What year did the Wimbledon grass change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 688153
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
We've been having an argument on another forum, and I wanted to call in folks on here who would know which year the grass changed from 70/30 Rye/Red fescue to 100% Rye.

I believe the new grass was put in place following the 2001 edition of the tournament, meaning that the 2002 edition was the first played on the new 100% rye grass.

The issue is that the Wimbledon website says differently to all the other sources I have found, and says that the change occurred in time for 2001, not 2002.
I am convinced that they are in error, and the website has a typo.

So who here knows for sure or knows otherwise?

Some evidence would be good too if possible.
 
Does the argument involve Federer and/or Sampras? :twisted:

I always thought it was in time for 2002 (imo Henman commented on it around that time.)
However I have no evidence whatsoever, and I'll leave the definitive answers to the more knowledgeable people on the forum.
 
They first slowed the grass around 2002.

But I believe since 2009 it's been slowed even more. Just my opinion though.
 
2001 was fast grass. The grass was changed after the 2001 tournament, meaning 2002 was the first edition with the slower grass.
 
It was always very fast except 2008 and 2010. During those two years, they played on green clay, which was slower than the red clay.
 
It was changed in 2001 after the championships. Look at the how the S&V players did in 2001 versus 2002.
 
Why on earth would you change after the 2001 final, which was one of the best ever? And then you end up with hewitt/nalbandian? :(
 
Zoolander said:
Why on earth would you change after the 2001 final, which was one of the best ever? And then you end up with hewitt/nalbandian? :(
Click to expand...
One of the best ever? No way..

Rafter was a choke artist in Wimbledon finals plus Goran was long overdue anyway.
 
RAfter had Sampras beaten at one Wimbly final, and should of gone up 2 sets to one. I remember, but missed a few easy shots in the TB.
to blow a crucial set.

Still miss Rafter. Rafter should of beaten Goran too.
 
dgold44 said:
RAfter had Sampras beaten at one Wimbly final, and should of gone up 2 sets to one. I remember, but missed a few easy shots in the TB.
to blow a crucial set.

Still miss Rafter. Rafter should of beaten Goran too.
Click to expand...
Typical Rafter though.. He could beat the second best (Agassi) but not the best (Sampras).

Although Rafter did beat an injured Sampras at the USO one time.
 
Delete post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Goran was the wimbledon feelgood story of the century. Rafter was a nice guy who even choked nicely. Whats not to like?
 
Zoolander said:
Goran was the wimbledon feelgood story of the century. Rafter was a nice guy who even choked nicely. Whats not to like?
Click to expand...
The fact that Rafter blew the final two times in a row..

Goran's story is/was a very sweet one though, so that ups that tournaments nostalgic factor.
 
The grass composition was changed after 2000 and before the 2001 tournament. But that summer was very rainy and the soil remained loose. So that year the grass still played fast and low bouncy. It started playing slow from 2002. The difference is more in the bounce than speed though.
 
so the volleys today don`t pay off as they used to do... it is now safer than ever to let the ball bounce, since after the bounce the ball is slower than ever. anything to do with the serve and volley that faded away?:neutral:
 
While people often complain about slow court speeds, if one spends a few minutes analyzing the serve stats, one observes a very interesting trend. The number of aces, the umber of tie break sets and average serve speed have actually increased over the years at Wimbledon. So was the slowing down of the grass courts actually necessary to keep a balance?

image006.png
 
Last edited:
zep said:
That video is a statistical disaster. You can't conclude anything from it. You need a much bigger sample size spread over the length of the tournament involving different players to make any meaningful conclusion.
Click to expand...

It's a good demonstration between a 126mph kick serve and a 126mph slice or flat serve. One pass over the net significantly higher than the the other, dips more and kicks up, losing speed horizontally but bouncing higher. It has greater safety. The second just misses the top of the net hits the surface at a more acute angle and keeps lower and horizontally faster. They probably have similar "power" levels but one put more energy into rotational motion, and is safer. This does however not demonstrate the speed difference of the surface at all. The ITF measure speed in control method.

Regarding the slowing because Hewitt made the final, he beat Sampras at Queens Club 2000 on fast grass so it is not an anomaly. He was good on grass.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310082/Centre-court-debut-for-a-new-Wimbledon-seed.html

This article was written in June 2001 and says the new grass was sown the previous autumn. So the Wimbledon site is correct. Don't forget the weather can affect the speed of the grass too, and 2001 had quite a lot of rain. This might affect people's perception that the change happened a year later. But an article written in 2001 quoting it as already done cannot be wrong.
 
2001 after the championships were played. They couldn't have done it before because there was not enough time to get the grass ready in the same year.
 
moonballs said:
2001 after the championships were played. They couldn't have done it before because there was not enough time to get the grass ready in the same year.
Click to expand...
The article I quoted in the post before yours was written in June 2001 and says the new grass was sown the autmn before, so autumn 2000.
 
PMChambers said:
It's a good demonstration between a 126mph kick serve and a 126mph slice or flat serve. One pass over the net significantly higher than the the other, dips more and kicks up, losing speed horizontally but bouncing higher. It has greater safety. The second just misses the top of the net hits the surface at a more acute angle and keeps lower and horizontally faster. They probably have similar "power" levels but one put more energy into rotational motion, and is safer. This does however not demonstrate the speed difference of the surface at all. The ITF measure speed in control method.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Those are two completely different serves with two completely different trajectories hitting two completely different spots. I don't understand how someone uses it to "prove" anything just because the initial speeds were the same. The BBC commentators are to be blamed IMO, they made it sound like it was a definitive proof. Most people don't question the "experts".
 
Thanks for the info guys.

It would seem that the truth is that the new grass was indeed first sown following the 2000 tournament, in time for the 2001 edition, but the grass in 2001 was still much faster than in later years due to weather conditions.

So I was wrong, but at the same time, the courts were still essentially "fast" in 2001.

Now I'm off for dinner.
 
decrepitude said:
The article I quoted in the post before yours was written in June 2001 and says the new grass was sown the autmn before, so autumn 2000.
Click to expand...

The part about the autumn sowing makes sense. But wimbledon website said they did it in 2001. Shouldn't they say 2000?
 
Since 2001 the courts used for Wimbledon have been sown with 100% perennial ryegrass. Prior to 2001 a combination of 70% ryegrass and 30% Creeping Red Fescue was used. The change was made to improve durability and strengthen the sward to better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
Click to expand...

Quote from Wiki
 
Gustavo Kuerten said:
Poor Federer fans, trying everything they can to keep the myth alive that Federer defeated Sampras on fast grass, including blatant lies.
Click to expand...
Still better than Kuerten, who literally skipped Wimbledon because his chances were so non-existent.

And the grass was still "fast" in 2001, even if it was technically the new grass.

Fed > Sampras on all surfaces and always will be.
And Fed >>>>>> One-surface wonder Kuerten too.
 
Firstservingman said:
Still better than Kuerten, who literally skipped Wimbledon because his chances were so non-existent.

And the grass was still "fast" in 2001, even if it was technically the new grass.

Fed > Sampras on all surfaces and always will be.
And Fed >>>>>> One-surface wonder Kuerten too.
Click to expand...
Oh please, you have never even seen Sampras play, kiddo.

Wow, Federer better than Kuerten? Do you have any more daring statements? Wouldn't exactly call him a one-surface wonder since he played the best tournament of his career on hardcourt.
 
Firstservingman said:
Still better than Kuerten, who literally skipped Wimbledon because his chances were so non-existent.

And the grass was still "fast" in 2001, even if it was technically the new grass.

Fed > Sampras on all surfaces and always will be.
And Fed >>>>>> One-surface wonder Kuerten too.
Click to expand...

Kuerten grew on clay, clay is actually what is dominant in Brazil...
 
SpinToWin said:
You're alive FSM!! :D Long time no see mate, all been well? :)
Click to expand...

The real slowing down occurred when they started opening up the ball cans the night before play. You can test that effect yourself any time you play.

Sorry, didn't realize I was in quote mode, but also happy fsm is back!
 
zep said:
The grass composition was changed after 2000 and before the 2001 tournament. But that summer was very rainy and the soil remained loose. So that year the grass still played fast and low bouncy. It started playing slow from 2002. The difference is more in the bounce than speed though.
Click to expand...

This is exactly true.

In 2002 many players complained about the grass (at Wimbledon) being extremely slow and high bouncing.

The chief of the courts said it was after the 2000 edition (and obviously PRIOR to the 2001 edition) when they changed from 30/70 to 100 (the type of grass), but that the rainy fortnight during 2001 made the courts slippery and low-bouncing. During 2002 it was sunnier and also they made the undersoil harder (so higher bounce), which apparently caused a big change in the way the ball bounced.

He also said several things were made since the beginning of the 90s to slow the game at Wimbledon, especiall with balls (they changed balls from 1994 to 1995, and more times in later years).
 
Gustavo Kuerten said:
Oh please, you have never even seen Sampras play, kiddo.
Click to expand...

Grass: More Wimby finals + 5 consecutive, didn't lose to mugs during his prime
HC: 9 HC slams with more even distribution + 5 consec. USO
Clay: Obv. no contest
Indoors: Maybe more of a tie here, Pete was pretty good and Fed has never really played on carpet.

Also YouTube exists, and Roger is clearly the better, more well-rounded player.
It shows in his greater surface versatility anyway.

Sampras is a bit overrated on here TBH.
That he never sniffed RG is a serious point against him the way I see it.
 
zep said:
The grass composition was changed after 2000 and before the 2001 tournament. But that summer was very rainy and the soil remained loose. So that year the grass still played fast and low bouncy. It started playing slow from 2002. The difference is more in the bounce than speed though.
Click to expand...
Following the 2001 championship, Wimbledon ripped up all of its courts and sowed new ones made of 100% perennial rye grass. The old courts were a 70-30 split of rye grass and creeping red fescue and caused the baseline area to become one large patch of dirt by the end of the tournament.
Click to expand...
Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/tennis/surface-changes-at-wimbledon-other-grand-slams-have-all-but-eliminated-place-for-specialty-players
 
Sabratha said:
One of the best ever? No way..

Rafter was a choke artist in Wimbledon finals plus Goran was long overdue anyway.
Click to expand...

Rafter wasn't a choker. He beat Agassi in back to back 5 set Semifinals to get to those Finals.

The guy came back numerous times down 0-2 and 1-2 in Slam matches. Step off.

3–6, 6–3, 3–6, 6–2, 7–9 is not a choke. He kept coming back to tie the match and lost 7-9 in the fifth.
 
BGod said:
Rafter wasn't a choker. He beat Agassi in back to back 5 set Semifinals to get to those Finals.

The guy came back numerous times down 0-2 and 1-2 in Slam matches. Step off.

3–6, 6–3, 3–6, 6–2, 7–9 is not a choke. He kept coming back to tie the match and lost 7-9 in the fifth.
Click to expand...
Rafter was a choker.

He really should have beaten Goran but the occasion took too much out of him.
 
Sabratha said:
Rafter was a choker.

He really should have beaten Goran but the occasion took too much out of him.
Click to expand...


True.

Rafter has admitted he choked the final against Sampras as well, although he worded it differently: 'I got tight, no doubt about it. I still have nightmares about that match'.
 
BGod said:
Rafter wasn't a choker. He beat Agassi in back to back 5 set Semifinals
Click to expand...
He beat Agassi, then he had to beat Agassi again?
I mean, I knew Andre was hard to put away, but that's just ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NoleFam
Wimbledon Myth
2 3
Replies
106
Views
8K
Tennis_Hands
T
Bud
  • Poll Poll
Are Nadal and Federer's 7 Wimbledon Titles Valid?
2
Replies
69
Views
6K
Lsmkenpo
Lsmkenpo
SpecialGunpowder
Grass Tournament Court Composition
Replies
2
Views
1K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Sport
Where is the DATA proving that Wimbledon 2019 is slower this year than other years post-2000?
2
Replies
95
Views
7K
droliver
droliver
J
Why is Nadals game better on grass vs. US Open fast courts?
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
The balls in your court.
T
Back
Top