Why I think Wimbledon is not slow grass.
- Thread starter Blinkism
- Start date
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
a simple as that...
im not even buying that story that Nadal would not reach so far given the old grass courts... that is not my point!
God knows my all time favourite did it and against the worst possible draw playing a baseline game in old school grass
that is Andre Agassi btw...
Last edited by a moderator:
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Great point. Many of us, simply don't want to see consecutive clay court slams (French, Wimbledon).
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
that should be exposed...
N_F counted tiebreaks as 13 games instead of 12. Wimbledon plays plenty of tiebreaks because the serve of course is still effective there, and because of that, Wimbledon's BP is lower than it should be. If you recalculate everything I'm sure the percentages are much closer, meaning there is not a significant difference between the surfaces to make a conclusion between them.
ksbh
Banned
3 out of maybe 300? LOL!
Anyways, I've stated before that I couldn't care less if the grass has changed but if the slow grass is the reason we got the greatest match of all time, I'd rather they had it that way! Or at least until a genuine serve & volleyer comes along
Anyways, I've stated before that I couldn't care less if the grass has changed but if the slow grass is the reason we got the greatest match of all time, I'd rather they had it that way! Or at least until a genuine serve & volleyer comes along
Andres
G.O.A.T.
He didn't. I just asked if he did, and since he didn't reply, I recalculated the break% and we got to the same results. He (wisely) counted a TB as 12 games.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Says Roddick's 43 aces and Hewitt's 21.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
In five sets. Roddick also served 37 aces over five sets ON CLAY.Says Roddick's 43 aces and Hewitt's 21.
Your point?
Nadal_Freak
Banned
The ace count is at a record number and you dare to still say the courts have slowed down? Unbelievable.
zagor
Bionic Poster
3 out of maybe 300? LOL!
Anyways, I've stated before that I couldn't care less if the grass has changed but if the slow grass is the reason we got the greatest match of all time, I'd rather they had it that way! Or at least until a genuine serve & volleyer comes along
You see 300 posters in this thread? My point was that those 3 posters in this thread are the main ones arguing with N_F and Benhur and they aren't Fed fans so as I said that theory doesn't hold up.
As for your genuine S&V coming,if they don't speed up the surfaces the chances of him coming are pretty small.As long as the surfaces in general remain slow-medium baseline bashing will remain being the percentage play.If/when they speed up surfaces(not just Wimbledon)players will have more incentive to go the net and more juniors will develop that part of their game as well.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Count the ammount of sets played this Wimbledon, and compare it to the previous record holder.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
By the way, the Break% for this year's Wimbledon is 1% HIGHER than last year's (17.54% so far).
On the other hand, you freak out about French Open dropping 1%, calling it insanely fast, and you tell CONSPIRATION.
Unbelievable.
Edit: Here:
Wimbledon Breaking Percentage
1998 19.78%
2001 19.01%
2002 19.21%
2003 19.55%
2006 (3rd-Final) 17.9%
2007 (Total) 17.34%
2008 16.77%
2009: 17.54% higher than 2008 and 2007
Last edited:
Nadal_Freak
Banned
French Open was considered fast for clay in 2008. They raised it 1.5% at RG. It is as fast a slow hardcourt now. Wimbledon .7% slower and 2008 was a fast year. RG is similar to Indian Wells and the Australian Open. That shouldn't be the case.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon is 1% "slower" this year.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Like I said. Wimbledon is the same. It is faster than 2006 and about the same to 2007. 2008 was the fastest year but it is still within the range of normal. Not any big deviation. Now compare RG now to 5 years ago. It is much different.
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
Because speed is the only thing necessary to hit aces? You clearly don't play tennis and shouldn't comment on the technical points of the game.
Placement is the #1 key to hitting an ace, not speed, at the ATP level.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Yes placement is important. The speed of the court that goes with that placement is what increases the ace count. The stats don't lie. If your theory was right, all places would be similar in ace count. Well that isn't the case.
Well, being 0.8, 0.4 and 0.2 percent higher than 2008, 2007 and 2007 respectively is WELL within the natural variability for the same surface. It is in fact remarkably close if you think of it. What did you expect?? The exact same percentage, down to tenths of a percent, year after year?
Again, you guys may give some thought about where this remarkable stability comes from, if it does not come from the surface, which is the only variable that (supposedly) stayed unchanged.
It also confirms that the relatively high fluctuations from round to round get smoothed out when you consider the whole tournament.
On the other hand, the million dollar question is why for the last 3 years the breaking percentage has been 2 full percentage points (or more) lower than in 1998, 2001 and 2002, if the surface was radically slowed down.
That IS what has me perplexed. If the surface was indeed radically slowed down, then something else is at work here. This something else cannot plausibly be a random combination of other factors, it has to be some other stable and constant force to counterbalance the slowing down and keep that steady pressure in the other direction. But what is it?
The quality of the ATP has increased. Not long ago you could find players who couldn't even break a 100 on their serve in the ATP. Now adays, everyone can serve 100 or better, usually 110. The common serve now is considered about 115-120, where that used to be considered a big serve.
Plausible theory is it not?
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
No, it is not the only factor, there are many others that contribute to ace counts at different slams, not just speed of the surface,such as players strategy, how deep certain players make it through the draw who rely more on serve, weather conditions, tennis balls used, and number of sets played. All of these factors influence that stat greatly,and none of them are a constant.
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
Exactly, 120+ in the corner or on the "T" is an ace on any surface.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
They don't influence the stats greatly. 7 matches out of 127 doesn't influence the numbers greatly. 14 days of conditions with the same tennis balls used throughout the tournament makes the numbers very consistent. See Wimbledon's stats the last 4 years. Very little deviation.
Blinkism
Legend
It's not over and the number can still change.
Whereas the Ace count's only going to get higher.
Blinkism
Legend
So this goes along with what I said before, that a change of style is what's created the illusion of a slower surface.
Better returns and longer rallies.
Blinkism
Legend
Then what's the point of arguing about court speeds?
People complain S&V is gone because Wimbledon slowed down, but if you can still ace and serve effectively regardless of surface, then why would we care if Wimbledon is slower?
And why have S&V'ers struggled at FO, in the grand scheme of things, over the years?
The point is that a low break percentage and a high ace count should be indicative of something. That Wimbledon is still the place where it's hardest to break serve and easiest to serve well. So the dissappearance of S&V must be attributed to something else, because the opportunity to S&V is still there (and this year we've seen some guys use this effectively).
Last edited:
Andres
G.O.A.T.
I agree 100%. Wimbledon is still the place where it's hardest to break serve and easiest to serve well. And the stats prove it. Stats don't prove the court speed, and that's what we're arguing. The stats prove that Wimbledon is one of the HARDEST tourneys to break serve, they don't prove it's the FASTEST surface.
Grass is still grass. Slowed down or not, still rewards attacking tennis and big serving. You could find a correlation between Ace count, and the dropping of 1st serve %, you see?
Check the FO, you have the lowest ace count, and on average, prolly the highest 1st serve %.Big servers are still rewarded at Wimbledon. Grass is still grass. This grass is slower than before, and it sits up more, but it's still grass. It has truer bouncer than before, but it's still grass. The ball bounces weird and dies (most of the time)
The disapparearal of S&V can be attributed to several factors:
1) (and most important) Juniors are no longer taught how to serve & Volley. S&V takes longer to develop. They're taught so they can win right away, and the easiest
2) Luxilon and similar strings. This new spin-friendly strings help the returner, but not the server. It allows incredible ammounts of spin, keeping the return low and to the server's feet. Players now can take huge cuts at the ball, and the ball dips and drops so quickly, it made passing shots so much easier. Polys are also harsh, and it hinders volleying, normally a touch shot.
3) Bigger and heavier balls have been introduced to the game more and more
4) Surfaces aren't as rewarding as they used to. Grass was intentionally slowed down. Some hardcourts have been slowed down (fortunately, some still remain fast). Carpet was replaced by indoor hardcourts, and eventually BANNED.
People just don't know how to play S&V, the same way they're not USED to playing against a S&Ver. That's why Haas can still make deep runs at slams like Wimby.
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
Ridiculous, if Karlovic, Roddick and other players who rely heavily on their service aces to win, serve 40-50 aces a match and go deep into the draw the stats will definitely be influenced. They hit 3-4 times more aces than the average player per match.
The ball is bouncing higher at Wimbledon therefore it is slower by the ITF's own standards.
Last edited:
The-Champ
Legend
This is what murray said..weather conditions should be considered in determining speed.
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2009-07-01/200907011246450530000.html
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2009-07-01/200907011246450530000.html
Last edited:
Blinkism
Legend
I agree 100%. Wimbledon is still the place where it's hardest to break serve and easiest to serve well. And the stats prove it. Stats don't prove the court speed, and that's what we're arguing. The stats prove that Wimbledon is one of the HARDEST tourneys to break serve, they don't prove it's the FASTEST surface.
Grass is still grass. Slowed down or not, still rewards attacking tennis and big serving. You could find a correlation between Ace count, and the dropping of 1st serve %, you see?
Big servers are still rewarded at Wimbledon. Grass is still grass. This grass is slower than before, and it sits up more, but it's still grass. It has truer bouncer than before, but it's still grass. The ball bounces weird and dies (most of the time)
The disapparearal of S&V can be attributed to several factors:
1) (and most important) Juniors are no longer taught how to serve & Volley. S&V takes longer to develop. They're taught so they can win right away, and the easiest
2) Luxilon and similar strings. This new spin-friendly strings help the returner, but not the server. It allows incredible ammounts of spin, keeping the return low and to the server's feet. Players now can take huge cuts at the ball, and the ball dips and drops so quickly, it made passing shots so much easier. Polys are also harsh, and it hinders volleying, normally a touch shot.
3) Bigger and heavier balls have been introduced to the game more and more
4) Surfaces aren't as rewarding as they used to. Grass was intentionally slowed down. Some hardcourts have been slowed down (fortunately, some still remain fast). Carpet was replaced by indoor hardcourts, and eventually BANNED.
People just don't know how to play S&V, the same way they're not USED to playing against a S&Ver. That's why Haas can still make deep runs at slams like Wimby.
I agree with most of this, but I've still come to the conclusion that Wimbledon is either the fastest or second fastest major, and is not slow or "green clay" as some have claimed.
The fact that Wimbledon slowed down just a bit is not the only thing at play.
Blinkism
Legend
So, why is it that this happens at Wimbledon and not the French Open, for example?
Why does Wimbledon have a MUCH larger number of Aces this year than the last 3 majors (and it's not even done yet)?
Andres
G.O.A.T.
I agree with you 100%. Wimbledon is NOT green clay, nor slow. It is slower than it was 7, 10 years ago, but it's nowhere near clay.
I do think the USO is a tad faster than Wimby, but nowhere near the AO or FO. When they say "green clay", it's not because of the speed, it's because of the high bounce. The ball IS bouncing higher than on Decoturf or Plexicushion, making Wimby the slam with the 2nd highest bounce, when it should be the lowest bouncing slam.
Wimbledon isn't slow, but it's way slower by its standards.
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
Style of play, more claycourt specialists are going deeper into the draw at the French, than at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
Blinkism
Legend
Still a fast slam, though?
And there's still a lot of things that are characteristic of Wimbledon happening now; high ace count, long sets ending in tie-breaks, low percentage of broken serves, and some S&V (although only a shadow of what it used to be, true).
Personally, I like the way the grass is playing now. I just wanted to make the point that it's not actually slow as some people claim.
How fast it actually is- is up for debate, sure.
Blinkism
Legend
So then there is a clear dichotomy between the majors, correct?
Surely, if claycourt specialists go deeper into the draw at the french, there must be something about the surface at Wimbledon that makes it more difficult for them.
That factor is court speed, and that's why I say Wimbledon is still a fast major and either equal to or only slightly slower to the speed of the USO court surface.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Indeed. It's not a slow slam under any means, except for their own Wimbledon standards. I still think it's the 2nd fastest slam.
And those characteristics things of Wimbledon are still happening because grass is still grass, slower or not. ANY type of grass will reward the server, the volleyer and the attacker.
Absolutely! This is indeed a plausible theory. It may well be that players are serving better than 10 years ago.
My only caveat is this: if they are indeed serving so much better as to completely override a significant slowing down of the surface, to the point of even increasing their domination when at serve, then why doesn't this show up even more clearly on the hard surfaces, which have supposedly stayed more or less the same in terms of speed? Whereas in fact hard surfaces seem to have maintained their bp better. For this reason, I remain unconvinced that servers are so much better now.
But, yeah, other than for this, it is indeed a plausible explanation.
One thing to add is this: If servers are indeed so much better that they can dominate more even after a drastic surface slowdown, what would happen if it hadn't been slowed down at all? Maybe we'd be at percentages in the low teens, some 7 or 8 points below the 1998 mark, with most sets going into tiebreaks.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Blinkism
Legend
Pretty cool that Haas is playing a mix of new tennis and old S&V tennis. Just goes to show that it IS possible to play that style on this grass at Wimbledon and be successful.
The semi-final lineup is just further proof that Wimbledon is indeed a fast tournament.
The closest thing to a dirtballer in the semi's is Federer, but I think we're all in agreement when I say that he probably would have won, at worst, 1 Wimbledon in any other era (no matter what theory you subscribe to or how much you like or dislike Federer).
The semi-final lineup is just further proof that Wimbledon is indeed a fast tournament.
The closest thing to a dirtballer in the semi's is Federer, but I think we're all in agreement when I say that he probably would have won, at worst, 1 Wimbledon in any other era (no matter what theory you subscribe to or how much you like or dislike Federer).
Blinkism
Legend
Well it's the final and it's Roger Federer and Andy Roddick in the final.
Here's an interesting quote from Andy Murray on his loss where he mentions the court speed -
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197322/Kims-misery-man-Murray-blitzed-Battle-Andys.html
Here's an interesting quote from Andy Murray on his loss where he mentions the court speed -
Take it as you will!
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197322/Kims-misery-man-Murray-blitzed-Battle-Andys.html
So Nam likes to lie. What else is new.
Even if tiebreaks had been included as games, if it was done in all tournaments, the difference in the ranking would be minimal to non existent. The break percentages across the board would be slightly higher. That's all.
And aside from the fact that you are making that up about N_F, you are also contradicting yourself. If you agree that Wimbledon should produce more tie breaks than other surfaces, it is a wonder why you pretend that it should not produce a lower break percentage. Next thing we know you will claim there is no relation between breaks and tiebreaks.
Blinkism
Legend
I'm going to bump this thread in light of the final.
Stats:
77 Aces (Roddick 27, Federer 50 the record for most aces in a GS final and most aces by a winning player)
Fastest Serve: 143mph
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html
- Longest match (by games) in Wimbledon history, and in a GS (as far as I know)
- 3 tiebreakers
- Heavy serving from both guys mixed in with net-play and an aggressive baseline game.
Sounds like some fast grass tennis to me.
What about today's final and this Wimbledon tournament reminded somebody of a clay tournament or a slow surface tournament?
Also, this Wimbledon set the record for most aces in a tournament.
Stats:
77 Aces (Roddick 27, Federer 50 the record for most aces in a GS final and most aces by a winning player)
Fastest Serve: 143mph
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html
- Longest match (by games) in Wimbledon history, and in a GS (as far as I know)
- 3 tiebreakers
- Heavy serving from both guys mixed in with net-play and an aggressive baseline game.
Sounds like some fast grass tennis to me.
What about today's final and this Wimbledon tournament reminded somebody of a clay tournament or a slow surface tournament?
Also, this Wimbledon set the record for most aces in a tournament.
More importantly (according to players and pundits alike) is that the balls are now heavier, which has the same result of slowing down the game. Most say this is a bigger factor than actual changes to the courts. This is not something that is debatable, as no one has tried to deny that the balls are now heavier. It's easily measured.
Similar threads
- Poll
