The Impact of the Courts Slowing

[Wynter]

I think a big aspect of the courts slowing is not that it has made tennis boring, or anything like that. But that it's removed a large portion for the element of surprise in tennis these days.

Take Wimbledon for example, a fast court, that saw the Stakhovsky, Rosol upsets and the riseof Janowicz, Kyrgios, Dimitrov and Raonic.

Go to the AO this year and wasn't it 1-8 that made the quarters?

Therein lies the impact of the courts.

Go back to 06/07 with the Baghdatis-Gonzalez runs, or the Nalbandian run to the Wimbledon final in 2002. I'd say the biggest impact of the courts slowing down is that it's removed the impact of when a player 'peaks'. Federer and Nadal have both indicated their preference for slower courts, even though a faster court suits Federer's game. If a player gets hot on a fast court, they can hit through their opponent easier, tiring less and carrying that form through. Ala Gonzalez in 07. In contrast with slower courts the player has to keep hitting, eventuallyleading to the moment where they stop redlining their game, and the opponent can take back the advantage.

The removal of Faster Courts, is what is arguably responsible for the decline in upsets outside of Wimbledon which seems to be where every young player announces themselves.

Slowing the courts down, reduces upsets and benefits those who are better overall. And helps bump the resumes of the Big 4, because the consistent hitting required eventually wears on the challenger.

This isn't trying to take away from Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray but rather observing that through the slowing of the courts, its harder for them to be challenged,

If the courts were to increase in speed which hinted at at the Aus Open, the amount of upsets is likely to rise.

 

[SpinToWin]

… and we will likely have more variety on tour in terms of playing styles. The current surfaces benefit the consistent baseliners too much.

 

[Mustard]

The racquets and strings are the key factors. It is not slower either. Watch a match from the 1990s and you'll see there's a lot less power than today's tennis.

 

[BigServer1]

The racquets and strings are the key factors. It is not slower either. Watch a match from the 1990s and you'll see there's a lot less power than today's tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

Come on, man. Courts play slower today than they did 7-10 years ago, and far slower than before that. Balls and strings don't help, but saying Wimby is fast as ever, or that Plexi at AO is equitable to rebound ace is just crazy.

 

[Mustard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

Come on, man. Courts play slower today than they did 7-10 years ago, and far slower than before that. Balls and strings don't help, but saying Wimby is fast as ever, or that Plexi at AO is equitable to rebound ace is just crazy.

There's more power in the game today than the 1990s, so what is fast? Today's equipment makes it easier to hit powerful, in-depth shots during rallies and off the return of serve. There's the reason for serve and volley being much rarer in today's tennis and why play predominates around the baseline, even on grass.

 

[BigServer1]

There's more power in the game today than the 1990s, so what is fast? Today's equipment makes it easier to hit powerful, in-depth shots during rallies and off the return of serve. There's the reason for serve and volley being much rarer in today's tennis and why play predominates around the baseline, even on grass.

But the court speed has helped us get here. The reason we have a predominantly baseline oriented game, even on "Fast" surfaces, because the courts are slower than they were before.

People have been posting highlights a lot lately of the Australia Open from 2004 to 2007, and it looks completely different than the AO after it moved to plexi. Guys in 2007 were using full poly, and the racquets haven't changed since then, so what gives? It's the court speed and the balls. It's taken a lot of the offense out of the game and I think it's unfortunate.

 

[Mustard]

But the court speed has helped us get here. The reason we have a predominantly baseline oriented game, even on "Fast" surfaces, because the courts are slower than they were before.

I'm not saying there has been no factor with the courts, because carpet courts have been fazed out and Wimbledon is now 100% Rye grass, but the key factor is the equipment. The fact is, in the 1990s, even players like Sampras and Becker would stay back on hardcourts. Staying back is going to be even more the case in the modern era considering the equipment and the absence of carpet courts.

People have been posting highlights a lot lately of the Australia Open from 2004 to 2007, and it looks completely different than the AO after it moved to plexi. Guys in 2007 were using full poly, and the racquets haven't changed since then, so what gives? It's the court speed and the balls. It's taken a lot of the offense out of the game and I think it's unfortunate.

Lleyton Hewitt said that Rebound Ace was very slow, and heavily criticised the surface for years. Make of that what you will.

 

[Steve132]

Federer and Nadal have both indicated their preference for slower courts, even though a faster court suits Federer's game.

When did Federer say this? He has on several occasions publicly called for faster courts. So has Lleyton Hewitt, who campaigned long (and unsuccessfully) for speeding up courts at the Australian Open.

 

[BigServer1]

I'm not saying there has been no factor with the courts, because carpet courts have been fazed out and Wimbledon is now 100% Rye grass, but the key factor is the equipment. The fact is, in the 1990s, even players like Sampras and Becker would stay back on hardcourts. Staying back is going to be even more the case in the modern era considering the equipment and the absence of carpet courts.



Lleyton Hewitt said that Rebound Ace was very slow, and heavily criticised the surface for years. Make of that what you will.

Rebound ace wasn't fast, nor do I think it was supposed to be. I'd say it was a medium speed court and was bouncy, but even that compared to today seems fast. Same with the US Open then vs. now. It's just much slower than it used to be.

 

[PMChambers]

Courts have not changed much in 20 years, you got to go back to the 70's for faster variation. Carpet, grass (other than Wim), green clay (faster than red). Wim did not slow down much going to full Rye, just more consistent.

Court speed is the relative reduction in velocity of a ball before and after impact, it's calculated at a constant angle because andle of incidence effects speed more than any other factor. With high RPM the effect of court surface is negated to a greater degree.

Robound Ace is slower than Plexi in most cases, though it's heat effected due to high rubber content so can play faster and slower dependent on weather, generally slow than plexi but sometime really slow.

Clay depends on moisture and age of court, though I assume they roll it well these days when relaying to keep it reasonable fast for new court.

US has not changed since 70's.

 

[vernonbc]

Federer and Nadal have both indicated their preference for slower courts, even though a faster court suits Federer's game.

When did Federer say this? He has on several occasions publicly called for faster courts. So has Lleyton Hewitt, who campaigned long (and unsuccessfully) for speeding up courts at the Australian Open.

Nadal has never said it either. It's a myth that he needs slow courts to win. He's never won on probably the slowest courts of all in Miami whereas he's won plenty on faster courts. Rafa wants bounce. He prefers to play on courts that will take the spin of his ball and bounce higher and he has said so many times.

 

[swordtennis]

I am sorry I just do not think they have slowed down that much. The balls and strings and rackets have more impact. USOpen has not changed really however the surface makes the never before seen in tennis history topspin balls fly off bounce high and off the court. PLayers can get to balls so it seems slower. The rackets and strings and balls really impact play courts not so much.

Added: I agree there was more variation back in the 70's.

 

[Zoid]

Courts HAVE DEFINITELY slowed

I'm sorry but courts have definitely slowed down. Hit on Aus open courts in 07 and 08 and they were fast. When i hit on them and brissy international courts in 10-11 they were slow, you could see the grit and grip on the court. The balls were wrecked after 4 games. Conditions in general have slowed 100% no doubt.
- balls have been tweaked too in a response to rackets/strings. mainly strings.

 

[batz]

Roger Federer would have won a gogol of slams if the courts hadn't been slowed down by the Illuminati and the CIA.

 

[batz]

I'm sorry but courts have definitely slowed down. Hit on Aus open courts in 07 and 08 and they were fast. When i hit on them and brissy international courts in 10-11 they were slowwww, you could see the grit and grip on the court. The balls were f**ked after 4 games. Conditions in general have slowed 100% no doubt.
- balls have been tweaked too in a response to rackets/strings. mainly strings.

Well, if you have an anecdote that a single court felt slower 24 months after you hit on it then it would be crazy not to extrapolate that all courts are slower.

We should just close this thread now.

 

[Backspin1183]

I've played with a wooden racket (we still have some of those at home) and the power it generates is nothing compare to my new Babolat racket. The ball flies off a lot faster with the modern rackets.

 

[tennis_pro]

There's more power in the game today than the 1990s, so what is fast? Today's equipment makes it easier to hit powerful, in-depth shots during rallies and off the return of serve. There's the reason for serve and volley being much rarer in today's tennis and why play predominates around the baseline, even on grass.

This makes no sense at all. If players can hit more powerful passing shots and returns that means they can also produce bigger serves and volleys so why don't they come in more? Also, it should allow the players to hit through opponents with more ease than in the 90's which is surely not the case these days.

So technically (according to your theory at least) it's still parity through and through. Better equipment means you can hit bigger whether it's the serve, returns, groundstrokes or volleys which means that it would only be easier to perform each tennis tactic and it still should favor particular styles on certain surfaces.

Which is definitely not the case looking how serve-and-volley has died out and how Djokovic can play the exact same way on every surface and still have tremendous success everywhere, dang he just won Wimbledon recently which would be blasphemy in the 90's and early 00's.

 

[DMP]

This makes no sense at all. If players can hit more powerful passing shots and returns that means they can also produce bigger serves and volleys so why don't they come in more?

Also, it should allow the players to hit through opponents with more ease than in the 90's which is surely not the case these days.

If you hit a big serve AND the returner hits a big return AND hits it with a lot of tospin then...you don't have time to get close to the net. So you are hitting a volley when the ball has time to dip well below the height of the net. So you are having to volley UP, and the last thing you want to do, assuming you can even get to the ball, is hit a big volley because it will just bounce nicely back to your opponent.

For S/V to be a viable option you need the ball speed of both the serve and return rackets to be slow enough to allow you to get close to the net, and preferably to have not too much topspin on the return. Ideally you would also like the ball to die quickly off your volley i.e. not bounce much.

 

[tennis_pro]

If you hit a big serve AND the returner hits a big return AND hits it with a lot of tospin then...you don't have time to get close to the net. So you are hitting a volley when the ball has time to dip well below the height of the net. So you are having to volley UP, and the last thing you want to do, assuming you can even get to the ball, is hit a big volley because it will just bounce nicely back to your opponent.

For S/V to be a viable option you need the ball speed of both the serve and return rackets to be slow enough to allow you to get close to the net, and preferably to have not too much topspin on the return. Ideally you would also like the ball to die quickly off your volley i.e. not bounce much.

Assuming the court speed is exactly the same as it was in the 90's and the serve was very dominant through that decade one would think that if you could produce a bigger one the returner would have an even harder task to make a dent on his return games and therefore giving the servers even more easy putaways than in the 90's. This doesn't happen if:

- the surfaces are slower which would mean that the returner has more time to react thus giving the server less time to come to the net. But we assumed that the speed is exactly the same so the other option is:
- for whatever reason the returner has a bigger reach so that he can return with depth and topspin even when the server hits with precision

I agree classic serve-and-volley would be harder to perform as....logically....it involves 2 strokes one of which you have to hit at the net and given the returner can produce bigger returns. Unless you consider s-v a big serve and rushing to the net whether the returner does something with the ball or doesn't even touch it at all.

However this would also mean that it would be way easier to hit aces and service winners which is not the case compared to the 90's.

 

[Zoid]

*Bris International, Aus Open, Indian Wells, every college court I played on got slower in the last 5 years, Heineken Open etc etc. 2014 bris international courts were faster for sure though, didn't go to melt this year however so can't comment there

 

[Backspin1183]

This makes no sense at all. If players can hit more powerful passing shots and returns that means they can also produce bigger serves and volleys so why don't they come in more? Also, it should allow the players to hit through opponents with more ease than in the 90's which is surely not the case these days.

So technically (according to your theory at least) it's still parity through and through. Better equipment means you can hit bigger whether it's the serve, returns, groundstrokes or volleys which means that it would only be easier to perform each tennis tactic and it still should favor particular styles on certain surfaces.

Which is definitely not the case looking how serve-and-volley has died out and how Djokovic can play the exact same way on every surface and still have tremendous success everywhere, dang he just won Wimbledon recently which would be blasphemy in the 90's and early 00's.

Djokovic is not your average athlete playing tennis. He's got incredible speed and stamina. Very different from the Berdychs, Cilics, Raonics, who can only dream of being able to defend like the Serb. The Serb, however, can hit the ball as well as they do.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic is not your average athlete playing tennis. He's got incredible speed and stamina. Very different from the Berdychs, Cilics, Raonics, who can only dream of being able to defend like the Serb. The Serb, however, can hit the ball as well as they do.

You don't need that on grass (at least 90's grass) yet he won Wimbledon. Wimbledon is slower which allows Djokovic to use his assets, there's no other reason. You really think he'd make a dent if he played the exact same way on 90's grass?

 

[Backspin1183]

You don't need that on grass (at least 90's grass) yet he won Wimbledon. Wimbledon is slower which allows Djokovic to use his assets, there's no other reason. You really think he'd make a dent if he played the exact same way on 90's grass?

No, I don't think he can do it on fast grass. He'd have to play a little differently to succeed. On fast hard courts where the bounce is higher, I think he can play his usual game and win.

 

[Mustard]

This makes no sense at all. If players can hit more powerful passing shots and returns that means they can also produce bigger serves and volleys so why don't they come in more?

Because they are much more likely to get passed on the return of serve, and the server wouldn't have much time to get in. Even Edberg in his day was obsessed with his footwork, and how quickly he got in from his serve to hit volleys. Today, the power is greater, the returns are more accurate and deeper in the court.

 

[Mustard]

Assuming the court speed is exactly the same as it was in the 90's and the serve was very dominant through that decade

Which courts? Becker and Sampras tended to stay back on hardcourts in the 1990s, let alone baseline players. I loved the clay-court scene in the 1990s, and the style was much more like today's tennis, with baseline play predominating. Dominant big serves involved certain players at Wimbledon and in carpet events. Carpet courts no longer exist on the tour today, after they were slowly fazed out from 1997-2007. Wimbledon's grass-courts went from 70% Rye to 100% Rye in the autumn of 2001.

one would think that if you could produce a bigger one the returner would have an even harder task to make a dent on his return games and therefore giving the servers even more easy putaways than in the 90's. This doesn't happen if:

It doesn't happen because the modern equipment and strings mean that it's easier for a receiver to get good returns in when they get their racquets on the ball, and to hit deeper and more powerful shots during rallies. Playing in the forecourt in these conditions is more difficult than ever.

However this would also mean that it would be way easier to hit aces and service winners which is not the case compared to the 90's.

Virtually all the matches featuring the highest number of aces hit by a player in a match took place in the 21st Century. Both John Isner and Nicolas Mahut in their famous match, Ivo Karlovic a few times, Joachim Johansson, Roger Federer, Gregory Carraz and Chris Guccione all hit 50 aces or more in a match, and it all happened in the 21st Century. The only pre-21st century examples of a high number of aces being hit by players in a match that come to my mind are Richard Krajicek's 49 aces in his 1999 US Open quarter final match against Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Goran Ivanisevic's 46 aces at 1997 Wimbledon in his second round match against Magnus Norman. Both Krajicek and Ivanisevic lost those matches.

If we go any further back, when Goran would hit a load of aces, like the ridiculous amount of 1,477 aces that he hit in the year of 1996, twice hitting 36 aces in matches against Sampras at Wimbledon (semi finals in 1992 and 1995), and hit 37 aces against Agassi in the 1992 Wimbledon final, none of these are 50 plus aces in a match like we have seen in the 21st Century. Not even 40+ at that time.

 

[moonballs]

This makes no sense at all. If players can hit more powerful passing shots and returns that means they can also produce bigger serves and volleys so why don't they come in more? Also, it should allow the players to hit through opponents with more ease than in the 90's which is surely not the case these days.

So technically (according to your theory at least) it's still parity through and through. Better equipment means you can hit bigger whether it's the serve, returns, groundstrokes or volleys which means that it would only be easier to perform each tennis tactic and it still should favor particular styles on certain surfaces.

Which is definitely not the case looking how serve-and-volley has died out and how Djokovic can play the exact same way on every surface and still have tremendous success everywhere, dang he just won Wimbledon recently which would be blasphemy in the 90's and early 00's.

Good points. It looks like mustard doesn't understand the real mechanism--poly strings opened up new angles for the passing shots.

 

[Mustard]

It looks like mustard doesn't understand the real mechanism--poly strings opened up new angles for the passing shots.

That's exactly what I said. Poly strings enable players to hit in-depth shots with authority when both returning the serve and during rallies. Serving and volleying is more difficult than ever under these conditions, because they will get passed more often than not.

 

[SpinToWin]

That's exactly what I said. Poly strings enable players to hit in-depth shots with authority when both returning the serve and during rallies. Serving and volleying is more difficult than ever under these conditions, because they will get passed more often than not.

And if you have an incredible server? By your logic the courts still are very fast, so a hard and accurate server should have a high percentage of points won with S&V (especially with the added power of modern racquets). That is because, regardless of the level of the returner, good serves cannot be returned with topspin or angle, and if one does make it somehow, it is a fluke and not the norm.

 

[Russeljones]

I think a big aspect of the courts slowing is not that it has made tennis boring, or anything like that. But that it's removed a large portion for the element of surprise in tennis these days.

Take Wimbledon for example, a fast court, that saw the Stakhovsky, Rosol upsets and the riseof Janowicz, Kyrgios, Dimitrov and Raonic.

Go to the AO this year and wasn't it 1-8 that made the quarters?

Therein lies the impact of the courts.

Go back to 06/07 with the Baghdatis-Gonzalez runs, or the Nalbandian run to the Wimbledon final in 2002. I'd say the biggest impact of the courts slowing down is that it's removed the impact of when a player 'peaks'. Federer and Nadal have both indicated their preference for slower courts, even though a faster court suits Federer's game. If a player gets hot on a fast court, they can hit through their opponent easier, tiring less and carrying that form through. Ala Gonzalez in 07. In contrast with slower courts the player has to keep hitting, eventuallyleading to the moment where they stop redlining their game, and the opponent can take back the advantage.

The removal of Faster Courts, is what is arguably responsible for the decline in upsets outside of Wimbledon which seems to be where every young player announces themselves.

Slowing the courts down, reduces upsets and benefits those who are better overall. And helps bump the resumes of the Big 4, because the consistent hitting required eventually wears on the challenger.

This isn't trying to take away from Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray but rather observing that through the slowing of the courts, its harder for them to be challenged,

If the courts were to increase in speed which hinted at at the Aus Open, the amount of upsets is likely to rise.

Clay court like rallie son grass ARE boring

30-shot rallies made up of 28 cross-court shots ARE boring

Tennis made up of 4 shots IS boring.

 

[TMF]

I'm sorry but courts have definitely slowed down. Hit on Aus open courts in 07 and 08 and they were fast. When i hit on them and brissy international courts in 10-11 they were slowwww, you could see the grit and grip on the court. The balls were f**ked after 4 games. Conditions in general have slowed 100% no doubt.
- balls have been tweaked too in a response to rackets/strings. mainly strings.

Exactly. Courts have continuously slowing down enough to the point Nadal start winning off clay in 2008. Nadal has been using the Babolat since day one, so it's not true that the string was the reason why Nadal won slam off clay, it's the slow court and ball stays high is the main reasons.

 

[SvedovaFan]

If both offense and defense is equally impacted by the improvement in power due to strings and racquets then it's a wash and the effect we are seeing nowadays of grinding baseline is due to slowed courts, not racquet technology.

 

[SublimeTennis]

I think a big aspect of the courts slowing is not that it has made tennis boring, or anything like that. But that it's removed a large portion for the element of surprise in tennis these days.

Take Wimbledon for example, a fast court, that saw the Stakhovsky, Rosol upsets and the riseof Janowicz, Kyrgios, Dimitrov and Raonic.

Go to the AO this year and wasn't it 1-8 that made the quarters?

Therein lies the impact of the courts.

Go back to 06/07 with the Baghdatis-Gonzalez runs, or the Nalbandian run to the Wimbledon final in 2002. I'd say the biggest impact of the courts slowing down is that it's removed the impact of when a player 'peaks'. Federer and Nadal have both indicated their preference for slower courts, even though a faster court suits Federer's game. If a player gets hot on a fast court, they can hit through their opponent easier, tiring less and carrying that form through. Ala Gonzalez in 07. In contrast with slower courts the player has to keep hitting, eventuallyleading to the moment where they stop redlining their game, and the opponent can take back the advantage.

The removal of Faster Courts, is what is arguably responsible for the decline in upsets outside of Wimbledon which seems to be where every young player announces themselves.

Slowing the courts down, reduces upsets and benefits those who are better overall. And helps bump the resumes of the Big 4, because the consistent hitting required eventually wears on the challenger.

This isn't trying to take away from Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray but rather observing that through the slowing of the courts, its harder for them to be challenged,

If the courts were to increase in speed which hinted at at the Aus Open, the amount of upsets is likely to rise.

If the courts today were as fast as they were throughout history, Fed would have 25 GS's or more, and you'd never hear of Nadal, Djokovich and Murray.

 

[FreeBird]

Impacted a lot. A guy who is not even in the top 10 volleyers of all time has 7 Wimbledons due to slowing down of courts in 2001..

 

[Mustard]

And if you have an incredible server? By your logic the courts still are very fast, so a hard and accurate server should have a high percentage of points won with S&V (especially with the added power of modern racquets).

No, because the server doesn't consistently have as much time to get in and hit the volley without getting hurt by the service returns.

That is because, regardless of the level of the returner, good serves cannot be returned with topspin or angle, and if one does make it somehow, it is a fluke and not the norm.

True, and as I've mentioned, matches with the most aces a player has hit in a match have been in the 21st Century, for the most part, which shows the power of good serving. Serves are also more likely to be returned with authority, with the power and depth, than at any other time of tennis history.

 

[Mustard]

Exactly. Courts have continuously slowing down enough to the point Nadal start winning off clay in 2008. Nadal has been using the Babolat since day one, so it's not true that the string was the reason why Nadal won slam off clay, it's the slow court and ball stays high is the main reasons.

Nadal did some things differently when he won Wimbledon, like standing closer to the baseline, taking more risks, more emphasis on serving well etc. Playing that sort of game doesn't come instinctively to Nadal, he had to learn it and master it. The way he plays on clay is what comes naturally to him, with the patience, consistency, baseline grinding, and overall strategies.

 

[Maximagq]

You don't need that on grass (at least 90's grass) yet he won Wimbledon. Wimbledon is slower which allows Djokovic to use his assets, there's no other reason. You really think he'd make a dent if he played the exact same way on 90's grass?

You need speed on grass. Sampras and Federer win because they are athletic AND fast. Slow players struggle at Wimbledon now and 20 years ago.

 

[Eureka]

Impacted a lot. A guy who is not even in the top 10 volleyers of all time has 7 Wimbledons due to slowing down of courts in 2001..

It's shocking. Really. There should be a law against it. But he does it so beeeeutifully. ** sigh**

The impact of the slower courts is the game that makes one prefer to watch paint dry. The slog fest from the baseline. Sweat dripping by the time the first two games are played and an average match, with little to inspire, taking hours.

Forget volleying. Could they at least play tennis?

 

[Federer20042006]

I think a big aspect of the courts slowing is not that it has made tennis boring, or anything like that. But that it's removed a large portion for the element of surprise in tennis these days.

Take Wimbledon for example, a fast court, that saw the Stakhovsky, Rosol upsets and the riseof Janowicz, Kyrgios, Dimitrov and Raonic.

Go to the AO this year and wasn't it 1-8 that made the quarters?

Therein lies the impact of the courts.

Go back to 06/07 with the Baghdatis-Gonzalez runs, or the Nalbandian run to the Wimbledon final in 2002. I'd say the biggest impact of the courts slowing down is that it's removed the impact of when a player 'peaks'. Federer and Nadal have both indicated their preference for slower courts, even though a faster court suits Federer's game. If a player gets hot on a fast court, they can hit through their opponent easier, tiring less and carrying that form through. Ala Gonzalez in 07. In contrast with slower courts the player has to keep hitting, eventuallyleading to the moment where they stop redlining their game, and the opponent can take back the advantage.

The removal of Faster Courts, is what is arguably responsible for the decline in upsets outside of Wimbledon which seems to be where every young player announces themselves.

Slowing the courts down, reduces upsets and benefits those who are better overall. And helps bump the resumes of the Big 4, because the consistent hitting required eventually wears on the challenger.

This isn't trying to take away from Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray but rather observing that through the slowing of the courts, its harder for them to be challenged,

If the courts were to increase in speed which hinted at at the Aus Open, the amount of upsets is likely to rise.

When did Federer indicate this? He has always mentioned that he thinks indoors should be fast.

 

[NatF]

Impacted a lot. A guy who is not even in the top 10 volleyers of all time has 7 Wimbledons due to slowing down of courts in 2001..

Better than Bjorn Borg and he won 5 Wimbledons...

Sampras wasn't considered a great volleyer in his heyday either.

 

[Laurie]

Better than Bjorn Borg and he won 5 Wimbledons...

Sampras wasn't considered a great volleyer in his heyday either.

That is very true. Sampras was not considered a great volleyer by the likes of Frew McMillan until almost the end of his career when he came in more and more. Frew said that on a few occasions.

 

[Laurie]

You need speed on grass. Sampras and Federer win because they are athletic AND fast. Slow players struggle at Wimbledon now and 20 years ago.

I think speed is never considered when it comes to great grass players, not sure why that's the case. Almost all of the really top grass players have great athletic ability and are fast around the court. The guys who serve really big win Wimbledon just once or not at all. So you have the one time winners like Krajicek, Stich, Goran. Then there are guys who never win like Kevin Curren and Mark Phillipppousis. Counter punching skills did come to the fore on faster grass as well. In those days the counterpunching skills were also manifested in the ability to hit returns and passing shots especially at crucial moments.

 

[NatF]

That is very true. Sampras was not considered a great volleyer by the likes of Frew McMillan until almost the end of his career when he came in more and more. Frew said that on a few occasions.

I was watching the YEC SF between Agassi and Sampras of 1994 a few weeks back, I remember the commentators saying with Sampras his serve did most of the work and he did not have the volleys of Edberg (which isn't saying too much really).

But yes practice makes perfect and Sampras transitioned from an all court player to a S&V player for his last few years. In his later years he had a great volley. No surprises here but I think Federer could have been a great volleyer if he had peaked in a different era. He was very good in 2003 before he became more in favor of the baseline.

 

[moonballs]

That's exactly what I said. Poly strings enable players to hit in-depth shots with authority when both returning the serve and during rallies. Serving and volleying is more difficult than ever under these conditions, because they will get passed more often than not.

Deep baseline returns aren't problem for volleys because they are at a comfortable height. New equipments didn't improve the down the line passing shot that much but they allowed much more angle in the cross court passing shot.

 

[Omega_7000]

Slow boring game...and zero variety

Like Federer says, We need to have some really slow courts and some really fast courts. A balanced tour.

 

[Wynter]

Nadal has never said it either. It's a myth that he needs slow courts to win. He's never won on probably the slowest courts of all in Miami whereas he's won plenty on faster courts. Rafa wants bounce. He prefers to play on courts that will take the spin of his ball and bounce higher and he has said so many times.

I remember it from an article a while ago, Federer said that he liked playing on Slow Courts. It was a few months ago so I have no idea where the link is.

As for Nadal didn't he complain pre AO when people said the coirts would be quicker? I remember at least one article where he and Toni complained.

 

[Omega_7000]

I remember it from an article a while ago, Federer said that he liked playing on Slow Courts. It was a few months ago so I have no idea where the link is.

As for Nadal didn't he complain pre AO when people said the coirts would be quicker? I remember at least one article where he and Toni complained.

Roger Federer wants faster courts

"It's an easy fix. Just make quicker courts, then it's hard to defend," Federer said. "Attacking style is more important. It's only on this type of slow courts that you can defend the way we are all doing right now."

"What you don't want is that you hit 15 great shots and at the end, it ends up in an error," he said. "So I think sometimes quicker courts do help the cause. I think it would help from time to time to move to something a bit faster. That would help to learn, as well, for many different players, different playing styles, to realize that coming to the net is a good thing, it's not a bad thing."

"I think some variety would be nice, some really slow stuff and then some really fast stuff, instead of trying to make everything sort of the same," he said. "You sort of protect the top guys really by doing that because you have the best possible chance to have them in the semis at this point, I think. But should that be the goal? I'm not sure."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/8625576/roger-federer-wants-faster-courts-encourage-attack


Australian Open: Rafael Nadal unhappy with speed of courts

Rafael Nadal's uncle and coach Toni joined the world No1 on Monday in criticising Melbourne Park's faster hardcourts which, he feels, will ruin the spectacle for the Australian Open fans.

The speed of the blue Plexicushion courts has polarised opinions with Roger Federer and Australian Lleyton Hewitt welcoming it while Nadal questioned the logic behind the change.

"The spectators want a bit of rallying, a bit of tactics. People don't go to Barcelona's stadium to watch Lionel Messi taking penalties," Toni Nadal told AS.

"This year everything is a bit quicker, that's my feeling and also Rafa's. I don't know if it's because of the courts or the balls, which I think have been changed, but I don't think it's good for the spectacle," he added.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...l-unhappy-courts-plexicushion-australian-open

 

[NatF]

I remember it from an article a while ago, Federer said that he liked playing on Slow Courts. It was a few months ago so I have no idea where the link is.

As for Nadal didn't he complain pre AO when people said the coirts would be quicker? I remember at least one article where he and Toni complained.

Federer said he liked fast courts versus the top players and slow courts versus the lower ranked players. I think it was around Brisbane time.