Roland Garros Postponed by 1 week

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
so the winner of RG 2021 will have the chance to defeat Borg record.
win Wimbledon at a shorter time interval after winning RG.

that would be pretty cool
But when Borg played Wimbledon, it was the fastest of super slick grass, a huge transition from slow red clay. Now Wimbledon plays in many ways identical to clay.
 
But when Borg played Wimbledon, it was the fastest of super slick grass, a huge transition from slow red clay. Now Wimbledon plays in many ways identical to clay.
I timestamped one baseline exchange in these Borg - Mac highlights. What kind of eyewear should I put on for the court to look lightning fast?
 
I timestamped one baseline exchange in these Borg - Mac highlights. What kind of eyewear should I put on for the court to look lightning fast?
The ordinary vision will suffice, even though the grass will obviously be slower in the later rounds than in the earlier rounds, no matter what its speed is. It happens in all circumstances, due to the balding of the court, so technically what started as a lightning fast grass court will have deteriorated significantly by the time those two players played that match.

:cool:
 

lacoster

Professional
Way to mess up the grass season. :(
It doesn't just mess up the grass season, but it's also extremely disrespectful of other tournaments that still forged ahead without any fans and took a hit. I live in Charleston but the tournament is not allowing for any fans. Same goes for current tournaments in Bogota, Sardinia, and Andalucia. What difference does one week make anyways, especially if there is another wave? Current health regulations can change on a dime.
 

Visionary

Semi-Pro
how does this help anything?I don’t get it
I guess the extra week buys the frogs time to master their ticket sales, create an opportunity for better clay court competition, and it destroys the grass prep then. But Aussies with AO and Yanks with Miami Masters have made bigger moves than just one week. So, I feel that Wimbledon may take actions to move its tournament too. Whether the scheduling will screw up the whole Summer and the Olympic games is to be seen.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
I timestamped one baseline exchange in these Borg - Mac highlights. What kind of eyewear should I put on for the court to look lightning fast?
Um.... let's look at the stats for this 1980 final and compare them to the stats of finals of the past 20 years. If the surface wasn't fast as hell, do please explain why they're both at net so much. Muchas gracias for the help.

Borg: 100/146 at net
Mac: 120/194 at net

Contrast that to Djokovic in the 2019 Wimbledon final: 22/35 net points.
 
Um.... let's look at the stats for this 1980 final and compare them to the stats of finals of the past 20 years. If the surface wasn't fast as hell, do please explain why they're both at net so much. Muchas gracias for the help.

Borg: 100/146 at net
Mac: 120/194 at net

Contrast that to Djokovic in the 2019 Wimbledon final: 22/35 net points.
That's due to plenty of S&V play, not due to speed of the court. When you look at tennis from the baseline, it's slower than modern tennis. Court is definitely different in that the bounce was often bad (especially on worn out patches) and the ball often died out after volleys but the bounce after regular groundstrokes was pretty high and slow (though that is in big part because groundstrokes with wood were much slower).
Not identical enough for Nadal to get another Wimbledon... :rolleyes:
Can anyone imagine Nadal being beaten by Dustin Brown on clay?
 

beard

Legend
Um.... let's look at the stats for this 1980 final and compare them to the stats of finals of the past 20 years. If the surface wasn't fast as hell, do please explain why they're both at net so much. Muchas gracias for the help.

Borg: 100/146 at net
Mac: 120/194 at net

Contrast that to Djokovic in the 2019 Wimbledon final: 22/35 net points.
So, we should believe your numbers and "explanation" and not our own eyes?
 
That's due to plenty of S&V play, not due to speed of the court. When you look at tennis from the baseline, it's slower than modern tennis. Court is definitely different in that the bounce was often bad (especially on worn out patches) and the ball often died out after volleys but the bounce after regular groundstrokes was pretty high and slow (though that is in big part because groundstrokes with wood were much slower).

Can anyone imagine Nadal being beaten by Dustin Brown on clay?
It was high and slow due to the stroke mechanics and also when they were hit mostly in a neutral rally, where the ball almost always landed on a bald patch of the court with not much grass on it for the ball to react. Watch the two consecutive points shortly after your example (starting at around 5.50) and see the ball staying low and skidding as soon as it hit a patch of relatively intact grass and the ball itself was hit with at least some degree of acute angle.

:cool:
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
It was high and slow due to the stroke mechanics and also when they were hit mostly in a neutral rally, where the ball almost always landed on a bald patch of the court with not much grass on it for the ball to react. Watch the two consecutive points shortly after your example (starting at around 5.50) and see the ball staying low and skidding as soon as it hit a patch of relatively intact grass and the ball itself was hit with at least some degree of acute angle.

:cool:
Bounce and speed are conflated. Things were not fast on old grass, but players had to have lightning fast reflexes to adjust to the odd bounces, and every ATG who has talked about playing on it talks about feeling it in the legs, having to get lower.
 
It was high and slow due to the stroke mechanics and also when they were hit mostly in a neutral rally, where the ball almost always landed on a bald patch of the court with not much grass on it for the ball to react. Watch the two consecutive points shortly after your example (starting at around 5.50) and see the ball staying low and skidding as soon as it hit a patch of relatively intact grass and the ball itself was hit with at least some degree of acute angle.

:cool:
I watched whole match several times. Anyway, bounce is due to type of stroke and quality of the court (which is much better nowadays). Hit flat with modern racquet on today's grass, it will stay low as well.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
That's due to plenty of S&V play, not due to speed of the court. When you look at tennis from the baseline, it's slower than modern tennis. Court is definitely different in that the bounce was often bad (especially on worn out patches) and the ball often died out after volleys but the bounce after regular groundstrokes was pretty high and slow (though that is in big part because groundstrokes with wood were much slower).
and why do you think S&V was a winning strategy as opposed to camping at the baseline?

Can anyone imagine Nadal being beaten by Dustin Brown?
Halle 2014
Wimbledon 2015
I wonder what is common between these 2 tournaments and between Borg / McEnroe time
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Bounce and speed are conflated. Things were not fast on old grass, but players had to have lightning fast reflexes to adjust to the odd bounces, and every ATG who has talked about playing on it talks about feeling it in the legs, having to get lower.
don't forget poly, which allows crazy passing shots.
If McEnroe would be passing Borg left and right, Borg would be camping at the baseline, just as he did during his glorious RG campaigns

today, players on every surface camp at baseline, and in case of a shorter ball backpedal instead of attacking the net
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
So, we should believe your numbers and "explanation" and not our own eyes?
how convenient to believe the eye test when it is convenient to your narrative, and how convenient it is to ask for numbers and to laugh the eye test when it doesn't fit your narrative.
it's the definition of hypocrite, don't you think so?
 
and why do you think S&V was a winning strategy as opposed to camping at the baseline?
S&V came to be out of necessity to deal with terrible bounce on old grass. Pretty much everyone at the time played S&V, so it wasn't a winning strategy. It was just strategy everyone used and some were better at it than others. Move towards baseline tennis happened over time, as equipment, techniques and coaching changed.

Grass points are still very short today. Out of 386 points, played in Nadal - Djokovic 2018 SF, 208 ended in 1-3 shots, 81 ended in 4-6 shots. Modern game could use more net play but it's actually much more diverse than S&V spam.
 
S&V came to be out of necessity to deal with terrible bounce on old grass.
For that to be true the bad bounces on grass should have been much more prevalent than they were, for the players to choose an otherwise very risky strategy (like S&V), and that was not the case.

Bad bounces happened, and more often than today, obviously, but not nearly as often to warrant the S&V on the majority of points.

:cool:
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
S&V came to be out of necessity to deal with terrible bounce on old grass. Pretty much everyone at the time played S&V, so it wasn't a winning strategy. It was just strategy everyone used and some were better at it than others. Move towards baseline tennis happened over time, as equipment, techniques and coaching changed.
try to read aloud this part.
it's like saying that the baseline camping isn't a winning strategy today, simply because everyone does so.
questions. why does everyone camp at the baseline?

question: when 1 player was at the net, back in the days, where was the other player:
option A. also at the net
option B. at the baseline

Just in case, if you by any chance say that the other player was at the baseline, what was happening more often:
option A. the baseliner was winning majority of points
option B. the net player was winning majority of points

do we have now a winning strategy in form of S&V?

or are you still in denial? :-D
 
For that to be true the bad bounces on grass should have been much more prevalent than they were, for the players to choose an otherwise very risky strategy (like S&V), and that was not the case.

Bad bounces happened, and more often than today, obviously, but not nearly as often to warrant the S&V on the majority of points.

:cool:
Off the wooden racquet, there was barely any bounce on volleys. You can hardly tell the bad bounce from a good volley. There's so much stuff that changed over the years. S&V with wood is not the S&V from Edberg, Becker and Sampras time. Even in modern S&V era, elite baseliner almost won Wimbledon. Then came Hewitt and finally Federer put the nail in the S&V coffin.
try to read aloud this part.
it's like saying that the baseline camping isn't a winning strategy today, simply because everyone does so.
questions. why does everyone camp at the baseline?

question: when 1 player was at the net, back in the days, where was the other player:
option A. also at the net
option B. at the baseline

Just in case, if you by any chance say that the other player was at the baseline, what was happening more often:
option A. the baseliner was winning majority of points
option B. the net player was winning majority of points

do we have now a winning strategy in form of S&V?

or are you still in denial? :-D
Players do what they are taught. No one is taught to S&V every single point any more. It's niche strategy and as such, it works just fine. Your A/B simplification just ignores changes that happened in tennis over the years. Someone who is taught baseline tennis can't just press button and play S&V just because some courts are marginally faster.
 
Last edited:
Top