The more neutral surface - Clay or Grass?

[Artificial Grass]

I think it's fair to say that hard court is the most neutral surface, in the literal sense that it neutralizes any particular advantage that one player may have over another. But which surface is the more neutral of the other two - clay or grass?

My initial feeling is to say clay because it neutralizes the advantage of serve the most and forces players to play more longer rallies. But the fact that the most dominant player of all time on one particular surface dominates on clay, it makes me rethink that initial assessment.

What are your thoughts? Please discuss.

 

[Eye Test]

Clay.
Because you need more skill, unlike grass where servebots can thrive.

 

[EloQuent]

Clay is almost like a different sport. There's no grass equivalent to dirtballers.

 

[Red Rick]

Neither. If anything HC is the neutral surface with grass and clay being on opposite ends of the spectrum. If I had to pick, I would say clay is slightly more neutral because there's a few more styles that can do well on them, and it helps some HC/grass players in other ways, whereas if a clay player plays on grass, every single advantage gets nerfed.

But really, all we need is ATP wide data on average rally length, serve and return stats and winners/ue stats

 

[ak24alive]

Hard Court is a neutral surface because in a vague sense the two types of games which are serve+offence and grinding are both effective. In the recent years as all surfaces have been slowed down we have seen a lot of grinders win on grass but clay helps grinders very much and big servers not so much.
So if you see it that way modern grass(not the old grass) is more neutral than clay.

Edit: This is nothing but an eye test.

 

[Standaa]

Black - clay
Grey - HC
White - grass

 

[van_Loederen]

the second week of Wimbly is pretty neutral.

 

[Artificial Grass]

Neither. If anything HC is the neutral surface with grass and clay being on opposite ends of the spectrum. If I had to pick, I would say clay is slightly more neutral because there's a few more styles that can do well on them, and it helps some HC/grass players in other ways, whereas if a clay player plays on grass, every single advantage gets nerfed.

But really, all we need is ATP wide data on average rally length, serve and return stats and winners/ue stats

Actually, I feel like a greater variety of playing styles can succeed on grass than clay. On clay, pretty much only defensive baseliners can succeed with Thiem maybe being a slight exception to that, but he hasn't exactly been successful at the highest level considering he has never even won a Masters 1000. Whereas on grass, defensive baseliners like Nadal and Djokovic can succeed, all courters like Fed can succeed, serve and volleyers can succeed (especially in the past of course), and then even servebots can succeed.

 

[ak24alive]

Actually, I feel like a greater variety of playing styles can succeed on grass than clay. On clay, pretty much only defensive baseliners can succeed with Thiem maybe being a slight exception to that, but he hasn't exactly been successful at the highest level considering he has never even won a Masters 1000. Whereas on grass, defensive baseliners like Nadal and Djokovic can succeed, all courters like Fed can succeed, serve and volleyers can succeed (especially in the past of course), and then even servebots can succeed.

You would obviously say that

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Blue clay.

 

[Red Rick]

Actually, I feel like a greater variety of playing styles can succeed on grass than clay. On clay, pretty much only defensive baseliners can succeed with Thiem maybe being a slight exception to that, but he hasn't exactly been successful at the highest level considering he has never even won a Masters 1000. Whereas on grass, defensive baseliners like Nadal and Djokovic can succeed, all courters like Fed can succeed, serve and volleyers can succeed (especially in the past of course), and then even servebots can succeed.

The whole idea of attacker vs grinder is wrong in the first place. It's all about reaction time and pace generation. And it's about serve/return combo vs rallying in isolation

Wawrinka, Thiem and Soderling are all offensive players who thrive the most on RG, Murray is a "defensive" player who's best Slam by far is Wimbledon.

Djokovic is, apart from the Nadal factor, about as good on clay as he is on grass, perhaps even better on clay. He and Murray are easily the best returners in the game. Murray has traditionally difficulty on clay because he doesn't like to generate his own pace.

And if you think Nadal is a defensive baseliner, think again. His hand eye coordination, raw talent for striking the ball and agression are the most underrated of all players on the ATP Tour.

 

[Artificial Grass]

The whole idea of attacker vs grinder is wrong in the first place. It's all about reaction time and pace generation. And it's about serve/return combo vs rallying in isolation

Wawrinka, Thiem and Soderling are all offensive players who thrive the most on RG, Murray is a "defensive" player who's best Slam by far is Wimbledon.

Djokovic is, apart from the Nadal factor, about as good on clay as he is on grass, perhaps even better on clay. He and Murray are easily the best returners in the game. Murray has traditionally difficulty on clay because he doesn't like to generate his own pace.

And if you think Nadal is a defensive baseliner, think again. His hand eye coordination, raw talent for striking the ball and agression are the most underrated of all players on the ATP Tour.

Great points!

 

[Sport]

There is no such thing as a neutral surface. Every player has a favorite kind of surface.

 

[Sport]

If you want something relatively "neutral", it could be the slower hard court of the US Open. But it is still not genuinely neutral, since some players like Djokovic can be specialist in slower hard court.

 

[van_Loederen]

there are also players who can move well on both clay and grass (aka natural surfaces), while they are worse on hardcourt.
f.i. Florian Mayer

 

[Zeref]

Clay.
Because you need more skill, unlike grass where servebots can thrive.

Serving is a high level skill for anyone under 6'2". Anyone above 6'7" it becomes fairly easy. They should be only categorised as servebots.

On clay u need more physical fitness imo rather than skill.

Of course for being top dog on both extreme surfaces you need both.