Is US open faster than Wimbledon

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Seems the US open is the only slam that continues to speed up their tournament. I am guessing the US open the fastest of the 4 these days and has been the last decade.

I wish they go back to traditional grass too.
 

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon is the fastest. See Kyrgios dominate Nadal with his serve. Watch the Nadal/Djokovic final as well at the US Open. Talk about blue clay.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
the USO speed, especially on Arthur Ashe is very weather dependent.

some years are noticeably faster than others on avg.

2011 was horribly slow!
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Seems the US open is the only slam that continues to speed up their tournament. I am guessing the US open the fastest of the 4 these days and has been the last decade.

I wish they go back to traditional grass too.


Don't think so. USO seems slower and more sandy than ever.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
ITF as off 2015 have
USO - Pro Decoturf II as Medium-Fast Cat4.
Wim - Grass as Medium Cat3.

using ITF benchmark there are no majors or masters Cat5 - Fast any more.

Grass has always been a bit erratic speed wise depending on cover and age. Wimbledon might be considered Med-Fast as the tournament wears the court. Not sure when they measure speed before, during or after.

Anyway did does not really matter as much now as when players hit with 3000+ RPM, the surface type is significantly nullified as the ball it impacting closer to 90 degrees due to topspin trajectory. The rotational velocity is in excess of 38km/hr so roughness of surface plays a greater result. Nadal was averaging 4300 rpm in 2013 FO which is about 55 km/hr in angular velocity, the ball basically does not slow once it hits the ground.

It's the poly era, get used to it as it will only get worse as the RPM get higher with better, slicker, self lubricating materials with more elasticity.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
ITF as off 2015 have
USO - Pro Decoturf II as Medium-Fast Cat4.
Wim - Grass as Medium Cat3.

using ITF benchmark there are no majors or masters Cat5 - Fast any more.

Grass has always been a bit erratic speed wise depending on cover and age. Wimbledon might be considered Med-Fast as the tournament wears the court. Not sure when they measure speed before, during or after.

Anyway did does not really matter as much now as when players hit with 3000+ RPM, the surface type is significantly nullified as the ball it impacting closer to 90 degrees due to topspin trajectory. The rotational velocity is in excess of 38km/hr so roughness of surface plays a greater result. Nadal was averaging 4300 rpm in 2013 FO which is about 55 km/hr in angular velocity, the ball basically does not slow once it hits the ground.

It's the poly era, get used to it as it will only get worse as the RPM get higher with better, slicker, self lubricating materials with more elasticity.

Great post. Do you know if there is a place where we can find more in-depth data of the physical part of the game? It's really interesting!
 

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
the USO speed, especially on Arthur Ashe is very weather dependent.

some years are noticeably faster than others on avg.

2011 was horribly slow!
This^

Not only that, but the speed also changes noticeable from the first week to the second week of play. The speed on the finals for example will be faster than the speed during day 1 of play. So the answer to your question is both SOMETIMES, and IT DEPENDS.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
ITF as off 2015 have
USO - Pro Decoturf II as Medium-Fast Cat4.
Wim - Grass as Medium Cat3.

using ITF benchmark there are no majors or masters Cat5 - Fast any more.

Grass has always been a bit erratic speed wise depending on cover and age. Wimbledon might be considered Med-Fast as the tournament wears the court. Not sure when they measure speed before, during or after.

Anyway did does not really matter as much now as when players hit with 3000+ RPM, the surface type is significantly nullified as the ball it impacting closer to 90 degrees due to topspin trajectory. The rotational velocity is in excess of 38km/hr so roughness of surface plays a greater result. Nadal was averaging 4300 rpm in 2013 FO which is about 55 km/hr in angular velocity, the ball basically does not slow once it hits the ground.
It's the poly era, get used to it as it will only get worse as the RPM get higher with better, slicker, self lubricating materials with more elasticity.

Good post but I have read that the ball always slows significantly on the bounce. I read an article that says the ball loses a lot of pace due to air friction while in flight and loses slightly more speed on the bounce. Everyone thinks topspin makes the ball gain speed on the bounce but I thought it was an illusion. Basically, topspin makes the ball lose less speed than your senses account for making it seem like the ball gains speed. Ball basically loses just over 50% of its initial velocity by the time you hit it after the bounce near your baseline.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Good post but I have read that the ball always slows significantly on the bounce. I read an article that says the ball loses a lot of pace due to air friction while in flight and loses slightly more speed on the bounce. Everyone thinks topspin makes the ball gain speed on the bounce but I thought it was an illusion. Basically, topspin makes the ball lose less speed than your senses account for making it seem like the ball gains speed. Ball basically loses just over 50% of its initial velocity by the time you hit it after the bounce near your baseline.

This is what I've heard as well. Would love to see some actual data on this, however. But I would think, though, that a ball struck with 4500rpm would lose less of its speed when bouncing than a ball struck at 2250rpm would.
 
There must be a big difference in speed between the first and second week of Wimbledon due to court wear and tear. It would be interesting to know the relative court speeds at Wimby (2nd week), SO and Cincy since that court has been known to be quite fast.
 
Seems the US open is the only slam that continues to speed up their tournament. I am guessing the US open the fastest of the 4 these days and has been the last decade.

I wish they go back to traditional grass too.

The US Open is 100% faster than Wimbledon. 100%. I have done a lot of research into this and it has been proven on every level that the US Open courts are faster than the courts used at Wimbledon.

For a number of reasons too. One are the balls they use at Wimbledon, they're a lot heavier now a days and therefore it makes it much more difficult for players to hit through and penetrate the grass. The other is the grass itself was changed so that the ball would skid and stay low less, around the early 2000s. This is why players like Nadal were able to do well on it. What makes this worse is by the second week at Wimbledon the the greenness of the grass disappears and the baseline area is brown and not only easier to move on, but providing a higher bounce.

Many people here believe Wimbledon grass courts to be faster than the hard courts used at Flushing Meadows simply because Federer still does well at this major. Let me tell you, this is tool logic. Your ignorance could not be ANY stronger. Federer is able to do better on the grass courts used at Wimbledon than on the hard courts at the US Open NOT because the surface is faster and lower bouncing, BUT BECAUSE its a lot more slippery on a grass surface and harder for a player to SUDDENLY change direction with their feet. This naturally makes it a lot more difficult for players to defend against Federer and he can wrong foot them a lot easier. Go back-in-behind the player. On a hard surface you can grip to the ground and press off to change direction. On grass you need smaller footsteps and footwork. Its a lot more precise. That's why Federer is better at Wimbledon than at the US Open, because he can wrong foot opponents as the surface is slippery and they have to take an early guess as to where he is going.

The US Open has been recorded as the fastest surface by hawkeye and if you look with the naked eye, it certainly is so. The bounce is lower. Its no surprise that big, tall ball strikers with serves they can dominate opponents with have done well at the US Open. Marin Cilic, Del Potro, Andy Roddick. It is the fastest slam. Just because Nadal has wont he title twice doesn't mean the bounce is and the surface is slow. I urge you look.

So please don't be so automatic to quickly say 100% blah blah blah, because Wimbledon used to be a surface that was mostly serve and volley.

PS: I urge everyone to watch this clip, it basically educates you what grass courts are like at Wimbledon now a days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE - Of course its still relatively fast, but not as fast as the courts at Flushing Meadows. Wimbledon organisers care more about spectator value than the organisers of the US Open. The directors subscribe to the theory that if there are longer rallies, the probability of a more entertaining match increases. No, just because Nadal won the US Open in 2013 does not mean the US Open slowed down.

Interms of slowness:
French Open is naturally the slowest and they were using light tennis balls until this season.
Australian Open comes in second, its about medium pace and gives those with an attacking and defensive game a chance.
Wimbledon comes third. The balls are heavy and the grass slightly slower.
US Open is the fastest. Really attacking players do well there, as well as those who can use the pace of the opponent from the lower faster bounce and counter-punch. (Murray, Djokovic, Nishikori)
 
Last edited:
Here's some science. Don't judge the speed of the grass used at Wimbledon by the speed of the grass used at Halle, or even Queens. The grass at Halle is incredibly low bouncing and fast.

e1b683404b0916733883670a11169026_zpsag7ipsne.png


Its easier to wrong foot people on grass than on hard, so players like Federer, Dimitrov, Felly Lopez etc are able to do better on that surface than compared to even the hard surface that are faster.

If a player is able to change direction quickly as they are on hard court, they can also use the pace of the ball coming at them to redirect the power. So some counter-punchers and defensive players actually prefer slightly faster surfaces. Giles Simon is one. Seppi is another. Murray another.
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
The US Open is 100% faster than Wimbledon. 100%. I have done a lot of research into this and it has been proven on every level that the US Open courts are faster than the courts used at Wimbledon.

For a number of reasons too. One are the balls they use at Wimbledon, they're a lot heavier now a days and therefore it makes it much more difficult for players to hit through and penetrate the grass. The other is the grass itself was changed so that the ball would skid and stay low less, around the early 2000s. This is why players like Nadal were able to do well on it. What makes this worse is by the second week at Wimbledon the the greenness of the grass disappears and the baseline area is brown and not only easier to move on, but providing a higher bounce.

Many people here believe Wimbledon grass courts to be faster than the hard courts used at Flushing Meadows simply because Federer still does well at this major. Let me tell you, this is tool logic. Your ignorance could not be ANY stronger. Federer is able to do better on the grass courts used at Wimbledon than on the hard courts at the US Open NOT because the surface is faster and lower bouncing, BUT BECAUSE its a lot more slippery on a grass surface and harder for a player to SUDDENLY change direction with their feet. This naturally makes it a lot more difficult for players to defend against Federer and he can wrong foot them a lot easier. Go back-in-behind the player. On a hard surface you can grip to the ground and press off to change direction. On grass you need smaller footsteps and footwork. Its a lot more precise. That's why Federer is better at Wimbledon than at the US Open, because he can wrong foot opponents as the surface is slippery and they have to take an early guess as to where he is going.

The US Open has been recorded as the fastest surface by hawkeye and if you look with the naked eye, it certainly is so. The bounce is lower. Its no surprise that big, tall ball strikers with serves they can dominate opponents with have done well at the US Open. Marin Cilic, Del Potro, Andy Roddick. It is the fastest slam. Just because Nadal has wont he title twice doesn't mean the bounce is and the surface is slow. I urge you look.

So please don't be so automatic to quickly say 100% blah blah blah, because Wimbledon used to be a surface that was mostly serve and volley.

PS: I urge everyone to watch this clip, it basically educates you what grass courts are like at Wimbledon now a days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE - Of course its still relatively fast, but not as fast as the courts at Flushing Meadows. Wimbledon organisers care more about spectator value than the organisers of the US Open. The directors subscribe to the theory that if there are longer rallies, the probability of a more entertaining match increases. No, just because Nadal won the US Open in 2013 does not mean the US Open slowed down.

Interms of slowness:
French Open is naturally the slowest and they were using light tennis balls until this season.
Australian Open comes in second, its about medium pace and gives those with an attacking and defensive game a chance.
Wimbledon comes third. The balls are heavy and the grass slightly slower.
US Open is the fastest. Really attacking players do well there, as well as those who can use the pace of the opponent from the lower faster bounce and counter-punch. (Murray, Djokovic, Nishikori)

agree with most of your post, with a few caveats.

first, it wasn't the grass that was so much changed, it was the terra firma under the grass.

also, Federer did not win at Wimbledon until this changed occurred. same with Nadal.

you are very correct that Federer's foot work is what allows him to do so well on 'new grass' (and blue clay btw). his most ardent fans like to think that its just his offense. this is not the case. in the grand scheme of things Federer would not be considered among the most offensive of players. he just started S&V, and still does it nowhere near as much as true S&Vers. and off the ground, Federer is not the biggest hitter in this era or any before him. same can be said as far as his serve goes.

Prime Federer is an all-court player with excellent foot-work, great defense, great variety, and medium-high offense.
 
agree with most of your post, with a few caveats.

first, it wasn't the grass that was so much changed, it was the terra firma under the grass.

also, Federer did not win at Wimbledon until this changed occurred. same with Nadal.

you are very correct that Federer's foot work is what allows him to do so well on 'new grass' (and blue clay btw). his most ardent fans like to think that its just his offense. this is not the case. in the grand scheme of things Federer would not be considered among the most offensive of players. he just started S&V, and still does it nowhere near as much as true S&Vers. and off the ground, Federer is not the biggest hitter in this era or any before him. same can be said as far as his serve goes.

Prime Federer is an all-court player with excellent foot-work, great defense, great variety, and medium-high offense.

Yup. The patterns of footwork NEEDED to move EFFECTIVELY on grass are much, MUCH different to the patterns of footwork NEEDED to move EFFECTIVELY on hard court. It doesn't matter one jot what the speed of the surface is, the footwork on grass is a lot different.

In layman's terms you have to be a lot more lighter on your feet on grass. Its a surface that you really need to glide on. It doesn't suit EXPLOSIVE FOOTWORK, like the footwork Nadal has. This is why its near a miracle that that man has won two SW19 titles. Having Rainer Schuettler in the Semi finals of his 2008 campaign may have helped ofcourse, not to forget the edge he has over single handers and Federer being a single hander. But yeah, that discussion is for another day.

Murray is another one who moves great on grass. He has the tiny little shuffling of the feet needed, much like Federer. Have you ever seen Murray or Federer slip on a grass court? Think to yourselves. Djokovic, as good as he can be on the grass and as good as has managed to play and perform on it, its often with struggle, right? He is slipping all over the place left, right and centre and that is why Murray was able to blitz him in the final in 2013. Admittedly he didn't play his best, but its clear that because Djokovic relies a lot upon his movement and isn't able to move that great on grass, his the effectiveness of his game is lessened. Its not to do with the speed. The speed at Flushing Meadows is greater, but he moves better there. Yes, yes, I know he has two SW19 titles and one Flushing Meadow, but sometimes the statistics do lie and these are too small a sample to be basing anything off.

Feliciano Lopez is another one that moves brilliantly on the grass, he glides across the court and into the forecourt for volleying. Slice also reacts in a certain way on grass that it doesn't on hard court, which is sort of stating the obvious, but something many don';t consider. Slice on medium grass will be much more difficult and awkward to deal with than slice on fast pace hard court. That's why tall players struggle more with the bounce at Wimbledon than the bounce at the US Open, because when slice is applied on a grass surface, it just keeps low on you and you're playing the shot from your shoe laces. John Isner's weakest surface is grass IMO for this reason. See how much Cilic struggled with Troicki's junk ball variety at Queens? And also Stuttgart? Raonic? Again, too tall for grass.
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
how do you think Nishikori will do at Wimbledon, Tennis Maestro?

personally i feel Nishi has the best footwork on tour right now, due to Federer's decline. But, i'm not sure it will necessarily translate well this year...
 

ultradr

Legend
Interms of slowness:
French Open is naturally the slowest and they were using light tennis balls until this season.
Australian Open comes in second, its about medium pace and gives those with an attacking and defensive game a chance.
Wimbledon comes third. The balls are heavy and the grass slightly slower.
US Open is the fastest. Really attacking players do well there, as well as those who can use the pace of the opponent from the lower faster bounce and counter-punch. (Murray, Djokovic, Nishikori)

When Australian Open switched to a new surface few years ago, AO officials claimed they
are now 2nd fastest surface after US Open.

Since ~2003, Wimbledon is medium-slow surface, especially 2nd week, round of 16 or later, IMHO.

In general, all 3 slam (except French Open) surfaces converged to medium or slow-medium, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
how do you think Nishikori will do at Wimbledon, Tennis Maestro?

personally i feel Nishi has the best footwork on tour right now, due to Federer's decline. But, i'm not sure it will necessarily translate well this year...

Well. You agreed with me that the footwork needed on grass is much different to the footwork needed on hard court. So because hard courts take up atleast 70% of the tournaments played on the main tour (Including indoors btw) aren't you therefore rating Nishikori's movement for how good it is on hard? Being a good mover in general, doesn't mean you're a good mover on grass. He is in the top 3 or 4 best movers on tour when it comes to hard and clay, Nishikori, but for me, on grass? Definitely less so. I mean he has a good low centre of gravity and can deal with the lower bouncing ball, but I am not so sure his footwork is quite in the calibre of a Federer, a Murray, per say... for grass. Its still very good. I don't think Federer's footwork will have diminished much on the grass anyway, as the surface lends itself to the 'SOFTER' movers. You don't need great levels of intensity in your footwork to move great on grass. So yeah, having the best footwork in general doesn't mean you have the best footwork on grass.

Btw; this Federer is ageing stuff and therefore cannot do as well as he used to is a completely blown out of proportion myth. I don't buy it and I don't believe it. He has declined, but this stuff about fitness is a pile of nonsense. He lost to Wawrinka in straight sets and he beat Monfils in an uneventful 4. He was well rested. It wasn't as if he was dipping into his lactic acid threshold. The clay is all about generating your own pace and power as the ball is bouncing up at you high and not that fast. It favours the guys that play with the heavier topspin.

Federer struggles to generate the same power on his backhand that Wawrinka and other players can. That's why he was losing all the backhand to backhand cross court duels with Stan. Wawrinka over powered roger. On a faster surface you can break the opponent's robotic baseline rhythm with variety, Federer couldn't do that on the clay against Wawrinka. He CAN'T do that on the clay against Wawrinka. Doesn't matter whether its 2004, 5, 6 or 7. That version of Wawrinka is too much of a difficult match-up for Federer on any slow court surface. Federer needs the court to help him a little bit, otherwise he struggles to make his own power on the backhand. When the court surface is faster, the ball comes to him a little quicker and he is striking it in and around his strike zone. He is able to use the pace the opponent gives him more with his backhand on a faster surface. On clay he can't generate pace with the backhand. He lost because Wawrinka on his day is a better clay court player than him. Monte Carlo Masters was also demonstration of that. I have a feeling a few bias Federer fanatics will now quote me and talk to me about how he dominated on clay behind Nadal during the mid 2000s when the tour was a lot weaker, but yeah, I'll let them think that meant anything lol.

Topspin is nullified on grass, the ball doesn't react in the same way off the surface as it does on clay or a relatively high bouncing hard court. It skids through a little bit and Federer has an easier strike. I think Federer will be there or there about. I would make him second favourite behind Murray, personally. The best of 5 set thing doesn't factor as much as people believe as the grass isn't taxing on the body, so even if people believe this crap about Federer ageing and being unable to compete for long periods at a high level, then consider that he gets more cheap points on this surface. His serving variety is more rewarded on grass and he can come to net obviously to shorten points.

Djokovic comes in as third favourite behind Murray and Federer for me. Not only because he has not had any match time on the grass and not only because his morale will be extremely low after failing to win that illusive French Open crown but because Federer has shown clearly, for anyone that gets the sport, that his all-court (You mentioned it earlier), bags of variety and net rushing game he has reinvented himself with, since Edberg's arrival, is a win over Djokovic on an even slightly fast surface. You just have to look back to the Shanghai Masters final and the Final in Dubai earlier this year. Both the fastest out door hard court surfaces on the tour and Federer won both matches. The movement factor will also be very relevant if they were to meet. I'd personally have Federer as the favourite against him, but that's me.
 
Last edited:

ultradr

Legend
Many people here believe Wimbledon grass courts to be faster than the hard courts used at Flushing Meadows simply because Federer still does well at this major. Let me tell you, this is tool logic. Your ignorance could not be ANY stronger. Federer is able to do better on the grass courts used at Wimbledon than on the hard courts at the US Open NOT because the surface is faster and lower bouncing, BUT BECAUSE its a lot more slippery on a grass surface and harder for a player to SUDDENLY change direction with their feet. This naturally makes it a lot more difficult for players to defend against Federer and he can wrong foot them a lot easier. Go back-in-behind the player. On a hard surface you can grip to the ground and press off to change direction. On grass you need smaller footsteps and footwork. Its a lot more precise. That's why Federer is better at Wimbledon than at the US Open, because he can wrong foot opponents as the surface is slippery and they have to take an early guess as to where he is going.

+1. Generally agreed. Also note that Federer is simply older and got one step slower.

He now can get over-powered by ground stroke rallies by top players more easily on hard courts (with certain bounces).
He is more vulnerable (once he got older) on relatively fast hard courts.

I think Federer's best chances are slower grass/clay courts with uncertain bounces.
 

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
+1. Generally agreed. Also note that Federer is simply older and got one step slower.

He now can get over-powered by ground stroke rallies by top players more easily on hard courts (with certain bounces).
He is more vulnerable (once he got older) on relatively fast hard courts.

I think Federer's best chances are slower grass/clay courts with uncertain bounces.
Clay has always been his worst surface. It's just he was so good it didn't matter what court he played on. Nadal was the only player that was good enough to show Fed's weakness on clay. As of recent years, so has Djokovic.
 
Watch these 2 videos. Tell me which seems faster. Wimbledon is Nadal's worst slam. I also find it amazing how he adapted there in the past. But recent years have shown he can no longer do great here. US Open has been his second best slam. And the video highlights show why.
https://youtu.be/A0EJ6GxaQFA
https://youtu.be/52zeU9lZ5ro

Again. You don't seem to realise that the reason Nadal does better at the US Open than compared to Wimbledon is because of footwork. Grass does not lend itself to players that do not move with grace. Explosive, high intensity footwork is a no no on grass. Did you not see him slipping all over the place in Struttgart?

Anyway: Nadal played the best tennis of his career in 2013. He was a lot more aggressive, his forehand was on the money, he came in with HUUUGE momentum and was basically serving lights out. I remember it clearly, he was clutching hard and if we are being really brutally honest, Djokovic did miss a lot of opportunities in that 2013 final.

YES Nadal's topspin cobra spits off the surface when there is a high bounce, but that is not the reason he won. He did not win using his topspin. When you look at how he beat Djokovic, he was hitting through his forehand a lot more rather than relying on topspin to drag Djokovic out of position. He was grinding and being extremely aggressive when he could, rather than building opening's with topspin forehands.

It seems like you are one of those fan boys that only ever watches Nadal and so you're using him as a barometer for how quick surfaces are. Lol.
 

ultradr

Legend
Clay has always been his worst surface. It's just he was so good it didn't matter what court he played on. Nadal was the only player that was good enough to show Fed's weakness on clay. As of recent years, so has Djokovic.

I mean after he got old and declined. I think he now has better chances to beat top players on grass/clay than on hard courts.
 

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
I mean after he got old and declined. I think he now has better chances to beat top players on grass/clay than on hard courts.
It's in this order.
Grass
Indoor Hardcourt
Fast Outdoor hardcourt.
Clay
Slow Outdoor Hardcourt. So yeah Miami conditions don't suit him.
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
The question is unfortunately too simplistic, because courts can be fast in different ways. There are two kinds of speed, horizontal and vertical. Clay, for example, is actually quite fast vertically because it deflects the path of the ball upward for a higher bounce. A lot of what is observed as the 'slowness' of the court is better described in terms of changing the bounce. This is a very slow court horizontally but vertically not slow.

The opposite effect happens on grass where the angle of the bounce is the smallest. The low bounce gives it the appearance and effect of being slower than it actually is in absolute terms, because more of the speed is directed to moving through the court(i.e., towards the baseline on a DTL shot) and less vertically or up for the bounce.

A fast hard court is generally faster in terms of absolute speed than a grass court, but more of the energy or speed goes vertically into the bounce and therefore servers do better on grass. Despite the fact that the ball is not moving as fast overall, there is less time to get to it. In a rally, the ball will seem to 'fly off the racket' better and with greater power on the fast hardcourt, because the absolute speed is higher.

So which is faster? It depends on the situation.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
It's been the U.S. Open most years since the grass at Wimbledon was slowed.

If this was the 90s, it'd Wimbledon without a shadow of a doubt. The biggest issue of course remains time. As the tournament wears on the grass courts slow down while the U.S. Open remains or gets slightly quicker.

But watching it, I always feel Wimbledon is faster. The illusion is in the bounce.

Performance-wise, you have to look at the Champions and Finalists. Patrick Rafter won back to back U.S. Opens and lost back to back Wimbledons. He was a serve and volley specialist. Pete Sampras won 7 in 8 seasons at Wimbledon while winning 5 U.S. Opens and losing 3 Finals. He lost 4 Slam Finals in total in his career mind you.

This is because great servers have an advantage at Wimbledon as serve dictates the point more, which is why Federer is still effective as that has declined the least of his weapons. Meanwhile the U.S. Open is about returns and cross-court. Which is why several Wimbledon Champions like Sampras, Federer, Becker, McEnroe, etc, have done well at both events. But a guy like Ivanisevic, who lived by the serve, only saw deep runs at Wimbledon.
 

coloskier

Legend
Wimbledon is still the fastest, but all three of the non-clay slams have been slowed down considerably. What has hurt the speed at Wimbledon as much as anything is the higher bounce. It used to be the highest bounce at Wimbledon was knee high.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
I am getting conflicted statements here ???

People are telling me that US open has slowed down the last few years and that Aussie has speed up the last few years so now the difference is only minor.
While Wimbledon only appears faster because of the difficulty of changing direction

???????????
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Wimbledon is probably about as quick but it has a whole different set of other conditions.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Right after wimbledon changed grass, I remember the New York times tennis column wrote about the US open became the fastest slam. I don't pay attention to the sports writers names but I believe the NYT tennis writers are pretty good. They also quoted players.

But that was more than 10 years ago. I have also heard from different sources that the USO has slowed down its courts by making the top coat gritier. But according to ITF I guess the USO is still bit faster than Wim. I think they are pretty close.
 
I am getting conflicted statements here ???

People are telling me that US open has slowed down the last few years and that Aussie has speed up the last few years so now the difference is only minor.
While Wimbledon only appears faster because of the difficulty of changing direction

???????????

Don't listen to those people, they're simply going by the logic that Nadal did well at the US Open in 2013, when he was literally on fire and flowing with incredible momentum.
 
Top