What court is better for Nadal: fast and high bouncing or slow and low bouncing?

What court is better for Nadal: fast and high bouncing or slow and low bouncing?

  • Fast and high bouncing

    Votes: 31 83.8%

  • Slow and low bouncing

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Total voters
    37
tennis_hack

tennis_hack

Banned
I previously thought that a court could only be slow if it was high bouncing. I thought the slowness was solely due to the fact that a higher ball takes longer to fall to the ground than a lower ball - thus giving players more time to run down balls.

However, others say that a court can indeed be slow and low bouncing - and, indeed, the converse - fast and high bouncing.

So, running with that - would a fast and high bouncing court or a slow and low bouncing court be better for Nadal's game?

Probably the optimum would be slow and high bouncing, but I ain't giving you that option so suck it.
 
I knew this thread might come.


Slow and high bouncing. He likes slower courts that aren't dead -- courts that have a lot of vigour and responsiveness to them. For example, look at how Djokovic was able to garner some control of their 2012 RG match when the clay court was drenched and dead.

As for the actual question; it depends on the field.
 
tennis_hack said:
I previously thought that a court could only be slow if it was high bouncing. I thought the slowness was solely due to the fact that a higher ball takes longer to fall to the ground than a lower ball - thus giving players more time to run down balls.

However, others say that a court can indeed be slow and low bouncing - and, indeed, the converse - fast and high bouncing.

So, running with that - would a fast and high bouncing court or a slow and low bouncing court be better for Nadal's game?

Probably the optimum would be slow and high bouncing, but I ain't giving you that option so suck it.
Click to expand...

You left out one more option:

SLOW and HIGH bounce.

The conditions today is best suits for Nadal and he is the biggest beneficiary of all.
 
tennis_hack said:
I previously thought that a court could only be slow if it was high bouncing. I thought the slowness was solely due to the fact that a higher ball takes longer to fall to the ground than a lower ball - thus giving players more time to run down balls.

However, others say that a court can indeed be slow and low bouncing - and, indeed, the converse - fast and high bouncing.

So, running with that - would a fast and high bouncing court or a slow and low bouncing court be better for Nadal's game?

Probably the optimum would be slow and high bouncing, but I ain't giving you that option so suck it.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't understand. How can a court be slow and low bouncing?
That is physically impossible.
 
The bounce, definitely. His game really hurts when the bounce is high.

A perfect example is IW 2012 semis. He lost to Federer despite the IW courts being slow.

Why ? It had just rained and the court had a really low bounce, hence it didn't bother Roger at all.
 
Definitely fast and high bouncing. USO can still be considered relatively fast by today's standards, same with Montreal and they are both very good tournaments for him. A REALLY fast court with a high bounce is basically impossible but today's fast courts are fine for Nadal. RG is actually a pretty fast clay court, but since it has a high bounce its very optimal for Nadal. Hamburg was ULTRA slow and it was Nadal's worst clay event because the ball didn't kick up all that much. I don't think anyone would disagree that Miami is clearly a much slower event than Montreal, but Nadal's results at the latter are much better.
 
jg153040 said:
It's called alternate reality on the moon. Where the laws of physics don't apply :)

Moonlight masters.
Click to expand...
coefficients of horizontal (~speed) and vertical (~bounce) restitution are 2 different things.
vive le beau jeu ! said:
well... if you have a closer look at the ITF webpage, it precisely tells you that it's NOT the same ! ;)
they explain that they use an index (CPR = Court Pace Rating) making a kinda synthesis of both aspects ("horizontal speed" & "bounce"), but it's a simple approach:

the 2D chart also illustrates it well:
IO_39412_staticarticle.JPG

it would be extremely interesting to get an idea of these values (and not only the CPR, of course) for various tournaments, and maybe also the differences between several courts of the same venue... or for instance the evolution of these coefficients at wimbledon during the tournament as players progressively transform the beautiful immaculate green grass into some dirty brown soil ! ;)
Click to expand...
(from an old thread)

those horrible 'omnisport' facilities where kids often have sport classes at school (not sure how this rubbery surface is called !)... that would be fast and high bouncing court !
 
vive le beau jeu ! said:
coefficients of horizontal (~speed) and vertical (~bounce) restitution are 2 different things.

(from an old thread)

those horrible 'omnisport' facilities where kids often have sport classes at school (not sure how this rubbery surface is called !)... that would be fast and high bouncing court !
Click to expand...

So, what kind of court is trampoline court?
 
Fast and high bouncing defs! He needs the bounce. WTF is not a fast surface. Its a pretty slow indoor court...and Nadal has won dubai which is fast. He needs the bounce!
 
WTF is not slow. Plenty of aces over there. And there is no fast and high bouncing at sea level. Maybe medium speed and medium bouncing. Which is basically what the US Open plays like. Indoor conditions seem to make things go faster. The same goes for altitude. Both hurt Nadal's game.
 
Opposite

Emiliano55 said:
Last year WTF was fast and high bouncing.
Click to expand...

I have heard the WTF 2010 & 2011 was slow and low bouncing. And 2012 was slower and higher bouncing.

So presuming that 2013 is the same as 2012 - the WTF slow and higher bouncing.

WTF hasn't seen fast since it was in London anyway. For a time lower bouncing though.
 
Is this a trick question :confused:

Based on his results, the obvious answer is fast and high-bouncing is the better surface for Nadal's game.

The bounce is key, not the speed.
 
Last edited:
Bud said:
Is this a trick question :confused:

Based on his results, the obvious answer is fast and high-bouncing is the better surface for Nadal's game.

The bounce is key, not the speed.
Click to expand...
But Nadal can put more spin on the ball when he has more time. Rather than an abbreviated swing.
 
Murrayfan31 said:
But Nadal can put more spin on the ball when he has more time. Rather than an abbreviated swing.
Click to expand...

No time is not the issue is the altitude of the ball, he always say so, when he has problems "lifting" the ball is because the court is low bounce, he said it clearly for example in shangai against delpotro.
 
jg153040 said:
Lol at the op. You can't have fast and high bouncing court or slow and low bouncing.
Click to expand...

Yes, you certainly can. Speed is about coefficient of friction. Bounce height is function of a court's coefficient of restitution. Totally separate qualities.
 
Murrayfan31 said:
WTF is not slow.
Click to expand...
But it is slower than the preceding tournaments and has been discussed at length here and by the commentators for a number of years. It also has a lower bounce than the majority of other hard courts.

Murrayfan31 said:
Indoor conditions seem to make things go faster. The same goes for altitude.
Click to expand...
Indoors generally has higher air pressure than outdoors where there is heating, forced air or air conditioning. Therefore indoors should generally be slower than outdoors and certainly the polar opposite of outdoors at altitude.

I find indoor conditions where the court type is the same (a scenario I encounter weekly) to be slower than outdoors by some margin. I can't discount that the indoor courts might retain their surface grip longer than outdoor ones but the courts I play on, in theory, are basically the same except for some being indoors and others outdoors.

The primarily reason indoor courts seem faster is because they are generally faster surfaces, not because they're indoors.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Um, yes you can.

The WTF court is down slow-ish and low bouncing.
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that there is a court that Rafas top spin will bounce faster and yet the ball will bounce higher?

Or is this just how you define terms?

I just don't a see how WTF was faster and higher bouncing than clay.

How is it possible to have a court that Rafas top spin will have more speed than on clay and ye it will bounce higher than on clay.

I guess I'm missing something.

I get it, faster means that surface, doesn't absorb balls energy. But if this is the case, how can ball bounce higher, since the energy makes ball travel at lower trajectory.

And don't say, cuz the court is indoor. We must have the same conditions. The premise is that both courts are indoor and we have the same type of balls and the same type of player plays the same shot.
 
Last edited:
jg153040 said:
So, are you saying that there is a court that Rafas top spin will bounce faster and yet the ball will bounce higher?
Click to expand...
Of course. Courts, as explained by someone above, have two key variables which are basically - the hardness and the grip-ness of the surface. The WTF for example is a grippy surface which makes is relatively slow, but is not rock hard (it's a mobile court which slots together) so the bounce is lower than if the same top surface was put straight onto a rock-hard surface for example.

There obviously is a point where a low bounce will have some effect of making the court quicker in some ways - for example some serves struck exactly the same in terms of spin/speed/angle will bounce lower at the WTF than on another court so will be harder to get back up over the net - maybe they don't get into the same hitting zone for the returner. This could advantage a serve and volleyer even though the surface grip is the same as somewhere else.

Nadal loves high bouncing balls whatever the court speed - but slower is generally still better for him as he can hit more balls prepared and perfectly balanced. The French Open final vs Djokovic last year was a good example. Nadal preferred to play when the courts were drier and more bouncy. When the rain came it helped Djokovic more imo - as the ball stayed lower (disregarding the effect of air pressure).

jg153040 said:
I just don't a see how WTF was faster and higher bouncing than clay.
Click to expand...
It's not.

jg153040 said:
I get it, faster means that surface, doesn't absorb balls energy. But if this is the case, how can ball bounce higher, since the energy makes ball travel at lower trajectory.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I follow you perfectly - your explanation and phrasing is a little hard to work out. I'll try though.

When a ball comes down from a heigh approaching vertical the effect of the surface speed will have less and less affect. As it approaches horizontal the opposite is true - but at some point there is an angle/speed where the two properties converge and the line blurs. The ball may even skid, losing more of it's energy and not bouncing as high.

You can have courts which are made with, in theory, exactly the same top surface to them but which play quite differently (especially clay) because of the bed under them.
 
The thing is that, for the most part, when people talk about the court being fast or slow they (at least traditionally) refer to the height of the bounce. The other aspect of the equation tends to get subsumed into the speed of the conditions. It is certainly true that Nadal likes the ball to fly through the air fast.

Rebound ace is a good example of a court that doesn't fit the fast and low or slow and high mould. In terms of speed, it was fairly similar to the US Open. In terms of height of bounce, it was fairly similar to Roland Garros.

That was because of its high rubber content, which made the ball accelerate but also bounce a lot. The walls of a racquetball court also have this effect.
 
Bud said:
Is this a trick question :confused:

Based on his results, the obvious answer is fast and high-bouncing is the better surface for Nadal's game.

The bounce is key, not the speed.
Click to expand...

This is what I heard Rafa say too.
 
corners said:
Yes, you certainly can. Speed is about coefficient of friction. Bounce height is function of a court's coefficient of restitution. Totally separate qualities.
Click to expand...

However, when you take "spin potential" into account, a surface being both fast and taking spin well almost seems paradoxical. The rougher/gritter the surface, the slower it will be and the more it well tend it amplify the spin of a ball on contact (i.e. greater friction increases spin), which is why Nadal tends to dominate clay surfaces as much as he does, as well as perform better on slower surfaces and/or hard-court surfaces that have been "slowed down" (i.e. greater magnitude of sand in the surface mixture).

The more smoother/slicker a surface, the faster it will be, and the less it will tend to enhance the spin potential of the ball. It is impossible for a surface to "be fast", "have a high bounce", and "amplify topspin", all at the same time. It's certainly possible to have a "perfectly" smooth, "highly dense" hard surface that is "bouncy" (less KE lost on surface contact), but the dearth of grit/grip won't allow it to take (top)spin all that well, unless you're playing with a ball with high elasticity like a ping-pong ball or a superball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Examples of 'Low Bouncing + Slow' courts and 'High Bouncing + Fast' courts
Replies
4
Views
2K
jg153040
J
_maxi
What are your impressions of the court speed so far?
2
Replies
68
Views
5K
pmerk34
P
D
Favorite Court speed and bounce
Replies
18
Views
2K
reaper
R
D
Hard Courts should be fast and low-bouncing
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
SamprasisGOAT
I've been blaming slow court surfaces for years but........
Replies
24
Views
3K
kramer woodie
kramer woodie
Back
Top