Nadal says he prefers faster courts

President

Legend
Q. Actually since Beijing you seem to be playing better and better. Do you feel it? Do you think this surface in a way, which seems quite slow, helps your game more than others or not?
RAFAEL NADAL: I don't play very well in that slow surfaces. I play better in little bit faster surfaces, not slow.

People thinks because I had a lot of success on clay, people thinks I play better on the slower surfaces. But the real thing is in hard court, in the courts that I had more success are in fast courts. Montréal is one of the fastest courts. I had a lot of success in Montréal. When I won the Olympics, was very fast court. Madrid 2005 was a fast court. And for sure Shanghai is fast, no?

When you are playing well, you are playing well in all the surfaces. When you are playing bad, you are playing bad in all the surfaces. Is not true that I play better because the surface is slow, no. I prefer to have little bit faster surface than a slower surface.

I am playing better since Montréal. I was practicing well there, in the US Open, too. If the results don't say that, you don't see the practices, but I know how I was practicing there.

Then the results on Beijing, Shanghai, Basel, Paris confirms that I am playing much better, no? So happy for that. As I said in Beijing, my main goal is try to start next year with my level, with the level that I want to be. I am working to make that happen.

Q. But you were just also saying when it's fast out there, you won Montréal, you were playing great, you won Wimbledon, it was fast. If it's fast here, maybe you can win it?
RAFAEL NADAL: I never say that it's fast here. I never say that is fast here. Here everybody is saying that it's slow. It's not that I'm saying it's fast.

The court is not fast. The court is okay. But it's obvious that I am playing against the best players of the world. I only won the first match. That's important for me, very important. But remain a lot to qualify for that semifinals. I cannot think about winning the tournament today when I only won the first match.

I think about the next match. Then if I am able to win next match, probably I will be in that semifinals. If not I going to keep fighting in the third match to try to be qualify for that semifinals.

I go day by day, that's all.

Pretty interesting words from Nadal, thoughts?
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
For me not interesting. It becomes more difficult to generate power as the years go by. He loves fast but high bouncing courts. WTF arena worst for him indoors slow and low bouncing. Ball bounce always more important for him than the speed also. He also plays his best on clay in faster conditions when the sun shines.
 

xan

Hall of Fame
Eh im not quite sure how to take this.
Is he.. nah
Maybe, he thought . . nah nope..
Could it be . . . no. no no, nevermind

I have no clue.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL at the journalists though:

J: The courts here seem very slow, should be perfect for your chances
R: I prefer hardcourts that are a little faster
J: So you're saying it's real fast here. Maybe you can win the whole thing then?
R: [who are these idiots, no?]

———

On topic, this has been discussed a whole lot here, and I think the main thing for Rafa is that he doesn't like dead or low-bouncing courts, whatever the speed. He seems to prefer more lively hardcourts with a bit more grit, and those tend to be more in the medium speed range.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
I read all that in his voice.

But yeah, very interesting.
I already thought that Nadal was just fine on faster courts, what he likes is the high bounce.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Now that he's aged and can't defend like he used to, it's true. But it wasn't the case when he was younger and defending like a maniac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn

mightyrick

Legend
Hearing what Nadal and Federer both said about their own games, it is very obvious that they don't view their own game the way that outsiders (especially TTWers) do. I loved both of those interviews because it made everyone here look like a bunch of presumptuous morons.

I think Nadal's point is that (to him) a slow surface is one where the ball not only travels slow, but it also eats the spin and stays low. To him, that is a "slow" court. The court is dead. Whereas at least on natural surfaces, while the pace may get diminished, the ball explodes off the surfaces due to the spin. Natural surfaces are *lively*. So in my mind, when Nadal says he likes fast surfaces, he is saying he likes surfaces which are amenable to spin and cause the ball to explode off the court. To him, those are fast courts. Nadal likes natural surfaces. Yes, that includes grass. People forget that Nadal has said multiple times that he thinks his game is suited very well to grass.

I think that is why Djokovic and Federer love indoors so much. When you are on a court that deadens the ball and kills spin (after the bounce), it allows them to hit cleaner shots.

I thought Nadal's answers made a lot of sense to me.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
Hearing what Nadal and Federer both said about their own games, it is very obvious that they don't view their own game the way that outsiders (especially TTWers) do. I loved both of those interviews because it made everyone here look like a bunch of presumptuous morons.

I think Nadal's point is that (to him) a slow surface is one where the ball not only travels slow, but it also eats the spin and stays low. To him, that is a "slow" court. The court is dead. Whereas at least on natural surfaces, while the pace may get diminished, the ball explodes off the surfaces due to the spin. Natural surfaces are *lively*. So in my mind, when Nadal says he likes fast surfaces, he is saying he likes surfaces which are amenable to spin and cause the ball to explode off the court. To him, those are fast courts. Nadal likes natural surfaces. Yes, that includes grass. People forget that Nadal has said multiple times that he thinks his game is suited very well to grass.

I think that is why Djokovic and Federer love indoors so much. When you are on a court that deadens the ball and kills spin (after the bounce), it allows them to hit cleaner shots.

I thought Nadal's answers made a lot of sense to me.
Thats true and that why he hates indoors more regardless of the speed it just kills all the spin.Put Rafa on a indoor clay court he isnt going to like it.
 

President

Legend
Now that he's aged and can't defend like he used to, it's true. But it wasn't the case when he was younger and defending like a maniac.

Like several other people in this thread have stated, there is a big difference between a slow, dead, indoor court where the ball neither bounces high nor comes through the court quickly, and a more lively court that may be slow in terms of horizontal speed, but converts the energy into a higher bounce. I don't think Nadal at any stage in his career would have preferred a surface like the current Paris or the WTF over a quicker, more lively, higher bouncing hardcourt that would be considered fast.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Like several other people in this thread have stated, there is a big difference between a slow, dead, indoor court where the ball neither bounces high nor comes through the court quickly, and a more lively court that may be slow in terms of horizontal speed, but converts the energy into a higher bounce. I don't think Nadal at any stage in his career would have preferred a surface like the current Paris or the WTF over a quicker, more lively, higher bouncing hardcourt that would be considered fast.
Bounce is a different thing altogether. Nadal obviously prefers bouncier courts.
 

President

Legend
Bounce is a different thing altogether. Nadal obviously prefers bouncier courts.

Typically the very slow hardcourts, particularly indoors, will have a lower bounce than medium-medium fast paced hardcourts. The AO, since it changed to Plexicushion, has definitely been slower than tournaments like Montreal or the USO, but the latter two have been clearly higher bouncing. All 3 of those are faster and higher bouncing than Paris or the WTF. Another example is IW vs Miami, Miami is slower/heavier/deader, but IW has a higher bounce. My point is that Nadal has never liked the absolute slowest tournaments; on a hardcourt, I think medium pace has always been his best bet (and even on clay, where Hamburg, which was the slowest big tournament on tour by some margin, was his worst event).
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Is Weed banned for pros? Seems like he was high.
6a00d83423e30253ef0128764530a2970c-400wi
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Typically the very slow hardcourts, particularly indoors, will have a lower bounce than medium-medium fast paced hardcourts. The AO, since it changed to Plexicushion, has definitely been slower than tournaments like Montreal or the USO, but the latter two have been clearly higher bouncing. All 3 of those are faster and higher bouncing than Paris or the WTF. Another example is IW vs Miami, Miami is slower/heavier/deader, but IW has a higher bounce. My point is that Nadal has never liked the absolute slowest tournaments; on a hardcourt, I think medium pace has always been his best bet (and even on clay, where Hamburg, which was the slowest big tournament on tour by some margin, was his worst event).

I'm a bit unsure about this.

The AO since changing surfaces has been notorious for its gritty surface that gives high bounce and makes the ball fluff quickly.

After they changed surfaces, Wilander commented: "I just don't know what they were thinking... The ball pops up and doesn't penetrate."
Clijsters said: “It’s a very rough surface, so the balls fluff up. I noticed it on my shoes as well. I get through shoes a lot more quickly here than, say, at the U.S. Open.”

I don't quite know about Miami either, it seems rather high-bouncing to me.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal prefers any court that takes his spin well for obvious reasons. I think he says he prefers fast courts because he's basically equating that with lively as in how it takes spin which makes sense, but is not entirely accurate as far as every type of court on the tour is concerned. For example, I think the AO is slow and high bouncing and Nadal's results there are still good, he's just had some bad luck overall hence only the one title. If the court is "fast" (for these days) and the bounce is low he has more trouble as seen at Wimbledon in the 1st week. Even in his prime there he struggled with Robert Kendrick in 2006 and Soderling and Mikhail Youzhny in 2007 for example. Also Haase and Petzschner in 2010. But if the court takes spin well like at IW or the USO (both are probably about medium fast these days) then Nadal is going to do pretty well as his results at those 2 venues suggest.

I don't think Nadal was a big fan of the clay court in Hamburg because of the low bounce either. The ball didn't take spin well and usually died when it hit the court. A "different" clay court as it were. For that reason, I don't believe it's a coincidence that Federer won there 4 times when it was a Masters and Nadal only once (although he didn't have many chances to be fair) And it's also one of the venues where Federer beat Nadal on a clay court. Again, probably not a coincidence.

Cincinnati is another court that Nadal doesn't particularly have good results on even though it's fast. The ball skips through the court in Cincy, usually staying low and although Nadal has won it once he hasn't generally had good results.

So to reiterate, I think Nadal said fast as a bit of a synonym for taking spin well. All in all, it's not so much the speed but the bounce that Nadal cares about.
 

President

Legend
I'm a bit unsure about this.

The AO since changing surfaces has been notorious for its gritty surface that gives high bounce and makes the ball fluff quickly.

After they changed surfaces, Wilander commented: "I just don't know what they were thinking... The ball pops up and doesn't penetrate."
Clijsters said: “It’s a very rough surface, so the balls fluff up. I noticed it on my shoes as well. I get through shoes a lot more quickly here than, say, at the U.S. Open.”

I don't quite know about Miami either, it seems rather high-bouncing to me.

I have no evidence either way for bounce height for either of these comparisons, its just an eye test. It is commonly accepted that IW is higher bouncing than Miami though and Miami's conditions are extremely slow and heavy from what I have seen. I wasn't saying that the AO was particularly low bouncing, I think the bounce is medium-medium high (although it is undoubtedly a slow and relatively gritty court), but IMO the USO seems to be a more explosive surface. This is a bit anecdotal, but many people have observed that the old Rebound Ace, while slower than the new Plexicushion, also had a more explosive bounce. The current USO and AO are pretty close though, not a massive difference between them.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I also think Miami is a bit of a dead surface hence perhaps, Nadal's lack of a title there. I think it should be pointed out though, that he has still made 4 finals on that slow and heavy surface and run into stiff finals competition all 4 times. Meanwhile, at a place like Cincy he has a title and just that final (where he played Isner) even though his results in other years aren't great.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Nadal can play exceptionally well on any court. It's just that on hard, he's found it difficult throughout his career to do so CONSISTENTLY.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Hearing what Nadal and Federer both said about their own games, it is very obvious that they don't view their own game the way that outsiders (especially TTWers) do. I loved both of those interviews because it made everyone here look like a bunch of presumptuous morons.

I think Nadal's point is that (to him) a slow surface is one where the ball not only travels slow, but it also eats the spin and stays low. To him, that is a "slow" court. The court is dead. Whereas at least on natural surfaces, while the pace may get diminished, the ball explodes off the surfaces due to the spin. Natural surfaces are *lively*. So in my mind, when Nadal says he likes fast surfaces, he is saying he likes surfaces which are amenable to spin and cause the ball to explode off the court. To him, those are fast courts. Nadal likes natural surfaces. Yes, that includes grass. People forget that Nadal has said multiple times that he thinks his game is suited very well to grass.

I think that is why Djokovic and Federer love indoors so much. When you are on a court that deadens the ball and kills spin (after the bounce), it allows them to hit cleaner shots.

I thought Nadal's answers made a lot of sense to me.
A ball with a lot of spin does not explode off grass court.

Also red clay is made of crushed bricks so it is not a natural surface.

An indoor and an outdoor hard court could be exactly the same surface. The only difference is indoor you are protected from wind and the sun, so the attacking player can go for lines more.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
He's exactly right and if you know his game as well as he (and some fans like myself that hardly ever have missed a match for 10 years), it's no surprise.
It's clear Rafa's game is tailored more to faster surfaces than Nole. If anything the Djoke is the guy everyone should be asking these slow court questions about.
 

mightyrick

Legend
A ball with a lot of spin does not explode off grass court.

I have personally played myself on the grass courts at Oak Hills just outside of San Antonio and also just outside of Thousand Oaks in Cali. In my experience, grass courts love spin. They don't deaden it all. When a heavily spun ball hits grass, it penetrates the court with little friction, loses almost no spin, and crashes into your racquet like a freight train.

Unless you'd now like to tell me that my definition of "explode" is incorrect and that I should seek a thesaurus?

Also red clay is made of crushed bricks so it is not a natural surface.

Shale, bricks, stone. Whatever. If that is where you are going, then forget anything being a natural surface. They are all "engineered". Such a dumb statement.

An indoor and an outdoor hard court could be exactly the same surface. The only difference is indoor you are protected from wind and the sun, so the attacking player can go for lines more.

They could and they could not be. The ATP and ITF have all of the exact surfaces for all of the tournaments documented. But most indoor courts are not similar to outdoor courts. Most indoor courts are modular and quickly built. The one at the WTF is wood covered with several layers of acrylic. Indoor is historically not amenable to spin and balls deaden on those courts.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
I have personally played myself on the grass courts at Oak Hills just outside of San Antonio and also just outside of Thousand Oaks in Cali. In my experience, grass courts love spin. They don't deaden it all. When a heavily spun ball hits grass, it penetrates the court with little friction, loses almost no spin, and crashes into your racquet like a freight train.

Unless you'd now like to tell me that my definition of "explode" is incorrect and that I should seek a thesaurus?



Shale, bricks, stone. Whatever. If that is where you are going, then forget anything being a natural surface. They are all "engineered". Such a dumb statement.



They could and they could not be. The ATP and ITF have all of the exact surfaces for all of the tournaments documented. But most indoor courts are not similar to outdoor courts. Most indoor courts are modular and quickly built. The one at the WTF is wood covered with several layers of acrylic. Indoor is historically not amenable to spin and balls deaden on those courts.
Not just the need a thesaurus, I disagree on the whole concept of grass is beneficial to topspin. It actually deadens the top spin due to low ball court friction, much in the same sense as a car tire spinning in snow. In this extreme case the spin has no effect. I believe your experience of playing on grass might just be bounce was "foreign" to you.

Yes we should stop lumping grass and clay together, by the term of natural surfaces (it is ill conceived to begin with).

Good point about wooden subsurface of wtf. A softer surface will absorb more energy from the bounce. There are only two properties that affect the bunce of a hard court. The other one being the grittiness determines how much spin is converted to liveliness.
 

Narcissist

Semi-Pro
Not just the need a thesaurus, I disagree on the whole concept of grass is beneficial to topspin. It actually deadens the top spin due to low ball court friction, much in the same sense as a car tire spinning in snow. In this extreme case the spin has no effect. I believe your experience of playing on grass might just be bounce was "foreign" to you.

Yes we should stop lumping grass and clay together, by the term of natural surfaces (it is ill conceived to begin with).

Good point about wooden subsurface of wtf. A softer surface will absorb more energy from the bounce. There are only two properties that affect the bunce of a hard court. The other one being the grittiness determines how much spin is converted to liveliness.

Yes, mightyrick says is totally accurate for slice, the ball just skids through like a bullet because the surface doesn't hold it up but as you say isn't true for topspin since it needs traction to take effect on the bounce. Braking vs accelerating.
 

mightyrick

Legend
I disagree on the whole concept of grass is beneficial to topspin. It actually deadens the top spin due to low ball court friction, much in the same sense as a car tire spinning in snow. In this extreme case the spin has no effect. I believe your experience of playing on grass might just be bounce was "foreign" to you.

My experience on grass is with regards to grass deadening the bounce. I can say that grass definitely deadens the bounce. At least on one of the courts I played, the bounce was ridiculously deadened. But in both cases, the spin of the ball remained largely intact. In fact, the spin remained more intact than on some of the hard courts I've played on. In both cases, the pace also remains intact.

So while the bounce definitely isn't dramatic on grass, the spin is definitely still there. I cannot stress enough how much heavy topspin affects how you contact the ball. Everyone talks about the bounce, but the other difficult thing to deal with is how a heavily spun ball behaves when it hits your strings. The combination of the pace along with the magnus effect of the spin makes the ball dig into your strings and can literally jar the racquet out of your hands. Like I said, when I was hit a heavy topspin ball on grass, the bounce didn't bother me much (because it ended up in my wheelhouse), but the contact was tough because the heavy spin remained largely intact.

On indoor courts, the surfaces absorb not only the bounce, but also deaden the spin. Like you point out, they also have totally consistent humidity, temperature, air pressure, and zero wind. So those environments are much more beneficial to players who hit flatter because they can go for the lines more.
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
It's not surprising that he likes high bouncing courts as he has a western grip and his contact point is usually higher off the ground. I guess faster courts are also higher bouncing compared to slow ones.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
For me not interesting. It becomes more difficult to generate power as the years go by. He loves fast but high bouncing courts. WTF arena worst for him indoors slow and low bouncing. Ball bounce always more important for him than the speed also. He also plays his best on clay in faster conditions when the sun shines.

Pretty much this. High bounce is in essence what makes his offensive game so effective. And most high bouncing courts also happen to be slow.
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
Nadal cannot hit through the slow surface as easy as he's been able through the faster ones. Usually, this is not the problem against the most of the players on tour, because he can make them miss or surrender physically. But, when he meets someone who can match him from the baseline (the Djokovic/Davydenko type of player, who moves incredibly well, doesn't have a weak wing, returns good and stays on the baseline), he needs that one shot (his killer forehand) which can end/win the point in the rally. It's much harder to do this on a slower surface, especially if the conditions make the game even slower (humidity in Miami or in Australia). I believe this is the reason why Nadal is not as successful on slower HC as on fast, where his forehand can make more damage. And that's why he's won three times in Indian Wells (where the surface is slow, but the air is dry because of the desert so the ball travels much faster through the air than in Miami), the USO twice (even though he skipped it more than any other Major), Toronto three times etc, has never won Miami and has won Australia only once.

When he serves well and is super confident, he's a monster on a faster hard court.

I presumed that we excluded natural surfaces from this discussion, which are slippery, where the bounce is inconsistent and which require superb athleticism.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Honestly speed doesn't matter to Nadal now that he can be aggressive. He just needs it to be high bouncing. Maybe in 2009 or so he would've liked slower since he keeps putting the ball back and frustrating the opponent. But now he can run nearly as much and can hit aggressively and has to.

The only problem is if a player gets hot then they can take him out. He's not a natural on the surface.
 

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
Nadal is tripping. Anyways, WTF isn't that slow. At least not this year. I agree heavy conditions do hurt Nadal. Especially since he sweats so heavily and needs the ball to bounce high to succeed. Indian Wells is the ideal Hardcourt for him imo.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Yes, mightyrick says is totally accurate for slice, the ball just skids through like a bullet because the surface doesn't hold it up but as you say isn't true for topspin since it needs traction to take effect on the bounce. Braking vs accelerating.
A slippery surface doesn't treat under spin and top spin differently. All it does is to convert less spin into linear speed. So the post bounce trajectory of the ball with a lot of spin is not too different from a ball with a no spin, when the incoming angle to the bounce is the same.

My experience on grass is with regards to grass deadening the bounce. I can say that grass definitely deadens the bounce. At least on one of the courts I played, the bounce was ridiculously deadened. But in both cases, the spin of the ball remained largely intact. In fact, the spin remained more intact than on some of the hard courts I've played on. In both cases, the pace also remains intact.

So while the bounce definitely isn't dramatic on grass, the spin is definitely still there. I cannot stress enough how much heavy topspin affects how you contact the ball. Everyone talks about the bounce, but the other difficult thing to deal with is how a heavily spun ball behaves when it hits your strings. The combination of the pace along with the magnus effect of the spin makes the ball dig into your strings and can literally jar the racquet out of your hands. Like I said, when I was hit a heavy topspin ball on grass, the bounce didn't bother me much (because it ended up in my wheelhouse), but the contact was tough because the heavy spin remained largely intact.

On indoor courts, the surfaces absorb not only the bounce, but also deaden the spin. Like you point out, they also have totally consistent humidity, temperature, air pressure, and zero wind. So those environments are much more beneficial to players who hit flatter because they can go for the lines more.
a ball with a lot of top spin needs to be countered with more low to high brushing up swing path with tad more closed racquet face. But i can't see how a spinny ball can jar the racquet. It is a 2oz ball colliding with a 12 oz raquet, not counting the hand and arm attached to it. When you volley an incoming top spin shot, that is the original spin without being slowed by the bounce, the racquet doesn't get jarred out of place unless you mishit.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nadal cannot hit through the slow surface as easy as he's been able through the faster ones. Usually, this is not the problem against the most of the players on tour, because he can make them miss or surrender physically. But, when he meets someone who can match him from the baseline (the Djokovic/Davydenko type of player, who moves incredibly well, doesn't have a weak wing, returns good and stays on the baseline), he needs that one shot (his killer forehand) which can end/win the point in the rally. It's much harder to do this on a slower surface, especially if the conditions make the game even slower (humidity in Miami or in Australia). I believe this is the reason why Nadal is not as successful on slower HC as on fast, where his forehand can make more damage. And that's why he's won three times in Indian Wells (where the surface is slow, but the air is dry because of the desert so the ball travels much faster through the air than in Miami), the USO twice (even though he skipped it more than any other Major), Toronto three times etc, has never won Miami and has won Australia only once.

When he serves well and is super confident, he's a monster on a faster hard court.

I presumed that we excluded natural surfaces from this discussion, which are slippery, where the bounce is inconsistent and which require superb athleticism.

This pretty much sums it up.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
It seems no two people mean the same thing when they talk about court speed. The commentators seem to think that the court at the WTF is slow, but low bouncing. The camera angle at each tournament distorts the view a bit differently.

Obviously Nadal likes the highest possible bounce because it disrupts backhands, and also it gives him more time to react, often allowing him to get amazing returns standing back farther. But this strategy has been hurting him the last two years, and far more on HCs than on clay.

At this point I don't think Nadal is quite straight about what is best for his HC game because he is currently tweaking it. Perhaps he has surprised himself at this tournament by finding out that slow and low on HCs is not always the worst when he is willing to step in more.

It may actually hurt Novak more because a great deal of his pace comes from adding pace to something hit hard at him. I don't think he generates pace nearly as well players like Sock (forehand side), and I'm not sure he is exactly in love with hitting low, spinning shots on either wing, especially slices to his BH. Also, the low junk balls pull him in, and he is ALWAYS vulnerable to lobs, when he is likely to hit an overhead that can be returned.

I don't think players lob Novak enough.
 

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
It seems no two people mean the same thing when they talk about court speed. The commentators seem to think that the court at the WTF is slow, but low bouncing. The camera angle at each tournament distorts the view a bit differently.

Obviously Nadal likes the highest possible bounce because it disrupts backhands, and also it gives him more time to react, often allowing him to get amazing returns standing back farther. But this strategy has been hurting him the last two years, and far more on HCs than on clay.

At this point I don't think Nadal is quite straight about what is best for his HC game because he is currently tweaking it. Perhaps he has surprised himself at this tournament by finding out that slow and low on HCs is not always the worst when he is willing to step in more.

It may actually hurt Novak more because a great deal of his pace comes from adding pace to something hit hard at him. I don't think he generates pace nearly as well players like Sock (forehand side), and I'm not sure he is exactly in love with hitting low, spinning shots on either wing, especially slices to his BH. Also, the low junk balls pull him in, and he is ALWAYS vulnerable to lobs, when he is likely to hit an overhead that can be returned.

I don't think players lob Novak enough.
Darren Cahill mentioned the court being a little grittier than years past. Yes it will never play like Indian Wells. But every little bit helps.
 
Top