What made wimbledon slower?

[QueenSeles]

According to Sir Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the grass like everything else has evolved over the years into a slower strain. This has nothing to do with human intervention or conspiracy. It is nature's way. In 20 years, the grass will stop the ball completely and WO will have to move to slow hard court.

Exactly, this proves that those players whose game depends on slower surfaces are less skilled.

 

[Sentinel]

Exactly, this proves that those players whose game depends on slower surfaces are less skilled.

No, they are evolved strains of humans. The other strain which included Shampras and ******** became extinct with the dying out of fast grass, wood, natural gut and pantaloons.

 

[JimF]

Is Clay Faster Now?

BTW, clay is much faster than it used to be at that time. Most of you avoid mentioning it.

I've heard that a few times, several years back, but never anything concrete.

Do you have any specifics? Thanks.

There seems to be tremendous variability. I suspect Madrid's clay plays faster than many ATP circuit hard courts (high altitude, dries it out).

At the other extreme, Hamburg seems extreme slow.

Roland Garros isn't even clay. Crushed brick.

 

[JimF]

Bounce and Speed Strictly Linked?

Basic physics will tell you that what you just stated is impossible unless the ball moves faster from a horizontal aspect to make up for the increased vertical aspect.
.

I get what you're after, and it is mainly correct, but I suspect you're ignoring how much kinetic energy is absorbed v.s. transferred by the surface.

Example: ATP Cup surface was relative slow, and low bouncing.

 

[coloskier]

It's higher bouncing, not slower.

Exactly right. Everyone used to have to play S&V because you never wanted to let the ball bounce. You never knew where the ball was going to bounce, and were lucky to see the ball bounce above your knees. Especially in the 2nd week. That is why even Bjorn Borg played S&V to win Wimbledon, because baseliners always got crushed.

 

[NamRanger]

I get what you're after, and it is mainly correct, but I suspect you're ignoring how much kinetic energy is absorbed v.s. transferred by the surface.

Example: ATP Cup surface was relative slow, and low bouncing.

I'm no physics expert, but I'm just trying to point out that if the ball was struck with the same amount of force in both scenarios (which it was), then there is no way that you can state that the horizontal component of the balls velocity doesn't change when you have a change in vertical component.


But yeah, I mainly gloss over the kinetic energy being absorbed by the surface since then we have to really get technical.

Exactly right. Everyone used to have to play S&V because you never wanted to let the ball bounce. You never knew where the ball was going to bounce, and were lucky to see the ball bounce above your knees. Especially in the 2nd week. That is why even Bjorn Borg played S&V to win Wimbledon, because baseliners always got crushed.

You can't have an increase in vertical speed and say that there is no decrease in horizontal speed if you were to strike the ball with the same amount of force in each instance. This is completely ignoring the surface itself that the ball strikes (we just assume it is the same since 2002, since that is Bud's theory).

 

[JimF]

Erratic Bounces at Wimbledon

Exactly right. Everyone used to have to play S&V because you never wanted to let the ball bounce. You never knew where the ball was going to bounce, and were lucky to see the ball bounce above your knees. Especially in the 2nd week. That is why even Bjorn Borg played S&V to win Wimbledon, because baseliners always got crushed.

My favorite and least-favorite examples:

1) Jimmy Connors playing Kevin Curren, I believe. Got hit in the groin by a serve that bounced badly. Waddled over to the ad court holding himself.

2) Last point of Nadal-Fed 08: Sitting duck hit a divot and bounced at 60% to the right.

If you had a court in your backyard that was in as bad shape as Wimbledon's center court is by the finals, you'd tear it up and plant tomatoes.

 

[ksbh]

'Sir' Charles Darwin? ROFL X 1000!

Anyways, according to Charles Darwin, he evolved from a monkey and I have to say I cannot take someone with a monkey's intelligence too seriously! So please discard that evolution theory. Any other reason you can think of that is based on human intelligence?

According to Sir Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the grass like everything else has evolved over the years into a slower strain. This has nothing to do with human intervention or conspiracy. It is nature's way. In 20 years, the grass will stop the ball completely and WO will have to move to slow hard court.

 

[Sentinel]

'Sir' Charles Darwin? ROFL X 1000!

Anyways, according to Charles Darwin, he evolved from a monkey and I have to say I cannot take someone with a monkey's intelligence too seriously! So please discard that evolution theory. Any other reason you can think of that is based on human intelligence?

But human intelligence evolved from chimp intelligence when the chimp DNA dropped off a few strands of genes so that certain parts of the brain could grow.

Do you seriously think Sunny Deol could have evolved from anything other than a 10 foot gorilla ?

 

[Murrayfan31]

Nadal is a God!

He's so likeable that they changed the courts only for him. Even if it's at the disadvantage of the british players. Poor Murray (and Henman in those days). What is the problem with them? What more do they need to get some good treatment in their own country?

More seriously, if the surfaces have been slowed down, blame it on the big servers. And only them. Men tennis was unwatchable at some point, except on clay. And it would be even worse now without the slowing down. There are still much too many serve fests anyway.

BTW, clay is much faster than it used to be at that time. Most of you avoid mentioning it.

Or maybe Clay is the only surface that hasn't slowed down. Thought of that? Too bad what happened to Wimbledon. They used to be the most presigious slam.
Now it is the US Open.

 

[TennisAddict121]

Andy Roddick's powerful serve was the result for the courts at Wimbledon being slowed down

 

[Grass_for_cows]

'Sir' Charles Darwin? ROFL X 1000!

Anyways, according to Charles Darwin, he evolved from a monkey and I have to say I cannot take someone with a monkey's intelligence too seriously! So please discard that evolution theory. Any other reason you can think of that is based on human intelligence?

Wow. So on top of a gender-crossing Henin lover and a Gunther Parche-impersonator, there's a creationist. This is one crazy forum.

 

[tennis_hand]

it is wrong to only blame on the surface changes. everything changed in tennis over the last 20 years, racket, strings, fitness, balls, etc.
in fact, wimbledon is still the fastest surface among 4 GS, though u may think it's USO otherwise. just listen to what the pros say, they played on all GS, not you.

wimbledon changes over the years make the ball bounce more consistent, grass lasting longer.
if you enjoy sampras playing wimbledon, at least that's fair. but if you watch Ivanesevic, this guy can't play anything except going for aces and winners everywhere. he may end up with 4 double faults in a game and still going for aces. at least sampras serve is more consistent and had better volleys and baseline shots.

 

[morten]

The Ivanesevic Sampras match that year was a coincidence, a one of a kind. They should have kept it like that. I want diversity. Now the volley and slice just stops and gives the returner all the advantages...

 

[Russeljones]

Grass used to be as fast as indoor carpet. and now people say that even the USO ground is faster than wimby and talk about "green clay".

What are the factors that made wimbledon slower than in the 80s,90s? And did it really become slower?

did they change someething with the grass (longer, more dense...), do they have more dirt under the grass or what?

Or is it even the baseline style itself that rubs of the grass, so that only the clay remains? what is it?

I think we went into considerable detail in this thread
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-match-that-changed-tennis.518405/

 

[SpinToWin]

I think we went into considerable detail in this thread
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-match-that-changed-tennis.518405/

Look at the date this thread was made Russel

 

[Russeljones]

Look at the date this thread was made Russel

Funny that a beautiful irony.

Anyhoo, the answers remain the same.

 

[BVSlam]

Well, Wimbledon is not getting any younger, naturally it'll become a few steps slower over time.

 

[timnz]

They changed the grass (see post #2) and changed the balls. The ITF were always trying to slow down the grass in the 90's. I think they went a little too far slowing down other surfaces as well. To think that was enough they even got rid of carpet. Thankfully they forgot to slow down the five remaining fast courts of Dubai, Cincy, Paris, Madrid and Basel.

Oh they slowed down Paris considerably

 

[Krish872007]

Well, Wimbledon is not getting any younger, naturally it'll become a few steps slower over time.

Rubbish. Wimbledon is playing as well as it has ever played, and it can only get better. I predict Wimbledon will peak in 2100.

 

[BVSlam]

Rubbish. Wimbledon is playing as well as it has ever played, and it can only get better. I predict Wimbledon will peak in 2100.

Nah. Oldledon will just decline even further. Nothing can stop father time. Maybe Oldledon should start playing more aggressive to compensate for a decline in speed.

OHHH SNAP!

 

[Krish872007]

Nah. Oldledon will just decline even further. Nothing can stop father time. Maybe Oldledon should start playing more aggressive to compensate for a decline in speed.

OHHH SNAP!

Might as well, if it wants to keep up with the likes of Peakbourne Park - which is the undisputed no. 1 Slam in the world now, and will soon be the GOAT Slam.
Peakbourne Park is the most complete Slam ever. Oldledon's prestige and stats are padded by The Weak Slam Era, and now (since 2002) it is getting exposed and owned in the Slam H2H.

 

[SpinToWin]

Rubbish. Wimbledon is playing as well as it has ever played, and it can only get better. I predict Wimbledon will peak in 2100.

Nah. Oldledon will just decline even further. Nothing can stop father time. Maybe Oldledon should start playing more aggressive to compensate for a decline in speed.

OHHH SNAP!

Might as well, if it wants to keep up with the likes of Peakbourne Park - which is the undisputed no. 1 Slam in the world now, and will soon be the GOAT Slam.
Peakbourne Park is the most complete Slam ever. Oldledon's prestige and stats are padded by The Weak Slam Era, and now (since 2002) it is getting exposed and owned in the Slam H2H.

Don't forget U(ltron)SO and F(ed)rench Open!!

 

[BVSlam]

Might as well, if it wants to keep up with the likes of Peakbourne Park - which is the undisputed no. 1 Slam in the world now, and will soon be the GOAT Slam.
Peakbourne Park is the most complete Slam ever. Oldledon's prestige and stats are padded by The Weak Slam Era, and now (since 2002) it is getting exposed and owned in the Slam H2H.

Well at least Oldledon can still compete with Peakbourne Park at times. Roland Garrosol is a shadow of its former self. Slower than ever, less spin than ever. Very bad.

 

[Krish872007]

Well at least Oldledon can still compete with Peakbourne Park at times. Roland Garrosol is a shadow of its former self. Slower than ever, less spin than ever. Very bad.

This is where people make the mistake of assuming that we have a "Big 4", when it's only really the Big 3: Peakbourne Park, Oldledon and the U(ltron)SO. Romug Garrosol is far behind in all meaningful statistics, lacks variety and only allows 1 guy to win all the time. It also creaks and has no roof.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Better players.