Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 08:58 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bobrocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 175
                     
Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

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.
bobrocks is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 207
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Grass isn't the fastest surface- indoor carpet is arguably quicker. And you won't get a faster court than the ice rink from the Swiss last week.
yakuzaninja is offline  
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 09:22 PM
Registered User
 
Macbrother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ward 47 of the Tilonus Institute for Mental Disorders
Posts: 1,225
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobrocks View Post
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.

~The Mac

The greatest backhand pass ever.

fucktard. n. A special variety of retard whose condition arises not from clinically demonstrable neurological impairment, but from buttersnap shitfuckery of the mind.
Macbrother is offline  
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 10:39 PM
Registered User
 
DrJules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,594
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbrother View Post
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.
He lost in 1976 US Open final to Connors at the US Open on clay. Borg never really seemed to like playing in the US.
DrJules is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 10:44 PM
Registered User
 
DrJules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,594
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobrocks View Post
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.
In terms of movement, bounce and speed hard courts, clay courts and grass courts are each totally different. Moving on cement, clay or grass will feel totally different and alter how well players move. Bounce will highest on hard courts (the hardest surface) and lowest on grass (the softest surface). Clay is slower than grass while hard courts can be any speed. Players can overcome the differences between 2 surfaces, but not 3 surfaces.
DrJules is offline  
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 11:03 PM
Registered User
 
Macbrother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ward 47 of the Tilonus Institute for Mental Disorders
Posts: 1,225
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJules View Post
He lost in 1976 US Open final to Connors at the US Open on clay. Borg never really seemed to like playing in the US.
Yeah that's why I said the problem wasn't surface. In an interview Borg said he simply was always out of luck in the last grand slam of the year since he used it all up at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

~The Mac

The greatest backhand pass ever.

fucktard. n. A special variety of retard whose condition arises not from clinically demonstrable neurological impairment, but from buttersnap shitfuckery of the mind.
Macbrother is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-14-2007, 11:11 PM
Registered User
 
sodman12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 347
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJules View Post
Bounce will highest on hard courts (the hardest surface) and lowest on grass (the softest surface).

Not true bounce is higher on clay since the spin can grip the surface.
sodman12 is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 12:08 AM
Registered User
 
Shabazza's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: somewhere at the sea
Age: 34
Posts: 2,650
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbrother View Post
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.
Correction. He played way more matches:
Federer 92-5
Nadal 59-12

Clay is not the reason for his injuries. In fact, clay is one of the best surfaces (if not the best) for the body.

"This is not about class, colour or races,
let’s get around and see different places,
put a smile on those distant faces,
wipe away your sorrow with no traces."


All the best to the members of the FedererExpress
Shabazza is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 12:39 AM
Registered User
 
TennisGrandSlam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hong Kong SAR, China
Age: 36
Posts: 1,662
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabazza View Post
Correction. He played way more matches:
Federer 92-5
Nadal 59-12

Clay is not the reason for his injuries. In fact, clay is one of the best surfaces (if not the best) for the body.

But players consume more energy on Claycourt than on Hardcourt.
TennisGrandSlam is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 12:53 AM
Registered User
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,760
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

The clay is the best surface on the body, but considering the total effect one needs to adjust for the fact that clay matches tend to last longer than matches on other surfaces. Therefore playing 40 matches on clay will mean a higher time on court than playing 40 matches on a hard court. I don't know which of the two effects dominates, the smoother surface or the higher time spent on court.

Salvor Hardin: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation".
Merton is offline  
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 12:59 AM
Registered User
 
ChinoRios4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 23,711
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Clay and slow courts= Sampras' killa

VAMOS CHILE


TT Rankings: #62 (S) & #92 (D).
Results Singles: W Auckland 09, Washington 09, Acapulco 10, 's-Hertogenbosch 10 & Fürth CH 08, F Bucharest 10, 's-Hertogenbosch 11 & Bucaramanga CH 09.
Results Doubles: W Bogota CH 08 (w/ClaudiuS), F Acapulco 09 (w/lucho_coria), Bucaramanga CH 09 (w/Gallina), ROLAND GARROS 09, Los Angeles 09 (w/juakos17) & Sunrise CH 10 (w/hallso).
ChinoRios4Ever is offline  
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 01:24 AM
Registered User
 
kobulingam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,129
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
The clay is the best surface on the body, but considering the total effect one needs to adjust for the fact that clay matches tend to last longer than matches on other surfaces. Therefore playing 40 matches on clay will mean a higher time on court than playing 40 matches on a hard court. I don't know which of the two effects dominates, the smoother surface or the higher time spent on court.
Clay tennis is more tiring, but softer on the body (meaning, the day after a long clay match you're more likely to feel tired than to have sore knees, ankles, etc.).
kobulingam is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 01:25 AM
Registered User
 
kobulingam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,129
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabazza View Post
Correction. He played way more matches:
Federer 92-5
Nadal 59-12

Clay is not the reason for his injuries. In fact, clay is one of the best surfaces (if not the best) for the body.

The reason is the BUILT FOR CLAY style being used on harcourts. Nadal should limit his hardcourt tournaments and increase his clay tournaments. Simple solution.
kobulingam is offline  
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 01:46 AM
Registered User
 
guga2120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,151
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

With Pete Sampras it was simple, you slow his serve down, which the clay did, he was beatable. When on grass his serve was such a weapon, he had the best serve ever.
guga2120 is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old 02-15-2007, 01:50 AM
Registered User
 
RickDaStick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,774
                     
Re: Explain to me Wimbledon vs. The French

There really is no difference. Both are attended by people with terrible hygiene.
RickDaStick is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome