There's a reason a guy like Murray is one of the best grasscourt players of his era despite his mediocre (relatively speaking) serve.

A big server can cause an upset or too but any grasscourt title with a semi-decent field will end up going to more complete and well-rounded player.

The reason is that he is very good if he is on home ground.

 

[ChaelAZ]

The slower you make a surface, the less skill required. We know this by looking at extreme conditions. Slow a surface down so much and an unathletic person can get to the ball and give Nadal a run for his money.

Completely backwards. Nice job.


Probably posting from the court between sets.

 

[Atennisone]

You might, might win a grass title in a very small tournament with a fairly easy draw (Nottingham , Eastbourne, etc), but no way you're winning any major (and by major, I mean at least 500 ATP tournament) on grass with your serve as the only weapon and no other skills (like a good return or movement). There is a reason why the players like Isner or Karlovic haven't been dominant on grass even though their serves are thomahaws.

The reason they haven't been dominant is because Federer has. Ivanesevic was an amazing server, he won at WB, Sampras too, and McEnroe.

 

[zagor]

The reason is that he is very good if he is on home ground.

Which is why he won so many WTFs.

No, the reason is his ROS, his slice, his touch, his flat BH and his natural movement on the surface.

 

[Atennisone]

Which is why he won so many WTFs.

No, the reason is his ROS, his slice, his touch, his flat BH and his natural movement on the surface.

Murray has never won a Grass title that wasn't in UK

 

[Deleted member 512391]

The reason they haven't been dominant is because Federer has. Ivanesevic was an amazing server, he won at WB, Sampras too, and McEnroe.

No, that's not the reason. Federer has played Karlovic three times on grass (twice at Wimbledon and once in Halle), while he played Isner only once at the Olympics. What about their other opportunities? Karlovic has reached only one QF at Wimbledon (the same success as Gustavo Kuerten) and Isner has never passed the 3rd round. They simply don't have the skills (other than their serve) to be successful on grass.

The other guys you've listed are great athletes and great servers.

 

[zagor]

Murray has never won a Grass title that wasn't in UK

And yet, only won one WTF.

 

[Atennisone]

No, that's not the reason. Federer has played Karlovic three times on grass (twice at Wimbledon and once in Halle), while he played Isner only once at the Olympics. What about their other opportunities? Karlovic has reached only one QF at Wimbledon (the same success as Gustavo Kuerten) and Isner has never passed the 3rd round. They simply don't have the skills (other than their serve) to be successful on grass.

The other guys you've listed are great athletes and great servers.

The fact is that Grass requires fewer skills than Clay. And I would still say that if Karlovic or Isner had participated in the 80's WB they had won it

 

[zagor]

No, that's not the reason. Federer has played Karlovic three times on grass (twice at Wimbledon and once in Halle), while he played Isner only once at the Olympics. What about their other opportunities? Karlovic has reached only one QF at Wimbledon (the same success as Gustavo Kuerten) and Isner has never passed the 3rd round. They simply don't have the skills (other than their serve) to be successful on grass.

The other guys you've listed are great athletes and great servers.

The dude's trolling.

 

[Atennisone]

And yet, only won one WTF.

Still 1 more than Nadal

 

[Deleted member 512391]

The dude's trolling.

Yeah, realized that after "Murray has never won a grass title outside the UK".

 

[zagor]

Still 1 more than Nadal

Not Rafa's fault he can't beat several top players in a row away from clay.

Take cakewalk draws out of the equation and his chances at the title drop drastically.

 

[Atennisone]

Yeah, realized that after "Murray has never won a grass title outside the UK".

Lol xD I gotta admit that that was a pretty bad argument, but still Grass requires less than Clay

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Lol xD I gotta admit that that was a pretty bad argument, but still Grass requires less than Clay

And yet, Hafa failed to reach the QF at Wimb since 2011.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

This is brand new information

 

[sredna42]

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.

LOL posted by a person with a pic of the mutant as his avatar, and liked by a user called "mutant24"

The mutant batallion keep kvetching and wailing about grass being dominated by servebots, when it's only a handful of players that can do that. Kyrgios, Isner, Karlovic, etc.

Grass is real tennis as there is less seperating the two players. Playing on clay, they might as well be playing via CB radio. It has its place but there is way too much clay court tennis on the tour, and not nearly enough grass events.