What are your impressions of the court speed so far?

[Nadal_Freak]

I'm sure you haven't heard what Henman had to say about the courts at Wimbledon.

Yes and his comments were sour grapes. He never won any grass titles in his career. So it was a joke to think he could win Wimbledon. He could always be the British hope though. :lol:

 

[Andres]

Yes and his comments were sour grapes. He never won any grass titles in his career. So it was a joke to think he could win Wimbledon. He could always be the British hope though. :lol:

He was a four times Wimbledon SF and four times quarterfinalist. He reached the QF or better 8 times in 13 attempts. No, not sour grapes. But whatever floats your boat.

 

[jimbo333]

I think I have seen someone fall in just about every match I have caught today. Sure seems slippery.

Yes, I was there today, and lots of players slipped and fell over!!!

However, I think this is as much the players fault, as the grass court itself. I think lots of them have forgotten they are actually playing on grass on the first day of a grass court championship!!!

A new grass court is always a bit slippery!!!

 

[pmerk34]

It got talked ALOT more in 2002 when Hewitt and Nalbandian were in the final, two counterpunching baseliners. It is not an anomaly for an offensive baseliner like Agassi or Washington, or even Courier to make it to the final. However, Nalbandian has NO business whatsoever being in the final of Wimbledon. Especially a pre-prime Nalbandian.


There has been talk from pros (pros who are completely unbiased and third parties to this whole Nadal/Federer thing), analysts, former pros, and so on and so on. BBC did an analysis of one of Federer's serves. The ITF itself said Wimbledon was slower. The former Wimbledon CEO said there was a concentrated effort into slowing down Wimbledon.


I don't know how much more evidence you need. I think it's very clear to me that you are not only biased, but ignorant and totally oblivious. You are so far up Nadal's ass that you have forgotten what it is to be a fan of tennis. All you can see is Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal. And to be quite honest, I'm really getting sick of it.

Soderling had 31 aces in rd 1. If this were 90's Wimby he'd had about 40. I don't think we want to go back to that.

 

[NamRanger]

Soderling had 31 aces in rd 1. If this were 90's Wimby he'd had about 40. I don't think we want to go back to that.

I don't see the point of changing the surface when the French don't change theirs.




Regardless, there will always be big servers in any era of tennis, and most of the time they will be boring. Karlovic plays 2-3 point rallies on clay; going to say it's because of the clay? No.

 

[jimbo333]

McEnroe was saying during the Federer match about the balls being quite heavy and getting "fluffed up" quite easily and quickly but that when you hit the ball cleanly it was really sliding through the surface...he thinks the balls are slow but surface is fast so. I dont know?

Again, having seen it myself today, the balls did seem to "fluff up", and they actually looked huge!!!

The courts did not appear fast at all, actually very similar to last year!!!

Slices kept low and slid, and top spin bounced high (sometimes surprisingly so).

Anyway, when they dry out next week, courts will get faster I hope

 

[Hirotto]

One of the commentators today said that the court suface will be fast if you hit a firm fast shot but weak shots will sit up more easily.

 

[pmerk34]

I don't see the point of changing the surface when the French don't change theirs.




Regardless, there will always be big servers in any era of tennis, and most of the time they will be boring. Karlovic plays 2-3 point rallies on clay; going to say it's because of the clay? No.

The problem became in the 90's that the whole sport was becoming exceedingly boring, especially at Wimbledon. Guy today hit harder and serve harder than ever. Becuase of changes to the balls and surfaces we actually see rallies.

 

[sheets]

I heard that too. Court are playing fast in my opinion. Not really fast but not slow by any means. the surface also seems to be taking slice really well this year.

 

[<3tennis!!!]

How can you guys tell the difference between surfaces and balls?

why dont you ask our physics expert???

 

[zagor]

Soderling had 31 aces in rd 1. If this were 90's Wimby he'd had about 40. I don't think we want to go back to that.

Why not? Sure.baseline tennis is great but you can watch it in AO,FO,USO and all the 9 masters.Why not have one slam which forces the players to actually adapt and not play the same way they do the whole year,one slam which gives big servers and adept volleyers a big edge? What's wrong about a little variety? Wimbledon was special and unique,now it's just another baseliner(and yes that includes Fed as well)heaven.

 

[NamRanger]

The problem became in the 90's that the whole sport was becoming exceedingly boring, especially at Wimbledon. Guy today hit harder and serve harder than ever. Becuase of changes to the balls and surfaces we actually see rallies.

This is total bollocks. Guys hit no harder today than they did in the 90s. Agassi somehow was able to go from a 110-120 serve to 130 at times. Even he was surprised by the radar guns of today (which are all obviously slightly juiced).




Also, the boring argument holds no water because tennis was at it's peak in the 70s/80s when there were a plethora of S&V players, and short rallies.

 

[jimbo333]

One of the commentators today said that the court suface will be fast if you hit a firm fast shot but weak shots will sit up more easily.

That was probably Andrew Castle on the BBC, he is an absolute ****!!!

(censored myself out of politeness)

 

[ACE of Hearts]

My problem with this so called grass is the enormous high bounce.We have the australian and french open for that!!U would be an idiot not to think that the high bounce and the topspin has helped Nadal win wimbledon!!

 

[pmerk34]

Why not? Sure.baseline tennis is great but you can watch it in AO,FO,USO and all the 9 masters.Why not have one slam which forces the players to actually adapt and not play the same way they do the whole year,one slam which gives big servers and adept volleyers a big edge? What's wrong about a little variety? Wimbledon was special and unique,now it's just another baseliner(and yes that includes Fed as well)heaven.

I agree, except that it had become a haven for huge serves and no returns.

 

[pmerk34]

This is total bollocks. Guys hit no harder today than they did in the 90s. Agassi somehow was able to go from a 110-120 serve to 130 at times. Even he was surprised by the radar guns of today (which are all obviously slightly juiced).




Also, the boring argument holds no water because tennis was at it's peak in the 70s/80s when there were a plethora of S&V players, and short rallies.

It was boring which is why it was changed.

 

[NamRanger]

It was boring which is why it was changed.

Couldn't have been boring if the Goran and Rafter final completely sold out and had one of the highest TV ratings. Couldn't have been boring when McEnroe and Borg went at it. Couldn't have been boring when Becker and Lendl around, or Becker and Edberg.



Wanna know why? Because TV Ratings in the 70s/80s/90s were all RIDICULOUSLY higher than today's ratings. Not just in the U.S. either, but across the world as a whole.

 

[alienhamster]

I don't know about speed yet, but I definitely felt like the bounces during rally shots were lower than I remember from early on last year.

I wish they could find a way to create a "truer" bounce without sacrificing speed. Grass SHOULD be faster than the other surfaces and the bounces SHOULD be the lowest on tour at this time. It's part of what makes the game interesting. (I like seeing more slice shots and volleys, personally.) Perhaps the best way to do this is to pick a lighter ball.

As for Nadal's success on the surface: while I certainly think he benefitted from the changes they've made, I have a feeling his topspin would still get pretty good kick off the pre-2002 surface. But, yeah, when you see Nadal's forehand shots kicking up to Federer's forehead, you know something's not right with the grass.

 

[pmerk34]

Couldn't have been boring if the Goran and Rafter final completely sold out and had one of the highest TV ratings. Couldn't have been boring when McEnroe and Borg went at it. Couldn't have been boring when Becker and Lendl around, or Becker and Edberg.



Wanna know why? Because TV Ratings in the 70s/80s/90s were all RIDICULOUSLY higher than today's ratings. Not just in the U.S. either, but across the world as a whole.

Yes you could watch a ton of tennis on what we then called regular network TV. I guess when the ratings fell off it all went to ESPN and now the Tennis Channel which is not carried by my provider.