Predicting Surface Success

[Meles]

@Gary Duane got me sidetracked in a thread and this really needs a thread of its own:

Not so sure shorter players will struggle more on clay, but for sure on high bouncing HCs. Because the bounce is longer and therefore gives players more time on clay, they have more time to adjust to either taking the ball way back or stepping in more.

For all surfaces other than clay I think the issue of high bounce is huge, and I don't like it. Perhaps people who tinker with the surfaces realize that, on some level.

In the end the "speed" of a surface is mostly related to the time the ball is in the air, from the moment it bounces until it is hit. The horizontal component is about speed of the ball, but a ball that bounces 3 feet into the air is in the air for the same amount of time regardless of how quickly it takes off. There is an obvious change in reaction time, but the feeling of no time to get to the ball is mostly linked to low bounce, which is why grass continues to play "fast" but is "slower" than it used to be, because the bounce is higher.

I'm not sure, but it is possible that the highest bounce, on average, is on clay? Or is it just that the ball does not move as fast horizontally, so that players are mainly reacting to the position of the ball? Looking, it seems to me that on clay, because the ball does not move as fast horizontally that players have more time to adjust to the exact height of the bounce, that they prefer. Whereas on fast HCs, when the bounc is low, it skips through so fast that all that is impossible.

I'm not sure.

But I still think that short players have very good chances on clay. I don't expect a guy like Schwartzman to have a problem on it, and is it possible that if we had average heights for great clay court players, the figures might be smaller?

Clay is close to as high bouncing as high bouncing hard courts. I feel like we have a handle on what fast high bouncing hard does to the tour and the plexicushion change.

I'm not sure on clay or grass. Grass is really turning into a veteran's surface the last few years. Much to my chagrin one of my least like players (Bendych) has been kept afloat by Wimbledon, but I'm not sure of the reason. Unlike fast hard or plexicushion, Wimbledon does not seem to favor shorter (faster, younger) players. Why is this?
1. Experience on grass (favors the veterans)
2. .......

The above pulled from another thread:
____________________________________________________________

This is plugging up another thread (can't reply while I ponder this). A nice example are partial servebots: Cilic, Delpo, Anderson. All are great at US Open, Cilic excellent at Wimbledon, but all are not so good down under. Why? Answer: plexicushion has a low bounce and these guys hit flat so harder to keep the ball in play and be as aggressive. This doesn't answer why Cilic is good on grass.

Gary has been on about smaller players and my "fraud"ulent theory from the Fall is that the faster courts benefit agile players like Goffin who don't have great serves because of height. Their serves are made better by the faster surfaces and the taller players generally don't have the speed to cover the court as well. (The dividing mark on tall is 6' 1" with Stan Wawrinka probably right in between.) The problem with Fall fast hard courts is the high bounce also seems to keep the servebots in a happy place (Isner wrecking the Paris draw once again, etc.). Down under the low bounce seems to disfavor these tall players so with faster conditions the last two years we aren't likely to be left with an Anderson, Cilic, Isner, Querrey SFs which would just be too monotonous. I wouldn't call the above settled, but its a hypothesis and it worked pretty well in Pune this week where Simon just took down Cilic and Anderson (and Anderson lucky to make SF.)

The general idea of this thread is what type of play and physique does the current clay and grass game favor. Young players don't seem to have the serve game to win on grass despite the fact you'd think foot speed would be a real asset. On clay where often some of the slower power hitters may prosper (Soderling, Gulbis, Wawrinka, and Thiem), it still seems that the younger, faster players have an advantage. I really don't have a good feel for this on clay and grass despite some pretty good success picking matches/upsets on grass. All the more strange when clay is my favorite surface to watch.

 

[SinjinCooper]

Like watching Candy Crush players dissect a chess match.

 

[True Fanerer]

Cilic, Delpo, Anderson. All are great at US Open,

If you are above 6'3 or 6'4 like Safin or Kafelnikov, its not happening for ya. AO & FO seem to be the average height dominated slams with Wimbledon & UO having a tall guy slip in every now and then.

 

[ADuck]

5'11-6'2 is the sweet zone for all surfaces I think.

 

[kabob]

5'11-6'2 is the sweet zone for all surfaces I think.

Not quite. 5'11" is too short for an effective serve. Most of the 6'0" or less guys that find success on the Tour are usually mostly great on clay where movement trumps serve. I'd say 6'1" to 6'3" (6'4" if you're an exceptional mover like Safin was) is ideal all-around.

 

[True Fanerer]

5'11-6'2 is the sweet zone for all surfaces I think.

Ideal height range.

 

[ADuck]

Not quite. 5'11" is too short for an effective serve. Most of the 6'0" or less guys that find success on the Tour are usually mostly great on clay where movement trumps serve. I'd say 6'1" to 6'3" (6'4" if you're an exceptional mover like Safin was) is ideal all-around.

*cough* *cough* mcenroe *cough*

 

[Meles]

Like watching Candy Crush players dissect a chess match.

Had no idea you were a Candy Crush maven.

 

[Meles]

If you are above 6'3 or 6'4 like Safin or Kafelnikov, its not happening for ya. AO & FO seem to be the average height dominated slams with Wimbledon & UO having a tall guy slip in every now and then.

I'm afraid you may be right. Zverev I thought might finally be the exception with his stick insect build, but he does not look recovered from 2017. All of his peers have come up nicely to greatly improved, but the Zedbot seems rather sluggish even on serve. He had the minimum return game the last few years and can't afford to be on a downward spiral already.

 

[True Fanerer]

I'm afraid you may be right. Zverev I thought might finally be the exception with his stick insect build, but he does not look recovered from 2017. All of his peers have come up nicely to greatly improved, but the Zedbot seems rather sluggish even on serve. He had the minimum return game the last few years and can't afford to be on a downward spiral already.

At this rate he won't go real deep at the AO unless he has a good draw. I believe if he can improve his net game as many of us have mentioned, he will be fine. Some of the sluggishness and bad attitude IMO roots from knowing when Roger, Rafa, other top players get ready to whoop him, they will. He can hang with them all day until they start junkballing and finessing him.

 

[Meles]

*cough* *cough* mcenroe *cough*

cough cough Poly strings. Kabob spot on unless they speed up all the courts. Let's night diverge into what was and what might become. Three of the four majors appear steadfast in keeping with the speeds of the last decade. Auz Open may change its tune if the fast surface ends up costing Kyrgios the title this year. Neither Kyrgios or Zverev will prosper on faster hard court surfaces to my eyes. Though as a Thiem fan it pains me to say that plexi-cushion is probably the surface to keep fast of all of them since its unlikely to benefit servebots. If we want more variety let Auz be fast. The tennis has been fairly entertaining once again down under and the faster Fall hard courts have been an unmitigated disaster to my eyes; all sorts of injury issues, boring play, servebots ruining draws (Isner cost Delpo WTF), yada, yada, just a big cluster phuck.

As the most ardent foe of "fraud"ulent court speeds, I'm saying keep the four majors right where they were in 2017. Guy Fraujet can keep screwing up Paris and if the other tournament directors think they'll make more money putting boring tennis on the courts in the Fall (and I rest my case on what they've had left on the weekends), then they can go right ahead and speed up the courts. We all pretty much are fine with the majors.

My take on the majors and what you need to win:
1. Auz Open favors flat hitting (see the wild success of Fed's new backhand) as a flat ball gets through the court really quickly on this surface. At the same time most of the servebots who hit a flat ball don't like Auz because of the low bounce. The faster court conditions of the last few years are going to favor Simon/Goffin like players because of their natural quickness allowing them to still break and boost their effectiveness on serve. The faster surface also seems to marginally favor net play somewhat (see Mischa Zverev vs. Andy Murray for an example). The big 4 because of their natural quickness can adjust and be competitive. Ditto Dimitrov for the same reason. Even Thiem with time might adjust. Zverev even has a punchers chance because he's not really a flat hitting servebot who completely loses his margins with the low bounce. Really a great surface as it stands and very friendly to smaller players and all court tennis.

2. US Open. Not much has changed. Servebots have a decent chance. Slower power players like Zverev, Thiem, and Wawrinka can cover these courts well enough. Unfortunately the high bounce generally doesn't favor shorter players, but Nishikori nearly broke the mold in 2014. The balance is very good.

3. Wimbledon - it really seems even more serve dominated than ever. Perhaps the high bounce gives players like Cilic have more time and a ball closer to their ideal hitting zone with the conditions of the last decade. Generally the veterans have the best serves and the younger players the weakest. Despite the fast surface, it seems lack of experience and serve issues have stopped a young player from breaking through. Shapovalov with the biggest serve game among the young players has a chance. Ditto Kyrgios and Zverev. Current Wimbledon really favors big servers, but the slower conditions also bring others into contention making for a balanced environment where a clay court oriented player has a prayer to adopt their game and have some success. Sadly shorter players not favored so much and they'd be helped by faster grass. Halle has faster grass then the other tourneys and that kind of speed might actually be a good thing for grass play in general given the shorter pros more of a chance.

4. Roland Garros - back to Candy Crush. A surprisingly complex surface in the Poly era.

 

[papertank]

I would say it's all really based on serving. On clay, serves aren't that much of a factor so height doesn't matter as much. Whereas on grass, a dangerous serve can take you really far. Hard court is in the middle.

On all surfaces though, I'd say you can't go wrong being 6'1-6'3.

 

[Red Rick]

Monfils is probably the tallest guy who's still an elite mover. And he's a very rare case in that he could've been an Olympic 100m athlete and that he's not that quick on the first 2/3 steps and is fastest when tanking far behind the baseline.

 

[Russeljones]

If you are supremely talented and have a good height/athleticism to back it up, you're in with a chance regardless of the surface. End thread.

 

[Vady_Vamos]

Well, I find 5 main aspects of the game which determine how good a player is gonna be on a particular surface.

1. Servebotting
2. Slicebotting

3. Taking the ball early

4. Firepower groundstrokes
5. Playing IQ

With the first 2 you will be a great grass court player, because the lower the bounce, the more effective serve and slice are. Who can we take as an example? Feliciano Lopez, Steve Johnson, Misha Zverev, Grigor Dimitrov, Roger Federer, Andy Murray. At the same time, the strenth of the mentioned players is nullified on clay because they lack powerful and/or consistent strokes.

Hard courts perfectly suit the players who used to take the ball early and play a high-paced game. The bounce is not low enough to nullify your forehand and backhand like on grass and not high enough to expose your lack of power like on clay. So, typical hard court players are Andre Agassi, Nikolay Davydenko, Kei Nishikori, David Goffin, Novak Djokovic.

So, and clay is definitely the most interesting surface. It drastically reduces the speed of the ball and forces players to increase the quality of their groundstokes. To make damage, you have to hit it really hard and also be smart using the dimensions of the court as much as possible. That's why we have Rafael Nadal as the greatest clay court player. He has a perfect understanding of the game and knows where to place the ball better than anyone else, and his shots are heavy. Well, Wawrinka, Soderling and Thiem are probably not that smart, but clay is still their best surface, because it's where they get enough time to set up their grounstrokes.

Also, 1-2 and 4-5 can be effective on hard courts. Moreover, if you can mix 1-2, 3 and 4-5, you will be called a complete player, not just 1 surface specialist.

Unfortunately, most tennis followers are not smart enough and look at tennis through the offense/defense and fast/slow courts patterns, but neah Hewitt and Murray are way less offensive than Soderling and Wawrinka and still way better than them on grass and way worse on clay.