Meles
Bionic Poster
@Gary Duane got me sidetracked in a thread and this really needs a thread of its own:
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.
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.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?
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.