Why I think Wimbledon is not slow grass.

[Blinkism]

It's not green clay, but it is significantly slower than what it used to be.

Then we're arguing a different thing than you and Nadal_Freak/Benhur are arguing.

I think the difference in speed is not significantly slower. I think Wimbledon is still fast and is either the second fastest or fastest major. I base that on the fact that Wimbledon and USO have a very similar "cast", if you will. In fact, USO sometimes has more claycourters doing well there than Wimbledon.

That, backed up with the break percentages, paints a picture of Wimbledon as still being on par with it's image as a "fast" surface.

I hope that, even though we're still debating, we've atleast shown that Wimbledon is not slow by any means.

Does anyone actually think that?

 

[NamRanger]

Then we're arguing a different thing than you and Nadal_Freak/Benhur are arguing.

I think the difference in speed is not significantly slower. I think Wimbledon is still fast and is either the second fastest or fastest major. I base that on the fact that Wimbledon and USO have a very similar "cast", if you will. In fact, USO sometimes has more claycourters doing well there than Wimbledon.

That, backed up with the break percentages, paints a picture of Wimbledon as still being on par with it's image as a "fast" surface.

I hope that, even though we're still debating, we've atleast shown that Wimbledon is not slow by any means.

Does anyone actually think that?

I do, because simple physics would tell you that. If you look at how high the ball bounces now, it gets up pretty high, especially with topspin. But if you remember, grass does slow the ball down by a significant margin, which would mean that the ball has actually always traveled slow; the difference is that the bounce is much higher, which really makes Wimbledon look slow.



On the old grass, the ball would just literally die when you hit it flat or with slice. Now, the ball sits up quite abit, giving you much more time. I think that is what many mean by "significantly slower".

 

[Blinkism]

I do, because simple physics would tell you that. If you look at how high the ball bounces now, it gets up pretty high, especially with topspin. But if you remember, grass does slow the ball down by a significant margin, which would mean that the ball has actually always traveled slow; the difference is that the bounce is much higher, which really makes Wimbledon look slow.



On the old grass, the ball would just literally die when you hit it flat or with slice. Now, the ball sits up quite abit, giving you much more time. I think that is what many mean by "significantly slower".

So if Wimbledon is actually slow, then why don't claycourters or slowcourters make up the majority of players doing well at Wimbledon? Why are serving percentages so significantly different from RG, then?

I don't agree with you at all when you say Wimbledon is slow.

 

[Blinkism]

I think we'll have a clearer picture when Wimbledon 2009 is completed.

I don't think too many claycourters will do well this year

and now that Andreev has lost to Ferrero, there's only Wawrinka and Ferrero left. (Unless you think someone else is a claycourter?)

 

[NamRanger]

So if Wimbledon is actually slow, then why don't claycourters or slowcourters make up the majority of players doing well at Wimbledon? Why are serving percentages so significantly different from RG, then?

I don't agree with you at all when you say Wimbledon is slow.

The difference is that these players are actually winning rounds at Wimbledon. Some are even making it deep or actually winning the whole thing (Nadal). I guarantee you 90% of these players couldn't win a round here on the old Wimbledon surface.

 

[Blinkism]

The difference is that these players are actually winning rounds at Wimbledon. Some are even making it deep or actually winning the whole thing (Nadal). I guarantee you 90% of these players couldn't win a round here on the old Wimbledon surface.

Maybe they're doing a little better (like you said, winning more rounds), but when it comes down to do the majority of the field is fast courters. And that's why I think Wimbledon is still fast.

And I fully disagree with you on the Nadal issue, so let's not start that up and agree to disagree right away.

 

[NamRanger]

Maybe they're doing a little better (like you said, winning more rounds), but when it comes down to do the majority of the field is fast courters. And that's why I think Wimbledon is still fast.

And I fully disagree with you on the Nadal issue, so let's not start that up and agree to disagree right away.

Are you saying Nadal did not benefit from the change in grass? I'm not saying he would lose first week on the old surface, but I find it hard to believe he could actually win the whole thing.

 

[Blinkism]

Are you saying Nadal did not benefit from the change in grass? I'm not saying he would lose first week on the old surface, but I find it hard to believe he could actually win the whole thing.

Agree to disagree, for the sake of not hijacking this thread and going off-topic.

 

[FiveO]

Ok, so that's what your going with, right?

Let's see these quotes from these athlete's so we can look at those. Let's not assume the entire ATP is thinking the same thing.

Who says Wimbledon plays slowly? I know some tennis pro's and former pro's said that, but let's see the exact quotes and their context.

Why? Everyone quoted is saying one thing.

Past players:

"It's much slower, the bounce is much truer, and the subsurface is much harder," says Cliff Drysdale, a singles semifinalist here in 1965 who is now an ESPN commentator. "The ball bounces up, so you can hit it, which did not used to be the case. It's so much more like playing on a hard court now, it's unbelievable. I didn't think it was possible, but they have done it."

-2005

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon05/news/story?id=2090997

Past Champions McEnroe, Cash and Navratilova have said it.

Martina Navratilova was blunt in support of the British nearly man [Henman]. "It messed him up, the grass being slow and long," she said. "If the grass had been like it was two years ago I think he could have won Wimbledon. It may be still like that this year."

-2003

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/groundsman-quick-to-defend-slower-courts-541560.html

Players whose careers overlapped the change, playing at elite levels, thus having the best perspective have said it:

Henman said it after having won matches there, not solely after losses.

"We realise there'd been a big effort to slow the game down," Henman said. "Some indoor courts needed slowing down but if you look at what happened at Wimbledon last year it does pose the question whether on grass it's been slowed down too much.

"It's making life a lot harder, that's for sure. A few years ago strategy on grass didn't come to it. Now everyone has an opportunity to set themselves up for passing shots and returns."

-2003 after a win.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2405794/Henman-bemoans-the-new-go-slower-court.html

Bjorkman who won 10 singles matches in his first seven years at Wimbledon through 2000 and won 18 after the slow down and had his best result there, reaching a SF in 2006, even though his results suffered on every other surface, thus having no alterior motive, commented on how slow it was.

The experienced Swedish competitor Jonas Bjorkman said in 2002 that it was strange that Centre Court was playing almost as slow as a clay court.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ated-by-henman-insists-groundsman-733292.html

"There was a time when clay-court [specialists] wouldn't even make the trip [to England]," Bjorkman said after losing to Nadal at the Artois Championships, a warm-up event for Wimbledon. "Now they hardly even need to adjust their game."
..."There is a danger that we will have only one type of player soon because everyone is growing up on courts that are roughly the same speed,"

-2008

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

Even Federer who, depending on how someone elects to spin it, can either be described as being best able to adapt to or greatest beneficiary of the slow downs tour wide has said it:

"You don't have these American hardcourt tournaments which are just unplayable from the baseline, unreturnable," says No. 1 Roger Federer, the reigning U.S. Open champion who won his fourth consecutive Wimbledon crown July 9 against Rafael Nadal. "Everywhere you sort of get into the points. It's actually quite slow now."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2006-07-16-surface-tension_x.htm

The head Groundsman at the AELTCC, Eddie Seaward himself let the cat out of the bag, despite prior and later denials by himself and tournament director Alan Mills:

One important aim, however, is to make the grass more playable for all the players. "We hope that with time it may encourage more of the clay court players to come," Seaward emphasises. "We want to help them get over the mind barrier [against grass]. It would be good for the tournament and good for the game."

-2003

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/groundsman-quick-to-defend-slower-courts-541560.html

The clay courters themselves accept it:

Costa, now retired and coaching Feliciano Lopez of Spain, said he has misgivings about that decision.

"Now I regret for sure that I was not playing more times," he says, "especially with the heavier balls and slower conditions."

Of course, maybe it wasn't a bad decision: Costa won just one match in five trips.

...Almagro agreed, saying that both Nadal and Ferrer had given the other Spaniards a pep talk before Wimbledon.

"They told us if we play the same way as clay, we can do well," he saidsays

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2008-06-25-spanish-success_N.htm

Forget the very visible difference in the playing conditions everyone refers to for the moment; name the one player who has come out to denounce the above. One.

Instead you've elected to go with:

1- N_F's break % analysis. Firstly, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the analyst in question, objectivity is at best, "challenged".

Let's suspend disbelief for the moment and trust N_F's numbers as is. I would also ask where did the raw data for that analysis come from? ATPTour.com?

I tried to duplicate his numbers and started with '94 and '95 Wimbledon. I got as far as:

Yevgeny Kafelnikov v. Laurence Tieleman 1R '94

won by YK: 7-5, 6-7(5), 7-5, 6-7(5), 11-9
the stats for that match say there were 10 breaks in 48 return games played.

Interesting in that 60 return games played in that match.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=540&y=1994&r=1&p=K267

Marc-Kevin Goellner v. David Prinosil 1R '95
won by Goellner 6-4, 6-7(7), 4-6, 6-3, 13-11

Again the stats say 9 breaks in 41 return games played, except there were 65 return games played.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=540&y=1995&r=1&p=G252

It's not just 5 setters that are a problem.

Cristiano Caratti v. Guillaume Raoux 1R '95

The stats stated there were 3 breaks in 12 return games, except that the score line was:

6-4, 0-1 RET. 11 games played, not 12.

So even if N_F was unbiased, the stats he most likely based them on are notoriously unreliable.

2- Then you attempt to link hardcourt results to grass court results, when for most people who have watched the game for any period of time will tell you there are at least as many examples of players who have their best results on hardcourts, even fast hardcourts who have no traction on grass and/or Wimbledon in particular.

One you should be familiar with is James Blake. Blake is 7-8 Lifetime at Wimbledon.

You've already stated that you started watching tennis in '98. Evidently you believe that right from the get go, within 3 years you evidently grasped entirely, what you were seeing then. Then instead of heeding what all those listed above are saying, you latch onto stats in a vacuum, provided by a historically biased poster, based on raw data most likely collected from a historically very unreliable source.

God bless.

5

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Simple answer to Five-O why the clay courters do better now. Higher bounces are more suited to clay court grips.

 

[NamRanger]

Not just that FiveO, it could be possible that center court itself plays much slower than any other court. Especially with the roof over it now.

 

[FiveO]

Simple answer to Five-O why the clay courters do better now. Higher bounces are more suited to clay court grips.

Really? Wow, gee, that never occurred to me. You're kidding right?

Now you can start explaining how a higher bounce, in and of itself, all things being equal, is not also slower. Forget the physics for the moment explain how two objects, after impacting a surface, where one expends its energy by travelling in a more horizontal path v. the other expending its nrg in a more vertical one are travelling at the same speed horizontally.

Or are you now going to give me the "simple answer" that the more vertical bounce is slower. Enlighten me.

5

 

[drakulie]

^^^^ Hehehehehe. I just got an ice cream headache tyring to think of a way Dr. N_Freak will answer that one.

 

[FiveO]

^^^^ Hehehehehe. I just got an ice cream headache tyring to think of a way Dr. N_Freak will answer that one.

My guess is that he will "punt" to another thread.

5

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Really? Wow, gee, that never occurred to me. You're kidding right?

Now you can start explaining how a higher bounce, in and of itself, all things being equal, is not also slower. Forget the physics for the moment explain how two objects, after impacting a surface, where one expends its energy by travelling in a more horizontal path v. the other expending its nrg in a more vertical one are travelling at the same speed horizontally.

Or are you now going to give me the "simple answer" that the more vertical bounce is slower. Enlighten me.

5

Cliff Rossdale says the surface now is a lot firmer. That means that the surface absorbs less of the energy from the ball. So it travels farther. If the ball travels farther, the height of the ball can be higher without losing speed.

 

[FiveO]

Cliff Rosedale says the surface now is a lot firmer. That means that the surface absorbs less of the energy from the ball. So it travels farther. If the ball travels farther, the height of the ball can be higher without losing speed.

Let's break this down:

Cliff "Drysdale" (calm down) probably did say this:

Cliff Rosedale says the surface now is a lot firmer. That means that the surface absorbs less of the energy from the ball.

This part has "you" written all over it:

So it travels farther. If the ball travels farther, the height of the ball can be higher without losing speed.

Why? I'll let someone else answer that.

5

 

[drakulie]

Cliff Rossdale says the surface now is a lot firmer. That means that the surface absorbs less of the energy from the ball. So it travels farther. If the ball travels farther, the height of the ball can be higher without losing speed.

For both shots ( low vs high bounce) to be at the same speed after the bounce, the ball with the higher bounce will have to be traveling faster than the one with the lower bounce before it strikes the ground.

try again.

 

[Blinkism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys-hbuMGsKs&feature=related

Interesting clip. Here it's Federer vs. Kafelnikov R1 2000 Wimbledon.

Here Federer shows that it's possible to win (even though he didn't, he shows the possibility) from the baseline on "old grass".

 

[drakulie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys-hbuMGsKs&feature=related

Interesting clip. Here it's Federer vs. Kafelnikov R1 2000 Wimbledon.

Here Federer shows that it's possible to win (even though he didn't, he shows the possibility) from the baseline on "old grass".

agassi won from the baseline playing on "old grass". In fact, he won the Championship. Nothing revealing here, other than to say Fed's BH looked awesome.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Let's break this down:

Cliff "Drysdale" (calm down) probably did say this:



This part has "you" written all over it:



Why? I'll let someone else answer that.

5

My bad. Couldn't remember his last name. He said that today. And it should be common sense that for the ball to travel farthur, the horizontal and vertical speeds are altered.

 

[FiveO]

N_F,

Here's a visual aid:

path> \/
surface>

Now imagine the right side of the "V" going more vertical, closer to pure vertical in relation to a purely horizontal surface (the court).

Do you understand there comes a time where there is NO horizontal movement, thus ZERO horizontal speed? Do you understand that as the angle after impact decreases from pure horizontal (180 degrees to the surface) to pure vertical (90 degrees to the surface), the horizontal speed decreases with every degree?


\|

Now, stay with me here, as the path after impact with the horizontal surface moves from more horizontal:

____________
____________

to more vertical:

\/

to pure vertical:

\|

Is it moving horizontally faster, the same or slower?

Hint: The answer is "slower".

So is it moving horizontally faster, the same or slower?

5

 

[Nadal_Freak]

IF you bounce the ball of the grass at your house, it goes both horizontally and vertically slower. Why? Cause the grass absorbs a lot of the energy from the ball. The firmer grass is not doing that as much as the old grass. Thus the overall energy from the ball is not absorbed as much from the surface and you can get a higher vertical bounce and not lose the speed of the horizontal bounce. But I'm saying the vertical bounce is not as high as on hardcourts or clay still. Just comparing it to the old grass here that absorbed a ton of the energy from the ball and made the ball travel shorter.

 

[NamRanger]

IF you bounce the ball of the grass at your house, it goes both horizontally and vertically slower. Why? Cause the grass absorbs a lot of the energy from the ball. The firmer grass is not doing that as much as the old grass. Thus the overall energy from the ball is not absorbed as much from the surface and you can get a higher vertical bounce and not lose the speed of the horizontal bounce. But I'm saying the vertical bounce is not as high as on hardcourts or clay still. Just comparing it to the old grass here that absorbed a ton of the energy from the ball and made the ball travel shorter.

Energy is never lost, it is only transferred. Newton's Law. When the ball goes more vertical, it must get that energy from somewhere.

 

[JeMar]

Don't argue with N_F. He thinks a wet court plays slower than a dry court. That's about all anyone needs.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

wow... Dr. Nadal_Freak is suffering from major ownage right now by Mr 5 , but knowing how he seems to be able to defy Newton et. al. he will come with a straight forward simple answer...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

wow... Dr. Nadal_Freak is suffering from major ownage right now by Mr 5 , but knowing how he seems to be able to defy Newton et. al. he will come with a straight forward simple answer...

He's wrong. You know it.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

He's wrong. You know it.

hahaha... i could have seen that coming...


i love your never ending spirit..

 

[zagor]

He's wrong. You know it.

Look N_F just give up,many pros who actually play on the Wimbledon grass say it's SLOWER,you can't possibly now better than them.And by admitting the grass bounces higher than pre 2002 grass did you agree with them as well even if you don't realize it.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Look N_F just give up,many pros who actually play on the Wimbledon grass say it's SLOWER,you can't possibly now better than them.And by admitting the grass bounces higher than pre 2002 grass did you agree with them as well even if you don't realize it.

They are saying that the grass is slower. It is higher bouncing but not slower due to the reasons I've already said. Cliff Drysdale said the courts were much softer. Thus a more dead bounce back then. And the serve is as effective as it always has been at Wimbledon. The players are biased. The stats are not.

 

[stormholloway]

There is a video comparing Fed's serve from 2003 and 2008. The serve leaves the racquet at the same speed, yet in 2008, after the bounce, the ball is travelling 10 mph slower than the 2003 ball.

What else is there to argue about?

 

[Andres]

They are saying that the grass is slower. It is higher bouncing but not slower due to the reasons I've already said. Cliff Drysdale said the courts were much softer. Thus a more dead bounce back then. And the serve is as effective as it always has been at Wimbledon. The players are biased. The stats are not.

If it's higher bouncing, then it reaches the returner LATER. Therefore, it's slower.

End of thread.

 

[Aabye]

If it's higher bouncing, then it reaches the returner LATER. Therefore, it's slower.

End of thread.

But due to moisture, the grass is also very slick, which causes the ball to come off the ground a lot faster.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

If it's higher bouncing, then it reaches the returner LATER. Therefore, it's slower.

End of thread.

Stop trying to not understand the concept of a firmer surface absorbs less energy. Thus in theory, it is possible to have a surface that is both faster and higher bouncing.

 

[TennisFan481]

LOL, I dare the idiots in this thread to watch the Murray/Wawrinka match and say that the grass isn't slower.

What's the average length of the rallies in this one, 20 strokes? It's really damn close to green clay right now.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

LOL, I dare the idiots in this thread to watch the Murray/Wawrinka match and say that the grass isn't slower.

What's the average length of the rallies in this one, 20 strokes? It's really damn close to green clay right now.

Indoors made it more humidity and cooler temperatures equals slower conditions. But it was booming earlier in the day.

 

[Andres]

Stop trying to not understand the concept of a firmer surface absorbs less energy. Thus in theory, it is possible to have a surface that is both faster and higher bouncing.

I do understand that. You're jut thick enough not to understand how a ball reacts after it impacts on a firmer surface.

With a firmer surface, the soil absorbs less energy, and the ball keeps moving FORWARD. Less energy is disipated. It can't bounce higher and yet still coming off faster. In order to bounce higher (meaning having a vertical component, like clay), the bounce should ADD energy, which is not possible.

You cannot have a fast, higher bouncing surface. Not in theory, not in practice. Try it yourself with the fastest surface around, barnished wood.

 

[Andres]

Indoors made it more humidity and cooler temperatures equals slower conditions. But it was booming earlier in the day.

This is not clay. Humidity + grass = slicker grass = faster.

But good try, though.

 

[Cloudy]

I went and watched Almagro v Monaco on monday to see how fast the grass was playing. it was playing like clay.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

This is not clay. Humidity + grass = slicker grass = faster.

But good try, though.

It's the same thing. The dryer it is, the more it plays like hardcourts. The wet conditions made the ball heavier and the ball went through the air slower. I've given you too much credit in the past because you act like you know a lot. But then I see a post like this from you. :-?

 

[Andres]

Bounce the ball on wet grass and then come back and tell me how it plays, mmmkay?

You'll thank me later.

 

[FiveO]

Anyone have an idea for a simple way to diagram the effect of friction?

5

 

[Andres]

Stop trying to not understand the concept of a firmer surface absorbs less energy. Thus in theory, it is possible to have a surface that is both faster and higher bouncing.

I do understand that. You're jut thick enough not to understand how a ball reacts after it impacts on a firmer surface.

With a firmer surface, the soil absorbs less energy, and the ball keeps moving FORWARD. Less energy is disipated. It can't bounce higher and yet still coming off faster. In order to bounce higher (meaning having a vertical component, like clay), the bounce should ADD energy, which is not possible.

You cannot have a fast, higher bouncing surface. Not in theory, not in practice. Try it yourself with the fastest surface around, barnished wood

Edit: well look at that! I'm a goat!

 

[Blinkism]

Well, there's only one claycourter left so my prediction was wrong as I said there would be no claycourters in the Quarter-finals.

That being said, JC Ferrero has a good resume on faster surfaces and just made the semi's of Queen's where the grass is fast, so he's not a complete dirtballer.

Andreev and Wawrinka were the 2 claycourters knocked out today.

 

[NamRanger]

Well, there's only one claycourter left so my prediction was wrong as I said there would be no claycourters in the Quarter-finals.

That being said, JC Ferrero has a good resume on faster surfaces and just made the semi's of Queen's where the grass is fast, so he's not a complete dirtballer.

Andreev and Wawrinka were the 2 claycourters knocked out today.

Wawrinka was very close to beating Murray; I think you should note that. It's not like he got totally blown away by Murray. In fact, Wawrinka played like it was a claycourt with heavy topspin shots and nearly beat Murray, who is supposed to be the far superior grasscourt player.

 

[FiveO]

^^^And of course you mean the Andreev who this year is:

7-7 on clay
8-9 on hards
and now 4-2 on grass,

who reached the R32 of both the AO and RG this year and R16 of the last USO?

And he loses to Haas who is this year, now:

6-6 on hards,
6-3 on clay
9-0 on grass

And prior to this was a whopping 15-10 at Wimbledon.

Who last year was ousted from the US Open in the 2R,
who this year reached the 3R of the AO before falling to Nadal,
and then gave Federer, the #2 clay courter in the world for the last four years almost more than he wanted in the R16 at RG.

Right?

5

 

[Benhur]

It is not a logical fallacy when N_F makes a simple mistake that every basic statistics class tells you not to make. You MUST find a variable that connects your two factors, otherwise your research is moot point.

The variable is the surface. Or the surface material if you wish.

The two factors that it connects are speed and breaking frequency.

Simple. And very old knowledge.

I like the way you regurgitate notions you understand nothing about.

As for the need to measure each court's speed to ensure that Lyon is indeed faster than MC - it would be nice. But an extremely complicated project to do properly.

In the mean time, the fact that the ranking of surfaces by breaking percentages coincides pretty nicely with their generally perceived speed relative to one another, should be a strong indication that the correlation between speed and frequency of breaks does indeed exist -- to nobody's surprise, except the chronically confused.

Breaking percentage is of course not a precise tool to measure court speed. It would be what you call a "very good proxy measurement," of which there are innumerable instances in science, many of them significantly more dubious and inaccurate. For example, reconstructing past temperatures by tree-ring thickness data is infinitely more unreliable, yet we see it every day in the past temperature charts portrayed by the Global Warming alarmist industry - and everybody believes them as the Gospel.

In any case, it certainly beats by miles the ridiculous notion of measuring court speed by such irrelevant inanities as:

"JC Ferrero made it to the QF of Wimbledon a few years ago!! And he might do it again!! Please, someone call the court-speed police! This is an outrage!

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I do understand that. You're jut thick enough not to understand how a ball reacts after it impacts on a firmer surface.

With a firmer surface, the soil absorbs less energy, and the ball keeps moving FORWARD. Less energy is disipated. It can't bounce higher and yet still coming off faster. In order to bounce higher (meaning having a vertical component, like clay), the bounce should ADD energy, which is not possible.

You cannot have a fast, higher bouncing surface. Not in theory, not in practice. Try it yourself with the fastest surface around, barnished wood

Edit: well look at that! I'm a goat!

Well Murray just said it was hard hitting through the court due to it being so humid. Boy did you get owned.

 

[bolo]

In the djokovic interview from yesterday one of the press guy says this "We seem to be on the way towards a Grand Slam record in number of aces being hit this tournament".

 

[Nadal_Freak]

In the djokovic interview from yesterday one of the press guy says this "We seem to be on the way towards a Grand Slam record in number of aces being hit this tournament".

It doesn't surprise me. I've been watching these matches and it seems every other point is an ace. The only match it seemed slower was the indoor match.

 

[FD3S]

Well Murray just said it was hard hitting through the court due to it being so humid. Boy did you get owned.

Why do you accept Murray's testimony, but not that of Henman, Fish, the ITF or anyone else who's weighed in on this subject?