Originally Posted by WyveN
If you get 2 players, ranked very close to each other who have played only on hardcourts.
Put them on a clay court and the fitter of the two will win
Put them on a grass court and the more talented of the two will win
It is no coincidence wimbledon doesn't get the Verkerk types in the finals
Do you remember the (I think it was 1994) Wimbledon Final?
Pete vs Goran?
Tennis with almost no backhands, no forehands, there were almost not even volleys, they didnt even need to move around the court much because all they did was to serve and to return.
Goran and Pete played their game (ace/unreturnable or double fault) and the guy who served better won.
I dont think that is the purest most enjoyable tenis.It certainly doesnt look at all like the grass court tennis from the 70's played with wood rackets.
If you watch Wilander vs Vilas from 1982 and Costa vs Ferrero from 2002 you can say, tennis has not changed that much, it looks like tennis on clay.
But Pete vs Goran doesnt look like Grass court tennis from the 70's or early 80's.
I dont think you can call it purest.
If tennis had been invented yesterday, with modern rackets and modern athletes, I think playing tennis on grass would not be considered a very good idea.
After the final, the british journalists asked pete if there was something that could be done to see more rallies on wimbledon, and Pete said, if you want to see rallies when I play Ivanisevic, you will have to pour some clay there.
It is also the only tournament in which your serve can take you quite far, you can reach the later rounds by having only one good stroke.
Take for example Arthurs, Rusedski or last year Karlovic.
Verkerk is the only surprise RG finalist in recent years, Medvedev won 4 tms on clay, and Costa won tms on clay and many other tournaments on clay.