RG and Wimby will be pretty close together this year, won't it?
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
RG and Wimby will be pretty close together this year, won't it?
Fed's got this.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.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
No. There was a two-week gap between the French Open and Wimbledon until 2015.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
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?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?
RG isn't 3 weeks, might want to edit
Way to mess up the grass season.
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.how does this help anything?I don’t get it
Hmm. There will be no spectators in Halle this year.Halle will go ahead and be better visited/per seating capability than the RG final.
Hmm. There will be no spectators in Halle this year.
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.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?
Not identical enough for Nadal to get another Wimbledon...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.
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).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.
Can anyone imagine Nadal being beaten by Dustin Brown on clay?Not identical enough for Nadal to get another Wimbledon...
So, we should believe your numbers and "explanation" and not our own eyes?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).
Can anyone imagine Nadal being beaten by Dustin Brown on clay?
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.
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.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.
Lol, at least this time they consulted with the other tournaments.
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?
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.
So, we should believe your numbers and "explanation" and not our own eyes?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
Off the wooden racquet, there was barely any bounce on volleys. You can hardly tell the bad bounce from a good volley.
Nagal getting SCREWED at Roland Garros again!
Just like it used to be.Way to mess up the grass season.
Just like it used to be.
Or not have Wimbledon this year at all.This year should have 2 wimbledons, 1 for last year and 1 for this year, only then would it be fair.
Or not have Wimbledon this year at all.
Use covid as a way to phase it out.
Desperate.Lets phase out roland garros.
Declare roland garros to be a masters event ....
Nadal has just 7 slams then
or skip the fo to buy more time for wimbledonOr not have Wimbledon this year at all.
Use covid as a way to phase it out.