Can someone shed a light on something for me please.
Explain why Pete Samprass could dominate the grass of Wimbledon so much, and yet struggle at Roland Garros?
Yet Bjorn Borg dominated on both surfaces, but couldn't win a US Open, where Samprass won many.
It's always seemd to me that because grass is the fastest surface, that's why the true greats all won there (yet Lendl didn't?), whereas the slow clay is a surface that evens out the players a bit, and that's why lesser known talents have won there.
And why is everyone talking about Nadal's injury problems? Is Clay tougher on the body.
Just for the record, the French Open has always been my least favorite of the Grand slam tournaments to watch.
Sampras struggled at Roland Garros because the slower clay courts allowed others to catch up to his volleys and serves for a much easier time passing and returning. Borg was great at the French because he was arguably one of the fastest movers on the tour and could return almost anything -- he could translate that to Wimbledon because his volleys, while not "great," were competent and his outstanding moving/returning allowed him to retrieve shots spectacularly well on either surface. This is not to mention the fact that his mental will to win the match at any time, losing or winning, is perhaps the best in history. His troubles at the U.S. Open weren't really about surface, he had numerous hardcourt titles in his career, he was simply unfortunate and lost each time to other all-time greats of the era; two to Connors and two to McEnroe.
People talk about Nadal's injury problems because: he has injury problems. It's not the clay that's particulary bad on his body, it's his playing style. Federer played nearly as many matches as Nadal did last year and yet he is fine.