Nadal better on grass or hard courts?

We all know that Nadal has reached "his" last 4 finals at Wimbledon winning in 2008 and 2010, he also won the Queen's Club Championships in 2008. To be honest there is nothing left for him to achieve on grass. That makes it

2 Wimbledon titles, 2 Wimbledon finals, 1 Queen's Club Championships title + 3 other quarters out of his last 8 tournaments on grass courts (all since 2006)

Now the hard courts, apart from the ATP World tour finals he has won every big event at least once, AO, UO, the Olympic Gold Medal, won 3 out of 6 Masters titles (+ reached the final in the other 2). 11 titles in total.

Which surface gets the vote?
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Obviously he is better on grass, but there still is some stuff for him to achieve on grass. Mainly defending his title.
 

thejoe

Hall of Fame
We all know that Nadal has reached "his" last 4 finals at Wimbledon winning in 2008 and 2010, he also won the Queen's Club Championships in 2008. To be honest there is nothing left for him to achieve on grass. That makes it

2 Wimbledon titles, 2 Wimbledon finals, 1 Queen's Club Championships title + 3 other quarters out of his last 8 tournaments on grass courts (all since 2006)

Now the hard courts, apart from the ATP World tour finals he has won every big event at least once, AO, UO, the Olympic Gold Medal, won 3 out of 6 Masters titles (+ reached the final in the other 2). 11 titles in total.

Which surface gets the vote?

You're seriously making the Olympics out to be something it's not. It's not even always on hard courts.
 

Clay lover

Legend
His level of play is certainly higher on grass, his lack of titles is just due to the shortness of the grass seasons. He loses to guys like Murray and Djokovic regularly on hardcourts but he never lost to them on grass.
 
Last edited:
Nadal has developed into the best grass court player around, along with Federer arguably. That's quite an accomplishment, given that he struggled at Wimbledon at the beginning of his career. He played great to capture his second W title this year in a remarkable performance there, just one year after his 2009 absence. Then, you have him in the finals in 06, 07, and the champion in 08 and 10. So, basically in 2006-2010, during 4 years played, he won W twice and got to the finals twice, losing two finals to Federer. That's quite a record he's building there. Nadal is going to be tough to beat at Wimbledon during the next few years at least.
 

They changed the grass dramatically in 2001. Yet, perhaps it has been slowed down even further between 2003 and 2008. Both observations could be true. 2001 was the big change in the composition of the grass. Yet, suppose they slowed the surface down even further between 2003 and 2008?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm


Organisers started to use 100% perennial ryegrass seed in 2001 to provide a stronger grass more able to take the wear-and-tear of two weeks of continual usage.

"What Tim is saying is absolutely true," agrees John Lloyd, BBC Sport commentator and two-time Wimbledon mixed doubles champion.

"The courts have become slower and they are bouncing higher than they used to.
 
They changed the grass dramatically in 2001. Yet, perhaps it has been slowed down even further between 2003 and 2008. Both observations could be true. 2001 was the big change in the composition of the grass. Yet, suppose they slowed the surface down even further between 2003 and 2008?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm
I am a bit skeptical of this. I remember in 2002, all the baseliners started to do well. Nalbandian and Hewitt made it to the finals and played a match that couldnt be anymore different than the one just an year ago beaten Goran and Rafter, which featured almost complete all court play.
 
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

But grass has the most profound influence on style of play. In 2001, Goran Ivanisevic beat Pat Rafter in a Wimbledon final that featured 38 service aces; both players favored the fast-court tactic of heading to the net to volley. A year later, however, Australian baseline specialist Lleyton Hewitt defeated Argentinian David Nalbandian in a match that featured only seven aces and not a single such serve-and-volley point.
The dramatic shift in the winning style engendered plenty of speculation. Players argued that Wimbledon had surreptitiously introduced slower balls; some commentators heralded a new generation of players so adept at returning serve that they made serve-and-volley tactics ineffective. But the biggest change at Wimbledon, of course, was to the grass.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html#ixzz17s3ihFl3

In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.
Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft. But the ground eventually dried, and baseliners have excelled since; in men's tennis, Roger Federer, who serves and volleys only around 10% of the time, has reigned supreme. And while women have always been more inclined to play from the back of the court, big-hitting groundstrokers such as Maria Sharapova and Serena and Venus Williams have all but shut the door on the serve-and-volley style ushered in by the now-retired Martina Navratilova and Jana Novotna.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html#ixzz17s3KvwjW
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
It was in August/September 2001 that the Wimbledon grass was changed to 100% Rye from the old surface of 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue, which means that the 2001 Wimbledon championships used the old grass surface.

Anyone with memories of 2001-2002 will recall that it was at 2002 Wimbledon, not 2001, where there was obviously something very odd about the grass surface. It was also at 2002 Wimbledon when Henman said it was "the slowest court I've played on all year".

It was also at 2002 Wimbledon where we had upsets like Srichaphan beating Agassi and Bastl beating Sampras. We had baseliners like Sa and Lapentti getting as far as the quarter finals, and a baseliner like Malisse beating serve-and-volleyers like Rusedski and Krajicek on his way to the semi finals.

We also had Henman struggling all the way to the semi finals in unconvincing fashion before getting totally routined by Hewitt in the semi finals. It was also the tournament where Nalbandian got to the final in this very first appearance in the men's singles tournament. And then there was Hewitt and Nalbandian in the final without a single serve and volley point. Contrast that with Ivanisevic and Rafter from the 2001 Wimbledon final.

The only rain delays I can recall at 2001 Wimbledon are:
1. During the Hewitt vs. Dent second round match
2. During the Henman vs. Martin fourth round match, postponed overnight with Martin 2-1 up in sets.
3. The Ivanisevic vs. Henman semi final match going for 3 days.

That is not an "exceptionally rainy 2 weeks".
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Mustard, per this article, the change occurred prior to the 2001 tournament, not in August-September 2001. See this excerpt.

It's incorrect. The journalist has made an error because the surface was changed in 2001, but in August/September when the grass is relayed each year. The 2001 Wimbledon championships in June/July 2001 was laid the previous year and it was the old surface of 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue. 2002 Wimbledon was the first Wimbledon with the 100% Rye grass courts.

http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/

After playing for the first time on the new perennial rye lawns at Wimbledon in 2002, now-retired British player Tim Henman, (known for his serve-and-volley game) commented, "I’m on a grass court and it’s the slowest court I’ve played on all year."

If you're still sceptical, you've only got to watch matches from the 2 tournaments to see the difference.
 
Last edited:
It's incorrect. The journalist has made an error because the surface was changed in 2001, but in August/September when the grass is relayed each year. The 2001 Wimbledon championships in June/July 2001 was laid the previous year and it was the old surface of 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue. 2002 Wimbledon was the first Wimbledon with the 100% Rye grass courts.

http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/



If you're still sceptical, you've only got to watch matches from the 2 tournaments to see the difference.

Well Mustard, that's interesting. I trust your judgment. They do make mistakes in articles, but Time is a serious magazine and that's a HUGE error if that's true. Do you have any other articles? I'll keep looking. Thanks.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Well Mustard, that's interesting. I trust your judgment. They do make mistakes in articles, but Time is a serious magazine and that's a HUGE error if that's true. Do you have any other articles? I'll keep looking. Thanks.

Don't you remember 2001 Wimbledon, borg number one? An exceptionally rainy 2 weeks it certainly wasn't. It was only during the Ivanisevic vs. Henman semi final that it was exceptionally rainy during that tournament. Before that, we had a rain delay of about an hour or so in the Hewitt vs. Dent match and an overnight rain delay during the Henman vs. Martin match.

As for Henman, he had no troubles or complaints about the grass surface at 2001 Wimbledon. At 2002 Wimbledon, on the other hand, he was calling it the "slowest court he had played on all year". And just look at all those strange results at 2002 Wimbledon with baseliners getting deep into the tournament and serve-and-volleyers struggling a lot more than normal. I clearly remember wondering "what the heck is going on with the grass?".
 
Last edited:
Mustard, no I don't recall exactly how much it rained during that tourney. It doesn't seem as if it rained much during the tournament based on what you pointed out about the rainy days. Yet, rain even during the SF, F, and that one overnight delay with rain, depending on how much rain they received could make the courts softer and thus more conducive to serve and volleying. That rain does impact 3 rounds just based on those 2 rain days.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Of course he is better on grass. He is unlucky to have not won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row due to injuries. On hard courts it is a huge things whenever he wins something big, he is capable but not a clear favorite to ever do so.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Nadal has developed into the best grass court player around, along with Federer arguably. That's quite an accomplishment, given that he struggled at Wimbledon at the beginning of his career. He played great to capture his second W title this year in a remarkable performance there, just one year after his 2009 absence. Then, you have him in the finals in 06, 07, and the champion in 08 and 10. So, basically in 2006-2010, during 4 years played, he won W twice and got to the finals twice, losing two finals to Federer. That's quite a record he's building there. Nadal is going to be tough to beat at Wimbledon during the next few years at least.

Struggled compared to what? His clay results? The third time he entered the tournament he made the final. His early results are better than Sampras' results.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Of course he is better on grass. He is unlucky to have not won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row due to injuries. On hard courts it is a huge things whenever he wins something big, he is capable but not a clear favorite to ever do so.


4 in a row? How do you figure that?
 
Struggled compared to what? His clay results? The third time he entered the tournament he made the final. His early results are better than Sampras' results.

Nadal reached the 3d round in 2003. In 2004, he didn't play due to injury I believe, and then in 2005 he lost in the second round. Then all of a sudden, you have the finals in 2006-2007, the wins in 2008 and 2010, and the missed 2009 tournament. So he did struggle relative to his later success there, but more than that it was the way he played. He grew into a much better grass court player tactically and began serving better. His return game also improved as well as his general movement and anticipation.
 

msc886

Professional
Of course he is better on grass. He is unlucky to have not won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row due to injuries. On hard courts it is a huge things whenever he wins something big, he is capable but not a clear favorite to ever do so.

lol that's like saying Federer's unlucky to not win 03-10 due to mono and leg injuries.
 
4 in a row? How do you figure that?
Let me break down this **** logic for you. According to certain Nadal fans:

2007- Nadal should have won but got injured in the fourth set, a set he won, and then was burned out in the 5th set despite having multiple opportunities to break at 1-1 and 2-2.

2009- Was injured but if he had played he would have won the entire thing.

So pretty much 2007 and 2009 have been chalked up as wins by certain Nadal fans due to some strange psychological defense mechanism to deal with the harsh reality that Nadal failed to win.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Well Mustard, that's interesting. I trust your judgment. They do make mistakes in articles, but Time is a serious magazine and that's a HUGE error if that's true. Do you have any other articles? I'll keep looking. Thanks.

It was changed in late 2000 for the championships in 2001 ;)

New grass was in place in for Wimbledon 2001
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Let me break down this **** logic for you. According to certain Nadal fans:

2007- Nadal should have won but got injured in the fourth set, a set he won, and then was burned out in the 5th set despite having multiple opportunities to break at 1-1 and 2-2.

2009- Was injured but if he had played he would have won the entire thing.

So pretty much 2007 and 2009 have been chalked up as wins by certain Nadal fans due to some strange psychological defense mechanism to deal with the harsh reality that Nadal failed to win.

Well in 2009 he would have been the heavy favorite healthy and playing. That is a no brainer.

I can see how people have differing opinions on 2007. Yes my opinion is he lost since he was injured towards the end of the match. You are entitled to feel differently.
 
It was changed in late 2000 for the championships in 2001 ;)

New grass was in place in for Wimbledon 2001

That's odd...

Wimbledon 2001 quarterfinalists:

Federer - played s-v at the time (beat Sampras s-v in the 4th)
Henman - s-v (beat Martin s-v in the 4th)
Safin - aggresive baseliner (had a rather easy draw)
Ivanisevic - s-v (beat Rusedski s-v in the 4th)
Enqvist - aggresive baseliner (super easy draw to the quarters)
Escude - baseliner
Rafter - s-v
Agassi - aggresive baseliner (easy draw)

Compare it to:

Wimbledon 2002 quarterfinalists:
Henman and Krajicek were the only s-v in the 8 man line-up and both were struggling heavily to get to that stage.

A Hewitt-Nalbandian final at Wimbledon? Is this a joke?
 
I can see how people have differing opinions on 2007. Yes my opinion is he lost since he was injured towards the end of the match. You are entitled to feel differently.

Well if you're playing out of your mind for more than 3 hours you'll get screwed at some stage. Btw Nadal's "injury" didn't prevent him from finishing off the 4th set 6-2 and having a double break point twice early in the 5th before Federer took control.

I think Nadal tried the same trick he did against Peztschner and Haase but he was shocked that it didn't work against Federer.

If you're injured, you can't continue, as simple as that. But if you're taking a medical time-out, then get back on court and play your best tennis then that's nothing but a dirty trick
 
Last edited:
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
I am totally NOT interested in this but even a blind mentalcase could see that he is better on grass.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Nadal reached the 3d round in 2003. In 2004, he didn't play due to injury I believe, and then in 2005 he lost in the second round. Then all of a sudden, you have the finals in 2006-2007, the wins in 2008 and 2010, and the missed 2009 tournament. So he did struggle relative to his later success there, but more than that it was the way he played. He grew into a much better grass court player tactically and began serving better. His return game also improved as well as his general movement and anticipation.

None the less, making the final in your third try at a tournament doesn't constitue struggling. Very rarely have players out of the gate won any tournament let alone a major.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
In 2005, Nadal played on grass in a similar way to how he played on clay and did poorly. He learned from this mistake and realised that he had to adapt his game to the different conditions.
 

Messarger

Hall of Fame
In 2005, Nadal played on grass in a similar way to how he played on clay and did poorly. He learned from this mistake and realised that he had to adapt his game to the different conditions.

he took a much longer time to improve his results on hard. this shows that his game is better suited to grass.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
he took a much longer time to improve his results on hard. this shows that his game is better suited to grass.

The thing with hardcourt is that it favours flat hitters more than topspin hitters and that the field are a lot closer to each others' levels on hardcourt. Nadal, therefore, could sometimes be hit off the court on hardcourt by flat hitters like a Youzhny, Blake or Berdych. Nadal also moves a lot better on clay and grass.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Of course he is better on grass. He is unlucky to have not won the last 4 Wimbledons in a row due to injuries. On hard courts it is a huge things whenever he wins something big, he is capable but not a clear favorite to ever do so.

Same old Davey25. Haven't changed his BS one bit !
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Aren't they both playing on the same grass? Or do they change it depending on who's playing, Federer or Nadal? Lol!

Surface changes benefit different types of players. The grass was slowed down argument is so weak, especially if you consider Federer's results when the grass was fast.

During the "fast" grass period Federer only had one match of note and was consistently beat by players like Henman and Ancic.

Fed's dominance began with the slower grass, so what on earth are people "arguing"?

Talk about spin!
 

timnz

Legend
Federer - age and development was the issue

Aren't they both playing on the same grass? Or do they change it depending on who's playing, Federer or Nadal? Lol!

Surface changes benefit different types of players. The grass was slowed down argument is so weak, especially if you consider Federer's results when the grass was fast.

During the "fast" grass period Federer only had one match of note and was consistently beat by players like Henman and Ancic.

Fed's dominance began with the slower grass, so what on earth are people "arguing"?

Talk about spin!

THe last year Grass was fast was 2001. Federer was only 19 at the time. Unlike Nadal he didn't hit his peak until 2003 when he was 21 or 22. Hence, his results on faster grass were nothing to do with him not liking the surface, they were to do with him not being fully mature as a player. But like a lot of players who eventually go on to being great - you see flashes of their great potential in odd matches in their teens eg the match with Sampras in 2001. Its just that, before their maturity they aren't able to sustain it.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
THe last year Grass was fast was 2001. Federer was only 19 at the time. Unlike Nadal he didn't hit his peak until 2003 when he was 21 or 22. Hence, his results on faster grass were nothing to do with him not liking the surface, they were to do with him not being fully mature as a player. But like a lot of players who eventually go on to being great - you see flashes of their great potential in odd matches in their teens eg the match with Sampras in 2001. Its just that, before their maturity they aren't able to sustain it.

Good post, but it goes both ways.

We've known of Nadal since he was nineteen too. He wasn't fully mature as a player either and has cut his teeth on hard court and the other surfaces as he's gone along. Saying Fed was only 19 and not fully mature isn't that great of an argument. No one is fully mature in their game in their teens.

What some people are saying is that the grass benefitted Nadal by its slowing down, but both are playing on the same grass, and Fed's results were not stellar on the fast stuff either. He had that one match, but other than that his resume wasn't that impressive.

It's just that it's so ridiculous for people to try to gain an edge in some of these arguments. They're both great players with different styles that ultimately come down to fan preferences. Some people like the "grace and beauty" of gazelles, and some people like the raw, athletic power of a lion. Neither animal is greater. It all boils down to personal taste. There is no reason to disparage either, imo.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Good post, but it goes both ways.

We've known of Nadal since he was nineteen too. He wasn't fully mature as a player either and has cut his teeth on hard court and the other surfaces as he's gone along. Saying Fed was only 19 and not fully mature isn't that great of an argument. No one is fully mature in their game in their teens.

What some people are saying is that the grass benefitted Nadal by its slowing down, but both are playing on the same grass, and Fed's results were not stellar on the fast stuff either. He had that one match, but other than that his resume wasn't that impressive.

It's just that it's so ridiculous for people to try to gain an edge in some of these arguments. They're both great players with different styles that ultimately come down to fan preferences. Some people like the "grace and beauty" of gazelles, and some people like the raw, athletic power of a lion. Neither animal is greater. It all boils down to personal taste. There is no reason to disparage either, imo.

Federer's 19 and Nadal's 19 weren't the same. Nadal relies upon physical ability for most of his success while Federer's all-court attacking game has been shown to take more time to develop.

I do agree they are both fantastic players though. I'd say Boris Becker was fairly close to the top of his game in his teens also.
 

timnz

Legend
Nadal/Federer

Good post, but it goes both ways.

We've known of Nadal since he was nineteen too. He wasn't fully mature as a player either and has cut his teeth on hard court and the other surfaces as he's gone along. Saying Fed was only 19 and not fully mature isn't that great of an argument. No one is fully mature in their game in their teens.

What some people are saying is that the grass benefitted Nadal by its slowing down, but both are playing on the same grass, and Fed's results were not stellar on the fast stuff either. He had that one match, but other than that his resume wasn't that impressive.

It's just that it's so ridiculous for people to try to gain an edge in some of these arguments. They're both great players with different styles that ultimately come down to fan preferences. Some people like the "grace and beauty" of gazelles, and some people like the raw, athletic power of a lion. Neither animal is greater. It all boils down to personal taste. There is no reason to disparage either, imo.

I like the spirit in which you wrote this email. However, I disagree - there would not be one commentator who would say that Federer at 18/19 would be anywhere close to what Nadal was at 18/19 (eg 2005). Nadal was number 2 that year, whereas Federer wasn't even in the top 10 at the same age. Hence, maybe Nadal wasn't at his peak then, but he was a lot more mature than Federer was at the same age. Re. speed of court surface. Federer has shown via his 3 - 0 lead on indoor that he handles fast surfaces better than Nadal. Look at Nadal's indoor record compared to any other surfaces. It is clear on the fast stuff he is at his weakest. Hence, the evidence is there that Federer could handle the fast Grass much better than Nadal.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Federer's 19 and Nadal's 19 weren't the same. Nadal relies upon physical ability for most of his success while Federer's all-court attacking game has been shown to take more time to develop.

I do agree they are both fantastic players though. I'd say Boris Becker was fairly close to the top of his game in his teens also.

Of course they weren't, they're two different people, which is why the comparisons are so lame.

The thread was about the "slow" grass somehow benefitting Nadal when both of them played on it at the same time. It stands to reason that it benefitted both of them. This is evidenced by the fact that excepting that one match Federer didn't fare well on the fast stuff either as far as I recollect.

I do agree with your last statement though. They're both great players, and the contrast is scintillating!

Didn't see Becker though.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I like the spirit in which you wrote this email. However, I disagree - there would not be one commentator who would say that Federer at 18/19 would be anywhere close to what Nadal was at 18/19 (eg 2005). Nadal was number 2 that year, whereas Federer wasn't even in the top 10 at the same age. Hence, maybe Nadal wasn't at his peak then, but he was a lot more mature than Federer was at the same age. Re. speed of court surface. Federer has shown via his 3 - 0 lead on indoor that he handles fast surfaces better than Nadal. Look at Nadal's indoor record compared to any other surfaces. It is clear on the fast stuff he is at his weakest. Hence, the evidence is there that Federer could handle the fast Grass much better than Nadal.

I see where you're coming from. No argument with what you've written.

I thought we were talking about grass though, not indoor surfaces. But at least I understand your point
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Clay > Grass > Hard

I'm not going to go into the discussions about fast grass, slow grass, or anything like that. All I know is that on the grass that the whole tour plays on, he is much better than on hard courts. Since 05, only Federer has beaten Nadal at Wimbledon, that should give an indication of how good he is on that surface.
 

Fandango

Rookie
I remember when people we're laughing when he said his goal was to win Wimbledon.

His record on ATP Ricoh Match Facts is a 40-9 (81.6%) on hard this year, and 9-1 (90%) on grass.

I believe that there should be more grass court venues on the ATP tour, but right now , Rafael Nadal is better, statistically speaking on grass.
 
Top