There is NO change in court speeds over the last 30 years

soldat

soldat

Semi-Pro
There is no change in court speeds over the last 30 years, at least not to the discernible eye.

So I came upon a thread previously where someone posted some old matches, and some people were commenting that courts used to be much faster. So I got curious and watched the matches myself to see if there was any truth to the claims.

It seems to me that people make these claims based upon nothing.

What I saw was this:

1. Returns and ground strokes often had less power, especially a lot of short returns off of OHBH, which players would capitalize on by charging the net or unleashing a powerful forehand and then charge the net

2. Players on both serve and return would charge the net far more often, either after serve or return, shortening a lot of points

3. Top level tennis has been heavily serve centric

4. Surprisingly, taking your time to bounce the ball, adjust your shorts, calm down etc. was used by players way back when as well as today

I watched a couple of AO matches and the USO. I suspect the result will be more or less the same for RG and WB. If there is anyone who has court speed data and would like to provide evidence to back up their claims, please do so. I hope this thread becomes a good reference for any future fans who want to research this topic.

 
I mean the claims gain their most worth from the players themselves. Those who played through that period between the 90s and 00s.

I do think it's overstated to some degree, and has as much to do with the balls that they use.

The lawns at Wimbledon had a weed in it during the 90s that kept it spongy and the bounce low, the perfectly manicured lawns of the 21st century don't have that problem, they use a harder soil, and the ball kicks up more.

The old rebound ace at the Australian Open was considered too susceptible to varying widely in terms of playing conditions (both for the players and the ball) so they replaced it with what we have now where there is a mix and sand factors in, and that certainly slows a playing surface down.
 
I think there is some slowing down for sure but it's because of rackets..

No one wants to see today's players playing on 90s grass. Today's game is already too fast so some slowing down is needed or only bots will win.

Remember we have had epic bots like isner in last 15 years , they would make a killing
 
This ultimately comes down to the famous "eye test" and what you choose to believe. Playing conditions as a whole matter, beyond just court speed. This includes humidity, temperature, altitude, surface (of course), balls used, racquet technology... isolating just the court speed is pretty difficult, especially since some of these factors are interrelated.

The Court Pace Index is the only measure I've seen that attempts to do this, assessing both friction and restitution pre and post ball bounce. There is an actual formula to calculate this, but it has only been widely used over the past 5-10 years. Retroactive calculation is very challenging, especially pre-2000 when all we have to rely on is fuzzy video footage of matches. Now, as has been pointed out 1 million+ times on this forum (and others), racquet technology has changed significantly in a short space of time - and this also tends to distort perception of playing conditions.
 
SonnyT said:
Fedfans use this as favorite as their hero won so few slams in the 10's! They use it so much, it becomes their go-to.
Click to expand...

Right up there next to age thing...aka Federer got too old as soon as he hit 29 LMAO...and played old for the duration of the entire next decade! LOL
 
soldat said:
There is no change in court speeds over the last 30 years, at least not to the discernible eye.

So I came upon a thread previously where someone posted some old matches, and some people were commenting that courts used to be much faster. So I got curious and watched the matches myself to see if there was any truth to the claims.

It seems to me that people make these claims based upon nothing.

What I saw was this:

1. Returns and ground strokes often had less power, especially a lot of short returns off of OHBH, which players would capitalize on by charging the net or unleashing a powerful forehand and then charge the net

2. Players on both serve and return would charge the net far more often, either after serve or return, shortening a lot of points

3. Top level tennis has been heavily serve centric

4. Surprisingly, taking your time to bounce the ball, adjust your shorts, calm down etc. was used by players way back when as well as today

I watched a couple of AO matches and the USO. I suspect the result will be more or less the same for RG and WB. If there is anyone who has court speed data and would like to provide evidence to back up their claims, please do so. I hope this thread becomes a good reference for any future fans who want to research this topic.

Click to expand...


It’s well known that Wimbledon changed their grass and slowed the courts significantly after 2001.
 
Shaolin said:
It’s well known that Wimbledon changed their grass and slowed the courts significantly after 2001.
Click to expand...

It’s well known that Wimbledon changed the grass.

It’s less clear whether the courts slowed.

Were there any players who claimed a significant impact on their play before 2001 WB and after 2001 WB?

Player claims is also not direct evidence that the court speed changed, and while none of the big 3 had great successes at Wimbledon before the change, it took them several years after the change in order to reach the top.
 
In 2001 the grass was great in the opening rounds, but would become too eroded by the final, so they changed the mix to more resilient rye-grasses. Later, they also increased the cutting length by 1mm. Check out Pete v Fed in ideal 2001 Round 4 conditions:

 
Shaolin said:
It’s well known that Wimbledon changed their grass and slowed the courts significantly after 2001.
Click to expand...


It's a long time since 2002, the year claimed to prove the slow down, and tbh I think I'd stopped watching Wimbledon around that time but I guessed that it was probably a rain hit year, particularly deep into it...

www.theguardian.com

Henman out of Wimbledon

Tim Henman made yet another journey to the threshold of the Wimbledon final yesterday, but for the fourth time in five years the door was slammed shut in his face.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com

Hewitt wins in straight sets

World No1 Lleyton Hewitt today crushed Argentine debutant David Nalbandian 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 on a rain-interrupted afternoon to win his first Wimbledon title.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Shaolin said:
It’s well known that Wimbledon changed their grass and slowed the courts significantly after 2001.
Click to expand...


Of course, this is well documented and not a matter of opinion or "eye test". Now, some people think every surface has been constantly being slowing down endlessly, which is not true. But that's a different story. Grass was clearly slowed down in the early 2000s. But it's been the same for a while now.
 
They showed how cincy and US open is faster this year, they showed the stats, whether It is because of the balls of because of the court, doesnt Matter really, conditions are faster there, period.
 
Shaolin said:
It’s well known that Wimbledon changed their grass and slowed the courts significantly after 2001.
Click to expand...
Does after 2001 include or exclude 2001?

they changed the court already for the 2001 season. Goran won that year so that really goes against the narrative that they slowed the grass.

Of course Fed fans also complain that all courts got slower once he started losing, with no evidence whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Shaolin said:
You are wrong as usual.

They changed from a rye/fescue blend to all rye and it changed the speed dramatically.

It has been common knowledge for years and many former pros have spoken about it as well.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't. We've been over this on TTW multiple times.
 
Are you seeing how hard the ball is being struck these days? It would be unplayable if they had it fast.
 
Here's the description from Wimbledon:


In summary:

1995 - 8mm grass length (which was up from 7mm in previous years), mainly for durability, but probably has a minor slowing impact too.
1995 - change in ball compression. This is the big slowing down factor. I think the ATP keep messing around with this one, also depending on tournaments. The Slazenger Wimbledon ball is also slightly different from that at the beginning of the 1990s, as they've added various stabiliser plastics to the rubber and wool/synthetic felt weave for durability.
1995 - more focus on creating a firm and stable soil structure, which leads to more consistent and higher bounces. This means the ball is perceived to be slower, as it doesn't shoot through so much after bouncing. This has been an ongoing effort, so may well be quite changed today compared to the 1990s.
2001 - 100% rye-grass, changed from 30% fescue / 70% rye. I recall they did this in multiple steps as it was around 50% fescue at the beginning of the 90s.
 
The alleged faster pace of decades ago is conterintuitive for me. When I was younger, time seemed to pass slowlier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Court Speeds
2
Replies
70
Views
9K
Rozroz
Rozroz
B
On the measurement of court speeds
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Benhur
B
J
Is the ITF's Court Pace Rating flawed?
Replies
9
Views
5K
sbengte
sbengte
EnglishNadal
The history of grand slam court speeds
Replies
21
Views
6K
LETitBE
L
S
Serve speeds in the USO F
Replies
22
Views
2K
dman72
D
Back
Top