Last 6 years:
Nadal vs Fedovic on clay 5-4
Nadal vs Fedovic off clay 0-14
Again, surfaces are all the same.
All sense people know that, but I think Lew is sarcastic toward some people here, numerous unfortunately, who often says there is literally no difference between courts...Of course the surfaces are not all the same, or what would be the point of calling them hc/clay/grass? The problem is that their speeds are too similar INSPITE of them being different surfaces, like what @Hitman said.
@Lew II , you do realize that there are no 'fast' rated surface/court anymore? The fastest is actually only 'medium-fast'. That's still just medium speed, and the 'xxxx-fast' moniker is added to hoodwink the world, bc if there were truly fast courts on tour, the ratings would simply be slow/medium/fast instead of ratings like the medium-slow/medium/medium-fast shenanigans we have now.
edit:
to illustrate, Dustin Brown is easily a top20 grass player, yet he can barely ever get into the top100 bc 1) there are almost no opportunities that reward his skill set, 2) of the few grass tournies, he won't get direct entry bc of said lack of tourney opportunities to get his rankings up, and 3) all surfaces play too slow which blunts his skills.
You don't think it's a wonder that Sampras, the previous GOAT, couldn't even make a RG finals, while clayGOAT makes 5, winning 2, and Djokr wins 5/6 WBs (both are primarily baseliners not much different from Agassi)?
The difference is in the players, not in the surface. Players are more complete so they tend to adapt to all surfaces.Surfaces are not all the same, and they never will be, but surfaces nowadays are not as polarized as they were in the past. Just look at the 90s as the prime example.
Nice straw man, I guess.
The difference is in the players, not in the surface. Players are more complete so they tend to adapt to all surfaces.
Talking about Big3 specifically, they are so above the rest that surfaces have little relevance against the rest of the field, but between them the difference is small and the surface makes the difference.
Bingo (merrily on high... sh;t, wrong song).Indeed, conflating more similar with the same.
They have a game that suits all surfaces. When players run fast and hit hard from the baseline, it's over for the serve and volley.When you can win Wimbledon from the baseline nowadays, it doesn't look like the players need to adapt to the surfaces...the surfaces have already adapted to them.
They have a game that suits all surfaces.
Where is proof of surface converging?Of course, that is what happens when the surfaces all start to converge. You are right.
Where is proof of surface converging?
If your argument are only results, I will keep saying that results changed because the players changed, not the surface.
Players play different because the game changed, not the surface.I am not looking at results, I am looking at how they are playing. Compare how Borg had to adapt to grass after winning RG to how these players do. Take a look at where the wear and tear is seen on those grass courts then and now, and you will have an idea where the points were won from back then to where they are won from today.
Players play different because the game changed, not the surface.
I want data about the ball bounce from you.
Players are different now. They have a different talent, they train different...Why do you think the game has changed? And what exactly do you mean by change?
And as I said, the surfaces will still be grass, clay and hard, just they are not as polarizing as they were before.
That sounds like Soviet RussiaWhen you can win Wimbledon from the baseline nowadays, it doesn't look like the players need to adapt to the surfaces...the surfaces have already adapted to them.
Tournament | CPI 2017 | CPI 2018 | Year on Year Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Indian Wells | 27.4 | 27.9 | +0.5 |
Miami | 30.3 | 30.4 | +0.1 |
Monte Carlo | 24.9 | 22.1 | -2.8 |
Madrid | 20.9 | 21.6 | +0.7 |
Rome | 22 | 18.9 | -3.1 |
Toronto* | 36.3 | 28.8 | -7.5 |
Cincinnati | 33.6 | 31.6 | -2 |
Shanghai | 42.9 | 39.9 | -3 |
Paris | 37.5 | 34.6 | -2.9 |
London | 41.4 | 40.3 | -1.1 |
What on earth are you talking about?They have a game that suits all surfaces. When players run fast and hit hard from the baseline, it's over for the serve and volley.
Stats:
Tournament CPI 2017 CPI 2018 Year on Year Difference Indian Wells 27.4 27.9 +0.5 Miami 30.3 30.4 +0.1 Monte Carlo 24.9 22.1 -2.8 Madrid 20.9 21.6 +0.7 Rome 22 18.9 -3.1 Toronto* 36.3 28.8 -7.5 Cincinnati 33.6 31.6 -2 Shanghai 42.9 39.9 -3 Paris 37.5 34.6 -2.9 London 41.4 40.3 -1.1
For reference, < 30 is slow, 31 - 35 is medium slow, 36 - 40 is medium, 41 - 45 is medium-fast, and anything above that is fast, although we don't see any examples here.
Six of these big tournaments are slow (using 2018 data), two are medium-slow, and two are medium. Using these statistics, I think the court speeds have been consistently hovering around the slow-to-medium-slow spots. Some similarities there.
Players play different because the game changed, not the surface.
I want data about the ball bounce from you.
Why is this even a debate, as it seems a pretty settled science...oh wait, forgot which decade this was.Why do you think the game has changed? And what exactly do you mean by change?
And as I said, the surfaces will still be grass, clay and hard, just they are not as polarizing as they were before.
Are you telling me you can't tell from footage that the surface has changed?
Just look at W01 followed by W02. S&V became obsolete overnight to supposedly weak era mugs like Hewitt and Nalby? There’s no way surface homogenization deniers watch or play tennis. No doubt poly and bigger racquet head sizes play a role too, but that’s not all it is.