Grass should be faster and clay should be slower!!

[HunterST]

I'm very against this evening out of the speed of grass and clay courts. Grass courts are getting much slower and Clay courts are getting faster.

Grass court and clay court tennis are supposed to be unique. Grass courts shouldn't have high bouncing balls and long, drawn out ground stroke rallies. I've heard that, in the past, if you got pop up ball at wimbledon the ball would still not bounce much higher than the waist. Now you can kick the ball high with topspin.

Similarly, you're not supposed to be hitting tons of aces or succeeding with ball bashing at the French. Clay court tennis is supposed to be all about point construction and game planning.

The slowing of grass courts and speeding up of clay courts is taking away the variety of the game. It's also making The Wimbledon/French double or even the career grandslam less of an achievment. Afterall, the surfaces aren't all that different.

Half of the slams are on hardcourt. These should be the slams with fairly "neutral" courts. Wimbledon and the French should be the other half and embrace the extremes.

 

[Seany]

I don't think you will find anybody disagreeing with you on this one.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Grass hasn't changed in a decade, and the play really doesn't look all that different if you look at baseline rallies from past years (look at Agassi playing in the 90's etc). They don't play similarly whatsoever. The difference is in playing styles, strings, etc.

I'll give you a challenge. Go play on any kind of grass court. Then go play on any kind of clay court. I dare you to come back here and not laugh your arse off at the stuff that is said about the two surfaces, especially anything regarding them being similar whatsoever.

 

[kishnabe]

Sure Grass might be a tad slower...but it is still different from clay. Low balls still come on grass and there are some patches of grass coming off the court!

 

[HunterST]

Sure Grass might be a tad slower...but it is still different from clay. Low balls still come on grass and there are some patches of grass coming off the court!

I'm not saying that they're not at all different. They are, however, much more similar than they used to be, and that's because the people who run them have the goal of making them more neutral surfaces. I'm arguing that that shouldn't be their goal.

 

[namelessone]

I think the OP is overestimating the margin of difference between the two surfaces when he talks about the change to these surfaces. Grass isn't slow, it's in fact the one surface where big servers still can have an advantage. Clay is still quite slow at RG.

The WB double is still tremendeously hard to do, and the calendar slam as well. We have been spoiled with Nadal and Fed doing it but we forget the things they had to go through. Over the years Nadal was on the brink of elimination at WB, far more than at RG. I think he has something like 30 sets lost overall in all his WB participations whereas in RG that nr. is 9. 9 sets lost in six freaking years.

And I'm pretty sure Fed has overall been more nervous in RG than in WB, and he has probably lost more sets as well.

Both of these guys were on the brink in their respective doubles and they could have both failed.

I don't think the double will be achieved again pretty soon, even with the new surfaces.

Who do you see among the current players mentally strong enough and with enough skill to do the double?

Novak is decent on grass but he has no WB finals. In RG he also hasn't reached a final but that's Nadal fault. I see Nole winning RG but I have my doubts about WB.

Murray will win WB one day but he is hopeless on clay.

Soderling is great on clay but he hasn't even sniffed at a WB final.

Verdasco? No, just no.

Ferrer? No.

Roddick is great on grass but he sucks ass on clay.

Davydenko is not a GS guy and in a lull.

DelPo, should he come back, has shown that he is very good on clay but so far has shown nothing on grass.

In fact Fedal are the only guys that have consistently shown greatness on both grass and clay over the years.

 

[jackson vile]

Good luck getting that through these guys heads namelessone.

 

[HunterST]

I think the OP is overestimating the margin of difference between the two surfaces when he talks about the change to these surfaces. Grass isn't slow, it's in fact the one surface where big servers still can have an advantage. Clay is still quite slow at RG.

The WB double is still tremendeously hard to do, and the calendar slam as well. We have been spoiled with Nadal and Fed doing it but we forget the things they had to go through. Over the years Nadal was on the brink of elimination at WB, far more than at RG. I think he has something like 30 sets lost overall in all his WB participations whereas in RG that nr. is 9. 9 sets lost in six freaking years.

And I'm pretty sure Fed has overall been more nervous in RG than in WB, and he has probably lost more sets as well.

Both of these guys were on the brink in their respective doubles and they could have both failed.

I don't think the double will be achieved again pretty soon, even with the new surfaces.

Who do you see among the current players mentally strong enough and with enough skill to do the double?

Novak is decent on grass but he has no WB finals. In RG he also hasn't reached a final but that's Nadal fault. I see Nole winning RG but I have my doubts about WB.

Murray will win WB one day but he is hopeless on clay.

Soderling is great on clay but he hasn't even sniffed at a WB final.

Verdasco? No, just no.

Ferrer? No.

Roddick is great on grass but he sucks ass on clay.

Davydenko is not a GS guy and in a lull.

DelPo, should he come back, has shown that he is very good on clay but so far has shown nothing on grass.

In fact Fedal are the only guys that have consistently shown greatness on both grass and clay over the years.

Good points about Fed and Nadal being the only ones that are great on both clay and grass. Then again, they're really the only ones that have shown greatness at ANY of the slams. Like you pointed out, though, players have had very different results at the two slams.

Don't you agree, though, that the fastest court is the US Open? Shouldn't grass be faster than a hardcourt slam?

 

[Manus Domini]

nadal said the fastest courts were the grass, but it was the balls that made them slower, I do believe.

 

[BrooklynNY]

I do agree with the concept of the courts have all basically in the general sense, but not fully been homogenized, each clearly having their own unique traits, which maybe have been dulled a bit.

I just think the way tennis history will be in the future is that there will be no such thing as surface specialists as we can kind of see right now in the modern game. The way it will play out will be that the best overall player at the moment will be the guy winning the W-FO double and probably completing the career grand slam.

I know that sounds like an obvious idea but I'm attempting to say it with more specification. Like for instance take Nadal and Federer, at the time Federer was/is winning all his slams, and eventually doing his W-FO slam, he was just clearly the number 1 player in the world while others were still developing their games (ie Novak, Murray-aggression,Nadal- "fast" court/surface proficiency). Now that Nadal is clearly the best player on tour, he is the guy who is winning the FO-W double and eventually career slam.
The same will be for the next generations best player. It's not that he will be so good on grass, or so good on clay. He will just be better than the rest of the field at the moment, since generally most top players play the standard modern baseline game and the degrees of variance b/w players game styles are less than in the past, so to speak.
If lets say this Dimitrov guy or some other unknown talent at the moment ends up being the dominant guy who wins slams 8-20 years from now, if he goes on to have similar style careers and seemingly amazing "all surface proficiency", even though he basically plays the same on all surfaces.

Just a thought..

 

[BMC9670]

Keep in mind that grass and clay will vary and change within a tournament far more than a hard court will. Look at the grass the first day of Wimby as opposed to the final - there has got to be a considerable difference. Clay can vary quite a bit with temperature and humidity. A dry week at RG can play differently than a wet week. I've played on red clay in Europe and it varies more than the Har-Tru here in the US.

 

[Manus Domini]

Keep in mind that grass and clay will vary and change within a tournament far more than a hard court will. Look at the grass the first day of Wimby as opposed to the final - there has got to be a considerable difference. Clay can vary quite a bit with temperature and humidity. A dry week at RG can play differently than a wet week. I've played on red clay in Europe and it varies more than the Har-Tru here in the US.

yeah, that's true. I think that a couple of the courts in WC should be preserved until the semis, so in them and the finals, the courts are less changed

 

[(K)evin]

thats the only reason why Nadal has been winning wimbledon and roland garros, he is no Borg.

 

[namelessone]

thats the only reason why Nadal has been winning wimbledon and roland garros, he is no Borg.

Exactly. They are basically the same surface. That's why Roddick is a multiple RG champ.

 

[Underhand]

I don't think you will find anybody disagreeing with you on this one.

I disagree.

 

[dexian]

I'm very against this evening out of the speed of grass and clay courts. Grass courts are getting much slower and Clay courts are getting faster.

Grass court and clay court tennis are supposed to be unique. Grass courts shouldn't have high bouncing balls and long, drawn out ground stroke rallies. I've heard that, in the past, if you got pop up ball at wimbledon the ball would still not bounce much higher than the waist. Now you can kick the ball high with topspin.

Similarly, you're not supposed to be hitting tons of aces or succeeding with ball bashing at the French. Clay court tennis is supposed to be all about point construction and game planning.

The slowing of grass courts and speeding up of clay courts is taking away the variety of the game. It's also making The Wimbledon/French double or even the career grandslam less of an achievment. Afterall, the surfaces aren't all that different.

Half of the slams are on hardcourt. These should be the slams with fairly "neutral" courts. Wimbledon and the French should be the other half and embrace the extremes.

You're pretty ignorant, have you ever played on both surfaces? Or do you just keep spouting things you read here?

 

[Messarger]

Do you have any concrete evidence that the clay courts are playing faster? Who's been hitting tons of aces at RG?

ps: I dont mean to sound hostile or anything.

 

[coloskier]

Let's just say that if you compare 80's grass and clay vs today's grass and clay you would say that they are a lot more the same now than they were in the 80's. Borg had to play S&V in the 80's to win Wimbledon. Nadal certainly doesn't play S&V now to win Wimbledon.

 

[jc4.0]

I think the surfaces are less of a factor than newer equipment such as strings and racquets; and to a lesser degree, technique and training of the players.

I don't think you can change clay to make it "faster" unless you just don't water the court. Grass can be changed to a degree - but hard court surfaces are the most changeable. You can add more sand to make it slower for example.

I think a player should have to be good at playing all kinds of surfaces, with their unique speeds and spins so I basically agree with you, but the surfaces aren't the main issue in terms of the evolution of the game in my opinion. Having said that, it's a really difficult thing to "police" so players just have to stay on top of the available new technologies to stay competitive.

 

[kevoT]

Exactly. They are basically the same surface. That's why Roddick is a multiple RG champ.

lul, what??

 

[Murrayfan31]

Yep Borg was the only one to win on true grass while winning on clay. Nadal's doesn't count imo due to this.

Do you have any concrete evidence that the clay courts are playing faster? Who's been hitting tons of aces at RG?

ps: I dont mean to sound hostile or anything.

True. Clay is the same speed while grass got slower.

 

[kevoT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcXlkEoqOt8

Mats agrees.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Exactly. They are basically the same surface. That's why Roddick is a multiple RG champ.

Wait, weren't Nadal fans the ones complaining that RG was playing like, and some said actually was, hard court this year? Some said there was 'squeaking' and the courts were a lot faster. Funny how that changes when Nadal wins, though I'm sure if he'd lost we wouldn't hear the end of it.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Grass hasn't changed in a decade, and the play really doesn't look all that different if you look at baseline rallies from past years (look at Agassi playing in the 90's etc). They don't play similarly whatsoever. The difference is in playing styles, strings, etc.

I'll give you a challenge. Go play on any kind of grass court. Then go play on any kind of clay court. I dare you to come back here and not laugh your arse off at the stuff that is said about the two surfaces, especially anything regarding them being similar whatsoever.

Yeah, I laugh my ass off when people say clay courts squeak.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

If grass was faster and clay was slower Federer would have zero Wimbledon and French Opens.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

If grass was faster and clay was slower Federer would have zero Wimbledon and French Opens.

Excellent point.

Just the fact that Chris Guccione hasnt won slams on these surfaces is proof alone that Grass is faster and Clay is slower.