Wimbledon's grass, can it get any slower? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wimbledon's grass, can it get any slower?

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 11:19 AM
I'm starting to think with the current trend one of these days it might be possible to slide on grass, making it even easier for Rafa to win over there. But seriously though, do you think they can make it any slower?

It seems like the French Open has become slightly faster as well, but that might just be my imagination. Last year Monfils and Nole both made semi's and neither of them are exactly clay court specialists.

So what do you think about the curent state of the game? This is not about tennis being dead and all, this is more specifically about grass and what it has done to tennis. I mean you cant speed up clay much as far as i know, but you can slow down grass quite a bit.

So i would like to see with the help of a poll how many people think grass should be made like it was before, bringing the serve and volley game back again. Surely there is an imbalance in favour of the baseline sluggers these days. Is there a conspiracy against Roger? :angel: Im pretty sure he would have won like 18 slams or more had they kept the courts at Wimby fast.

Anyhow we'll leave Roger out of this cos I don't want your judgement to be clouded ;) Just tell me whether you think they need to speed up the grass again at Wimby and it would be nice if you could motivate your answer :yeah:

Action Jackson
02-09-2009, 11:23 AM
Yes, it can, go out and have a braai.

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 11:27 AM
Yes, it can, go out and have a braai.

Wow that must be the nicest reply youve ever given me.

Benny_Maths
02-09-2009, 11:31 AM
It could become 'slower than ass'.:D

Bernard Black
02-09-2009, 11:31 AM
I agree they should speed up the grass but it won't bring back serve and volley. Federer would clean up all opposition once again, he'd probably serve and volley a bit more, but the rest of the tour aren't going to change their game over-night.

Would be a good 5-6 years to see any real big change in styles and a rebirth of serve and volley, with the younger players perhaps being more inclined to actually practice the technique.

It would definitely ensure Nadal would never win another Wimbledon and clay courters would most likely start tanking the grass season again.

finishingmove
02-09-2009, 11:35 AM
grass is going to be replaced with hardcourts anyway

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 11:36 AM
grass is going to be replaced with hardcourts anyway

:confused: They might as well the way things are going now. Death of tennis when this happens for sure.

Primus
02-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Man, you just don't quit do you? Once and for all..grass is fine. Nadal is better than Federer anytime, any surface. Nadal proved it now in every possible surface that he's a man to beat. Man, you're running out of excuses...
Maybe you should name this thread "Ban Nadal from Wimbledon"...I belive then you would not complain about grass anymore. And as far as I know, Queen's Club has faster grass than at Wimbly..and guess who's the title holder there?
And yet, if the grass would be super fast...where does it say Roger would clinch the title back? I mean..let's see, by your thesis, he should be clear underdog against i.e. Karlovič. I mean..Ivo beat him a hard court last year no? So the way you think, he would be even harder to play against at "quick" grass. I would give 1000€ to make this happen, and read your excuse after that.
And stop these " x court specialist" statements. If you are great on one surface you should do well at other as well. After all, it's just tennis. Where for god's sake is written that "clay court specialist" should be owned on faster surface? Nonsense after nonsense.

ruanz33, the only reason you post these kind of posts (and yes, they are all the same) is that you still can't get someone is actually better than your Federer. Searching for excuses anywhere you can, and it's getting ridiculous by now. What's next? Balls are to yellow? Grass is too green? Wind was against him everytime he served?..of course. But funny thing, all these things appear only if certain man is in the other side of the net.

Federer could go to 18 GS if there wasn't Nadal. If there was Nadal even earlier, he couldn't reach 10. Roddick would be at 5,6 GS if there wasn't Federer...there's no point of these statements. If non of them and other 1000000 tennis players who are better then me would not exist..i would be the GOAT.

Damn..i was so close.

FairWeatherFan
02-09-2009, 12:12 PM
I think my position on this issue is well known.
What is great about tennis is its diversity. Long topspin rallies are fine, but let's keep them to the clay. Grass tennis is about serve and volley, and if that style of play is less possible with the new raquet technology, at least about attacking tennis and approaches to the forecourt.
Tennis is becoming a dull sport with the same style of play succeeding week-in and week-out.

Any one who doesn't recognise that Nadal's Wimbledon win was aided greatly by the altered speed of the grass is deluded.

Yves.
02-09-2009, 12:14 PM
Faster

rafa_maniac
02-09-2009, 12:23 PM
It's a shame because I don't like the idea of surface uniformity either. I don't like that the Oz Open courts now play essentially the same as the US Open for instance. I must admit though that I don't miss the superfast days of a grass court match being a battle between two players who can hit 500 aces, but can't hit a groundstroke to save their lives. The speed of Queens is a good compromise.

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 12:40 PM
Man, you just don't quit do you? Once and for all..grass is fine. Nadal is better than Federer anytime, any surface. Nadal proved it now in every possible surface that he's a man to beat. Man, you're running out of excuses...
Maybe you should name this thread "Ban Nadal from Wimbledon"...I belive then you would not complain about grass anymore. And as far as I know, Queen's Club has faster grass than at Wimbly..and guess who's the title holder there?
And yet, if the grass would be super fast...where does it say Roger would clinch the title back? I mean..let's see, by your thesis, he should be clear underdog against i.e. Karlovič. I mean..Ivo beat him a hard court last year no? So the way you think, he would be even harder to play against at "quick" grass. I would give 1000€ to make this happen, and read your excuse after that.
And stop these " x court specialist" statements. If you are great on one surface you should do well at other as well. After all, it's just tennis. Where for god's sake is written that "clay court specialist" should be owned on faster surface? Nonsense after nonsense.

ruanz33, the only reason you post these kind of posts (and yes, they are all the same) is that you still can't get someone is actually better than your Federer. Searching for excuses anywhere you can, and it's getting ridiculous by now. What's next? Balls are to yellow? Grass is too green? Wind was against him everytime he served?..of course. But funny thing, all these things appear only if certain man is in the other side of the net.

Federer could go to 18 GS if there wasn't Nadal. If there was Nadal even earlier, he couldn't reach 10. Roddick would be at 5,6 GS if there wasn't Federer...there's no point of these statements. If non of them and other 1000000 tennis players who are better then me would not exist..i would be the GOAT.

Damn..i was so close.

Well at least you are funny :)

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 12:41 PM
Lets just make one thing clear here as well. Nadal is good, but he is after all still a moonballer :lol:

Henry Kaspar
02-09-2009, 12:49 PM
Well they could let the grass grow and turn center our into a cornfield. Or a strawberry field.

This said, as long as I do not see hard evidence for the "Wimbledon became slower" theory, only strong opinions that are backed up with nothing, I reserve my judgement. The stats I have seen -- notably on break percentages at great tournaments over the years, assembled by a brilliant poster here -- suggest nothing of the sort.

Henry Kaspar
02-09-2009, 12:49 PM
Lets just make one thing clear here as well. Nadal is good, but he is after all still a moonballer :lol:

If you could explain the value of this statement, I'd be grateful.

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 12:54 PM
If you could explain the value of this statement, I'd be grateful.

It has a lot of value, but i wouldnt waste energy trying to explain it unless i actually know you are ready to look at the truth.

Bazooka
02-09-2009, 01:19 PM
You can't have the old speed court with the modern raquets or with the modern physical power. It would be crazy. Old grass + wooden raquets is about the same speed we have now.

But yeah, go all the way and make it as fast as Queens, if that suits you. Nadal will still be there, doing his baseline game and passing Roger left and right. He can move on grass, he can slice, and is efficient enough at the net. No big deal. Oh, and if he needs to adapts his game for a couple more years, he will do it, and win again.

Roger is a baseliner too, and a balanced player between offense/defense. If court was faster, he may even lose in the mid rounds against aggresive players. Believe me, if it depended on him, he would change nothing on the center court in which he has seen 6 consecutive finals. It's pretty obvious it's a perfect surface for him. the problem is not the surface. :)

Tankman
02-09-2009, 01:29 PM
like I said in another thread

it will, unless you make FWF/pd/Gu/ruanz curators of Wimbly lawns ;)

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 01:45 PM
You can't have the old speed court with the modern raquets or with the modern physical power. It would be crazy. Old grass + wooden raquets is about the same speed we have now.

But yeah, go all the way and make it as fast as Queens, if that suits you. Nadal will still be there, doing his baseline game and passing Roger left and right. He can move on grass, he can slice, and is efficient enough at the net. No big deal. Oh, and if he needs to adapts his game for a couple more years, he will do it, and win again.

Roger is a baseliner too, and a balanced player between offense/defense. If court was faster, he may even lose in the mid rounds against aggresive players. Believe me, if it depended on him, he would change nothing on the center court in which he has seen 6 consecutive finals. It's pretty obvious it's a perfect surface for him. the problem is not the surface. :)

Does anyone feel like talking sense today?

Tankman
02-09-2009, 01:48 PM
Does anyone feel like talking sense today?

I do

But no one wants to talk to me :ras:

also I HATE large blocks of text.

which sounds like hypocrisy seeing as I used to post like that :o :help: :lol:

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 01:59 PM
I do

But no one wants to talk to me :ras:



Ok here is some sense for you. Rafa doesnt have the same level of skill Roger have and never will. So if they make the grass the way it was and should be Roger will own Wimby again and tennis will return to normal, not be this baseline moonball crap anymore.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 02:02 PM
Ok here is some sense for you. Rafa doesnt have the same level of skill Roger have and never will. So if they make the grass the way it was and should be Roger will own Wimby again and tennis will return to normal, not be this baseline moonball crap anymore.

Ok you're entitled to think that. I'd argue with you but we'd never agree.

So your answer is the same as mine then. Get yourself a job at Wimbly :p

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 02:11 PM
Ok you're entitled to think that. I'd argue with you but we'd never agree.

So your answer is the same as mine then. Get yourself a job at Wimbly :p

Ok lets talk about it then. Rafa has maybe the same amount of skill as Roger but lets just call it another type of skill then. Its a physical and mental skill not so much raw talent. This skill serves him well on clay as well asslower hard courts, but on the faster courts he struggles like at US open for instance. If Wimby was the way it was before he would struggle there even more, and tennis would be balanced again.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 02:14 PM
better :p

and yes I agree with you

anything else?

rafa_maniac
02-09-2009, 02:21 PM
Ok lets talk about it then. Rafa has maybe the same amount of skill as Roger but lets just call it another type of skill then. Its a physical and mental skill not so much raw talent. This skill serves him well on clay as well asslower hard courts, but on the faster courts he struggles like at US open for instance. If Wimby was the way it was before he would struggle there even more, and tennis would be balanced again.

The speed has little to do with it. He won Queens over Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic on "fast" grass, didn't he? It's about how the grass surface responds to the different spins he puts on the ball, his superior movement on that surface, and his overall improvement as a player (the grass was the same speed when he crashed out early in 05). Speed it up all you want, it's not Rafa fans who are deluded into thinking it will stop him having success there. Interesting than none of the other clay courters have had markedly improved results at Wimbledon over the past few years :scratch:

GlennMirnyi
02-09-2009, 02:31 PM
It's a shame because I don't like the idea of surface uniformity either. I don't like that the Oz Open courts now play essentially the same as the US Open for instance. I must admit though that I don't miss the superfast days of a grass court match being a battle between two players who can hit 500 aces, but can't hit a groundstroke to save their lives. The speed of Queens is a good compromise.

The AO courts aren't even close to the USO courts. If they were even a little bit alike, Nadull would never even get to the QF.

You can't have the old speed court with the modern raquets or with the modern physical power. It would be crazy. Old grass + wooden raquets is about the same speed we have now.

But yeah, go all the way and make it as fast as Queens, if that suits you. Nadal will still be there, doing his baseline game and passing Roger left and right. He can move on grass, he can slice, and is efficient enough at the net. No big deal. Oh, and if he needs to adapts his game for a couple more years, he will do it, and win again.

Roger is a baseliner too, and a balanced player between offense/defense. If court was faster, he may even lose in the mid rounds against aggresive players. Believe me, if it depended on him, he would change nothing on the center court in which he has seen 6 consecutive finals. It's pretty obvious it's a perfect surface for him. the problem is not the surface. :)

Bullshit.

The old court without bouncing must come back.

This ain't about Federer or Nadull. For f***'s sake.

rafa_maniac
02-09-2009, 02:34 PM
The AO courts aren't even close to the USO courts. If they were even a little bit alike, Nadull would never even get to the QF.

Which explains why Nadal is a US Open semifinalist :confused:

miura
02-09-2009, 02:34 PM
Im pretty sure he would have won like 18 slams or more had they kept the courts at Wimby fast.

Federer would have ONE more slam if they hadn't changed the speed. How do you figure the 5 others? Should he had won them between '99 and '03?
I don't like that the Oz Open courts now play essentially the same as the US Open for instance
The courts at US Open (decoturf) are considerably faster than the one used at Australian Open (plexicushion). Another major difference is the bounce. It might not look so different when you watch it on TV but when you regularly playing both surfaces, you notice the diffrence quite good.

miura
02-09-2009, 02:36 PM
Which explains why Nadal is a US Open semifinalist :confused:
Nadal can play on DecoTurf, no question about it. For instance, the surface used in the 2008 olympics was the very same used at the US Open.

This said, as long as I do not see hard evidence for the "Wimbledon became slower" theory, only strong opinions that are backed up with nothing, I reserve my judgement. The stats I have seen -- notably on break percentages at great tournaments over the years, assembled by a brilliant poster here -- suggest nothing of the sort.
The coverage from Wimbledon I watch (NRK) has several times during the tournament (both 07 & 08) discussed the issue of wether the courts were slowed and how much. I saw interviews with a few people on the issue and they confirmed that they actually had slowed the courts, one of the reason beeing that most of the players today compared to before, are baseliners. It also had something to do with the type of grass seeds they planted which naturaly slows the ball. To test this theory they analyzed some serves and shots from the same players and compared them to one and another with the use of both slow-motion cameras and the hawk-eye technology. You could clearly see how the ball patch changed. The difference in the bounce of Roddick's flat serve was staggering. If I remember correct it was nearly 20-25cm higher in 2007 than in 2004, the year Roddick reached the final.

I've been to the Wimbledon courts in the weeks right before the Championships and had the privilege to talk to a couple of the groundskeepers about maintenance and quality of the different grass courts. Both of the ones I talked to acknowledged the fact that the type of grass they changed to indeed slowed the pace, but it was worth it because of the durability and strength of the grass.

I would present some hard evidence if I had it on my hands but unfortunately I don't. But if you are so delusional that you think the speed of the grass courts has been unchanged the last decade, you are just beeing silly.

rafa_maniac
02-09-2009, 02:37 PM
The courts at US Open (decoturf) are considerably faster than the one used at Australian Open (plexicushion). Another major difference is the bounce. It might not look so different when you watch it on TV but when you regularly playing both surfaces, you notice the diffrence quite good.

I know there is some differentiation between the speed, plexicushion is medium, while decoturf is fast, but is there a considerable differenece between the bounce? Both seem average to low bouncing. It's fair to say that they are a LOT closer than decoturf and rebound ace were.

rafa_maniac
02-09-2009, 02:39 PM
Nadal can play on DecoTurf, no question about it. For instance, the surface used in the 2008 olympics was the very same used at the US Open.

Don't be ridiculous, Nadal CANNOT win on fast surfaces, fact.

rafa the best
02-09-2009, 02:51 PM
They slowed down the AO surface too,no.
It's funny how some people are still finding those stupid silly excuses for Rafa winning everything.

Primus
02-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Lets just make one thing clear here as well. Nadal is good, but he is after all still a moonballer :lol: Let's make 3 things clear :
1) Nadal is better then Federer (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) Strange kind of GOAT this Federer guy, losing over and over again to moonballing kid, at his own surface :):):)
3) It's better be remembered as "moonballer" than crying baby, who can't take his loss

Primus
02-09-2009, 03:01 PM
They slowed down the AO surface too,no.
It's funny how some people are still finding those stupid silly excuses for Rafa winning everything.

Hehe, exactly. We should make a bet to which excuse will he be up to next :)
No, let's be serious for a moment..how can poor Federer win? He is still clearly heavily affected by mono, hardcourt is slower than RG in slow motion movie, balls bounce to the vip section and rafa had a cake draw!! Total injustice!! And Roger had to play like forever in 1/2 final and had 40 hours to rest...oh,oh,ho..poor Rogi. Oh, wait..or was it the other way around?

miura
02-09-2009, 03:02 PM
I know there is some differentiation between the speed, plexicushion is medium, while decoturf is fast, but is there a considerable differenece between the bounce? Both seem average to low bouncing. It's fair to say that they are a LOT closer than decoturf and rebound ace were.
In my opinion, the slice stays lower on DecoTurf which makes it more idealy for attacking tennis instead of beeing a baseline-friendly surface. The difference isn't huge, but it's definately there. It can make a difference when we are talking very small margins.

miura
02-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Let's make 3 things clear :
1) Nadal is better then Federer (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) Strange kind of GOAT this Federer guy, losing over and over again to moonballing kid, at his own surface :):):)
3) It's better be remembered as "moonballer" than crying baby, who can't take his loss
You know that these replies makes you look just as silly as the one you're replying. In the Nadal/Federer issue, why fall back on trolling when you have a crystal clear upper hand with pure statistics?

Tankman
02-09-2009, 03:08 PM
ah too much block posting... cbb reading it :p

I'll let you bicker among yourselves :p

Tankman
02-09-2009, 03:08 PM
Let's make 3 things clear :
1) Nadal is better then Federer (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) Strange kind of GOAT this Federer guy, losing over and over again to moonballing kid, at his own surface :):):)
3) It's better be remembered as "moonballer" than crying baby, who can't take his loss

this is MY kind of post

1) :retard:
2) :retard:
3) :retard:

stop making blanket general statements without explaining them :p

HattonWBA
02-09-2009, 03:14 PM
Should defo speed up

GlennMirnyi
02-09-2009, 03:15 PM
Which explains why Nadal is a US Open semifinalist :confused:

Cakewalk draw is the explanation. Next.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Cakewalk draw is the explanation. Next.

:lol:

Fine then. Yes it is a cakewalk draw

Are you also saying they slowed down the USO surface too? :p

GlennMirnyi
02-09-2009, 03:26 PM
:lol:

Fine then. Yes it is a cakewalk draw

Are you also saying they slowed down the USO surface too? :p

Wanna post it a third time, son? :p ;)

They slowed down everything with the bigger, heavier balls.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 03:31 PM
Wanna post it a third time, son? :p ;)

They slowed down everything with the bigger, heavier balls.

No

MTF is just :smash:

Again with calling me son :rolleyes:

LM did that too - you don't want the same treatment :p

You became a father when you turned 4? :o :eek:

Yeah I remember the crappy balls they changed to too. What was the change again?

manuel84
02-09-2009, 03:43 PM
Speed it up. Wimbledon should stay Wimbledon.

Bernard Black
02-09-2009, 03:45 PM
Hehe, exactly. We should make a bet to which excuse will he be up to next :)
No, let's be serious for a moment..how can poor Federer win? He is still clearly heavily affected by mono, hardcourt is slower than RG in slow motion movie, balls bounce to the vip section and rafa had a cake draw!! Total injustice!! And Roger had to play like forever in 1/2 final and had 40 hours to rest...oh,oh,ho..poor Rogi. Oh, wait..or was it the other way around?

You're either very immature for your age, know nothing about tennis, or a combination of the two.

I favour the latter.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 03:46 PM
:haha:

same here

Primus
02-09-2009, 03:55 PM
You're either very immature for your age, know nothing about tennis, or a combination of the two.

I favour the latter.
Of all ridiculous posts out here, you picked mine? Eather you don't understand sarcasm, or you are a Federer fan...well, if i think again, it's pretty much same thing :)

Certinfy
02-09-2009, 03:58 PM
Yes!

In 10 years time you'll see people who are 70 years old winning Wimbledon.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 04:06 PM
Of all ridiculous posts out here, you picked mine? Eather you don't understand sarcasm, or you are a Federer fan...well, if i think again, it's pretty much same thing :)

you still haven't responded to my flaming of you :p

philosophicalarf
02-09-2009, 04:43 PM
Which explains why Nadal is a US Open semifinalist :confused:

No. What explains that is that he had Querrey in the 4th round, and Fish in the quarters. Rubbish players, and he still lost a set to both.

MalwareDie
02-09-2009, 04:49 PM
No. What explains that is that he had Querrey in the 4th round, and Fish in the quarters. Rubbish players, and he still lost a set to both.

Agreed.

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 05:19 PM
Federer would have ONE more slam if they hadn't changed the speed. How do you figure the 5 others? Should he had won them between '99 and '03?



I was talking about the future as well. And he would have had 2 more by now, you forget he would have won this years AO as well.

Myrre
02-09-2009, 05:23 PM
It is LOW BOUNCING COURTS Nadal struggles on. Fast vs slow is not so much an issue. High bounce vs Low bounce is.
As for Wimbledon I would like to see lower bounce. Serves shouldn't bounce over your head on grass courts, no matter how you hit 'em.

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 05:23 PM
You know that these replies makes you look just as silly as the one you're replying. In the Nadal/Federer issue, why fall back on trolling when you have a crystal clear upper hand with pure statistics?

Ok now you are making an even worse reply then the guy you are replying to. The stats say Roger has won 3 grand slams in a year for 3 years, Rafa hasnt done it once. The stats also say 13 is more then double of 6. So lets leave the stats out of this if you want to have a chance ok?

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 05:26 PM
Speed it up. Wimbledon should stay Wimbledon.

Exactly. Wimbledon isnt Wimbledon anymore, these Rafatards dont seem to get that.

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 05:35 PM
Let's make 3 things clear :
1) Nadal is better then Federer (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) Strange kind of GOAT this Federer guy, losing over and over again to moonballing kid, at his own surface :):):)
3) It's better be remembered as "moonballer" than crying baby, who can't take his loss

1):silly:
2):silly:
3):silly:

ORGASMATRON
02-09-2009, 05:40 PM
It is LOW BOUNCING COURTS Nadal struggles on. Fast vs slow is not so much an issue. High bounce vs Low bounce is.
As for Wimbledon I would like to see lower bounce. Serves shouldn't bounce over your head on grass courts, no matter how you hit 'em.

Good point, i wasnt sure what the bounce is like at Wimby. If it is high bounce then that is just :silly: Why dont they just call it green clay for that matter :rolleyes:

Tankman
02-09-2009, 05:41 PM
pffft don't duplicate my post

just cos you used :silly: instead of :retard: :p

Primus
02-09-2009, 05:44 PM
Exactly. Wimbledon isnt Wimbledon anymore, these Rafatards dont seem to get that.
Just one question and I will leave you alone and never reply to your comments again.
Did you also post discussion like this in after Wimbledon 2007? Because everything was basically the same, tight match, 5 setter, Nadal had 4 BP in 5th set, but Federer prevailed at the end. Well in 2008 same story, just lady luck shined on Rafa this time. Did you argue like this then? Was 2007 Wibledon still "good old Wibledon" or not? Cos in 2007 as far as i remember i didn't see any petition. If Im wrong, prove it if you can.

Guy Haines
02-09-2009, 05:46 PM
Exactly. Wimbledon isnt Wimbledon anymore, these Rafatards dont seem to get that.

The real question is, can your threads start out any more annoying?

Or how about: if they water the courts with Federer's tears, will they be faster or slower?

Hmmm, for some reason, even though the courts keep getting slower and slower by some people's standards, Venus Williams keeps winning Wimbledon with powerful serves and a net game -- powerful serves and a net game that land her very few hard court tournament wins and no hard court slam wins. (I know the women's game doesn't matter. :rolleyes:)

One of the bigger fallacies (Glenn would actually probably agree here) is that Federer would benefit and win from "speedier" grass.

Number one, (and here Glenn probably wouldn't agree, but so be it) Nadal is a better volleyer at this point than Federer. Or at least he definitely is when they face off. Number two, Federer is a baseliner. His ventures to the net are often tentative and half-hearted, and that includes on hard courts. Witness how Simon took his net game apart last summer.

I'm curious to see what Tsonga does at Wimbledon if he can for once stay healthy long enough to play it. It could be glorious.

The bottom line is that he's one of the only players out there who has the potential to play serve and volley on grass. The problem isn't with the surface or the balls so much as the quality of the players. Most of the aggressive players of this generation are mediocre simpletons. Only a few even have net skills.

Exclusive
02-09-2009, 05:50 PM
It would be perfect if they can make it even more slower. I can see it, the defending champion bagels the former one in a Roland Garros-2008 style.:hearts:

Bernard Black
02-09-2009, 05:53 PM
Of all ridiculous posts out here, you picked mine? Eather you don't understand sarcasm, or you are a Federer fan...well, if i think again, it's pretty much same thing :)

Sorry dude, I didn't spot it. Nicely baited :)

Guy Haines
02-09-2009, 05:56 PM
It is LOW BOUNCING COURTS Nadal struggles on. Fast vs slow is not so much an issue. High bounce vs Low bounce is.
As for Wimbledon I would like to see lower bounce. Serves shouldn't bounce over your head on grass courts, no matter how you hit 'em.

Not it isn't. At least not uniformly. Unless you think all the major winners of the past are talking nonsense on television. On hard courts they frequently say high-bouncing courts are bad for Nadal (i.e. the Nadal of 2005-2006 that people in MTF think is the only one that exists) because his shots can sit up.

For a start, Federer's slice doesn't bother Nadal very much on grass. There are plenty of seemingly (on a surface level) classic grass players who actually have much more trouble with low bounces on grass, such as Berdych.

One of the fundamental laws of MTF is that Nadal's achievements, no matter what and when, are proof of evil. What's funny is witnessing the increased pretzel-twists some of the true believers put themselves in to back up this opinion. Especially as Nadal's success widens in scope.

So now we have to go back to last year's USO, like Malware, to truly assail him. And be sure to throw out the fact that Nadal's best tennis of the year was behind him and that he was beating players who were playing above form as US home-court faves. And didn't that rubbish hard court player Fish annihilate Federer earlier in the year? Oops.

FastClay has posted some sensible well-reasoned and -written grousing on the increased uniformity of surfaces, though I'm not sure if I buy his belief that Queen's is slower. Most of the "everything is slow" complainers are talking nonsense.

W!MBLEDON
02-09-2009, 06:12 PM
speed up the grass and watch nadal lose :)

Bernard Black
02-09-2009, 06:13 PM
Not it isn't. At least not uniformly. Unless you think all the major winners of the past are talking nonsense on television. On hard courts they frequently say high-bouncing courts are bad for Nadal (i.e. the Nadal of 2005-2006 that people in MTF think is the only one that exists) because his shots can sit up.

For a start, Federer's slice doesn't bother Nadal very much on grass. There are plenty of seemingly (on a surface level) classic grass players who actually have much more trouble with low bounces on grass, such as Berdych.

One of the fundamental laws of MTF is that Nadal's achievements, no matter what and when, are proof of evil. What's funny is witnessing the increased pretzel-twists some of the true believers put themselves in to back up this opinion. Especially as Nadal's success widens in scope.

So now we have to go back to last year's USO, like Malware, to truly assail him. And be sure to throw out the fact that Nadal's best tennis of the year was behind him and that he was beating players who were playing above form as US home-court faves. And didn't that rubbish hard court player Fish annihilate Federer earlier in the year? Oops.

FastClay has posted some sensible well-reasoned and -written grousing on the increased uniformity of surfaces, though I'm not sure if I buy his belief that Queen's is slower. Most of the "everything is slow" complainers are talking nonsense.

It's not that difficult to comprehend that a slower, higher bouncing grass court would aid clay courter specialist's game.

Primus
02-09-2009, 06:17 PM
speed up the grass and watch nadal lose :)
to?

Henry Kaspar
02-09-2009, 06:22 PM
Nadal can play on DecoTurf, no question about it. For instance, the surface used in the 2008 olympics was the very same used at the US Open.


The coverage from Wimbledon I watch (NRK) has several times during the tournament (both 07 & 08) discussed the issue of wether the courts were slowed and how much. I saw interviews with a few people on the issue and they confirmed that they actually had slowed the courts, one of the reason beeing that most of the players today compared to before, are baseliners. It also had something to do with the type of grass seeds they planted which naturaly slows the ball. To test this theory they analyzed some serves and shots from the same players and compared them to one and another with the use of both slow-motion cameras and the hawk-eye technology. You could clearly see how the ball patch changed. The difference in the bounce of Roddick's flat serve was staggering. If I remember correct it was nearly 20-25cm higher in 2007 than in 2004, the year Roddick reached the final.

I've been to the Wimbledon courts in the weeks right before the Championships and had the privilege to talk to a couple of the groundskeepers about maintenance and quality of the different grass courts. Both of the ones I talked to acknowledged the fact that the type of grass they changed to indeed slowed the pace, but it was worth it because of the durability and strength of the grass.

I would present some hard evidence if I had it on my hands but unfortunately I don't. But if you are so delusional that you think the speed of the grass courts has been unchanged the last decade, you are just beeing silly.

Apart from the final sentence (no idea why we need this childish agressiveness, but it seems we do), I'm grateful for the interesting information provided in your post.

TheBoiledEgg
02-09-2009, 06:26 PM
they made the balls bigger by about 30%
and the grass slower by 50%

been a :yawn: fest since 2001

Tankman
02-09-2009, 06:28 PM
they made the balls bigger by about 30%
and the grass slower by 50%

been a :yawn: fest since 2001

conveniently the first year that a final did not involve Rafter or Sampras in a few years :p

superslam77
02-09-2009, 07:35 PM
nadull holder of blue, red and green clay.. :wavey:

fed holder of only hc slam :cool:

miura
02-09-2009, 07:50 PM
Ok now you are making an even worse reply then the guy you are replying to. The stats say Roger has won 3 grand slams in a year for 3 years, Rafa hasnt done it once. The stats also say 13 is more then double of 6. So lets leave the stats out of this if you want to have a chance ok?
I'm thinking about the H2H Federer - Nadal stats :)

Myrre
02-09-2009, 09:03 PM
Not it isn't. At least not uniformly. Unless you think all the major winners of the past are talking nonsense on television. On hard courts they frequently say high-bouncing courts are bad for Nadal (i.e. the Nadal of 2005-2006 that people in MTF think is the only one that exists) because his shots can sit up.

For a start, Federer's slice doesn't bother Nadal very much on grass. There are plenty of seemingly (on a surface level) classic grass players who actually have much more trouble with low bounces on grass, such as Berdych.

One of the fundamental laws of MTF is that Nadal's achievements, no matter what and when, are proof of evil. What's funny is witnessing the increased pretzel-twists some of the true believers put themselves in to back up this opinion. Especially as Nadal's success widens in scope.

So now we have to go back to last year's USO, like Malware, to truly assail him. And be sure to throw out the fact that Nadal's best tennis of the year was behind him and that he was beating players who were playing above form as US home-court faves. And didn't that rubbish hard court player Fish annihilate Federer earlier in the year? Oops.

FastClay has posted some sensible well-reasoned and -written grousing on the increased uniformity of surfaces, though I'm not sure if I buy his belief that Queen's is slower. Most of the "everything is slow" complainers are talking nonsense.


Nadal himself has said in interviews that the higher bounce helps him, but then again what does he know? You're clearly the expert.

FairWeatherFan
02-09-2009, 09:27 PM
What is funny is that Wimbledon regards itself as the traditional slam. They insist on sticking to outmoded dress and etiquette and yet completely altering the traditional playing surface is regarded to be fine. Such hypocrisy. No wonder Safin regards the Wimbledon administration as a bunch of clowns.

Some of the arguments in this thread are too funny...

The stats I have seen -- notably on break percentages at great tournaments over the years, assembled by a brilliant poster here -- suggest nothing of the sort.

:haha::haha: So, against the weight of player opinion and yes - other technical analysis - you rely on the statistical skills of an unknown Nadal fan on this board who refuses to provide the actual calculations supporting his statistics. What a rational conclusion.
Read this article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html, which substantiates that the grass was changed per the head groundsman of Wimbledon...

Number one, (and here Glenn probably wouldn't agree, but so be it) Nadal is a better volleyer at this point than Federer.

:haha::haha::haha:

Number two, Federer is a baseliner. His ventures to the net are often tentative and half-hearted, and that includes on hard courts. Witness how Simon took his net game apart last summer.

No one is saying that Federer is going down in the game's pantheon as one of the all-time great volleyers, but in case you missed it, he won Wimbledon 2003 by serve-volleying almost all the time on his first serve...

Tankman
02-09-2009, 09:28 PM
FWF

don't bother with a petition lol

look in london newspapers for wimbledon ads. then get a job as the curator ;)

habibko
02-09-2009, 10:43 PM
yes it can get slower and yes it should be faster in case we ever want or hope for the resurgence of S/V tennis, I really miss this style :sad: (have been watching some Henman highlights lately :o)

Let's make 3 things clear :
1) Nadal is better then Federer (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) Strange kind of GOAT this Federer guy, losing over and over again to moonballing kid, at his own surface :):):)
3) It's better be remembered as "moonballer" than crying baby, who can't take his loss

just because I couldn't resist this one:

1) Federer is better than Nadal (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) ok this makes no sense, Federer doesn't have a surface, however Nadal has.
3) It's better to be remembered as the GOAT and the technically most complete player ever and the player who plays the most beautiful artistic tennis than being remembered as a "moonballer" (I don't think Nadal is a moonballer but oh well).

if H2H was the only criterion for A player is better than B player, then Patrick Rafter is better than Federer which is bull.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 10:45 PM
if H2H was the only criterion for A player is better than B player, then Patrick Rafter is better than Federer which is bull.

:haha:

Pat :rocker2:

NEW SLOGAN.

Roger Federer. Maybe better than Nadal. But never better than Rafter. :devil:

Dini
02-09-2009, 10:47 PM
yes it can get slower and yes it should be faster in case we ever want or hope for the resurgence of S/V tennis, I really miss this style :sad: (have been watching some Henman highlights lately :o)



just because I couldn't resist this one:

1) Federer is better than Nadal (as long as 13(and counting) will be greater than 6) :)
2) ok this makes no sense, Federer doesn't have a surface, however Nadal has.
3) It's better to be remembered as the GOAT and the technically most complete player ever and the player who plays the most beautiful artistic tennis than being remembered as a "moonballer" (I don't think Nadal is a moonballer but oh well).

if H2H was the only criterion for A player is better than B player, then Patrick Rafter is better than Federer which is bull.

:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

star
02-09-2009, 11:15 PM
Read this article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html, which substantiates that the grass was changed per the head groundsman of Wimbledon...



That article says that the grass was slowed at Wimbledon in 2001. So, that means Federer has done all of his winning on the slower grass.

The fastest grass is at Queens. Nadal is the title holder there. Federer doesn't play Queens because he says the Halle grass is closer to that of Wimbledon -- and probably the appearance fees are quite nice too at Halle. :)

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 12:03 AM
That article says that the grass was slowed at Wimbledon in 2001. So, that means Federer has done all of his winning on the slower grass.

The initial slowing I think occurred in 2002 onwards, however I think it has become slower since then. Flip blasting so many aces to reach the final...somehow I don't see that happening in 2009.

Guy Haines
02-10-2009, 01:04 AM
No one is saying that Federer is going down in the game's pantheon as one of the all-time great volleyers, but in case you missed it, he won Wimbledon 2003 by serve-volleying almost all the time on his first serve...

No I didn't miss it. But if you look at Federer's overall career, that was the exception, not the rule. And "almost all of the time" is an exaggeration.

Also, if everything was in the dumps already in 2001, how did he manage this magnificent S&V feat?

People would rather bitch and complain here. No one holds the players other than evil Nadal responsible. Instead of blaming Nadal and the supposed ugly way he plays, maybe it would be more interesting to wonder why so few S&V players deliver on any surface on the men's side right now?

I'd like Tsonga to be healthy and to deliver at Wimbledon this year. #1 because when his game is firing it's thrilling to watch. #2 because it'll be fun watching all the Moaning Minnies explain their way out of all their slow :bigcry: excuses the same way they had to with Paris last year.

That article says that the grass was slowed at Wimbledon in 2001. So, that means Federer has done all of his winning on the slower grass.

The fastest grass is at Queens. Nadal is the title holder there. Federer doesn't play Queens because he says the Halle grass is closer to that of Wimbledon -- and probably the appearance fees are quite nice too at Halle. :)

Yes. Federer should play Queens. Regardless, I hope Tsonga plays Queens this year. If Mahut can get to the final there, he should be able to win.

cmurray
02-10-2009, 01:41 AM
The initial slowing I think occurred in 2002 onwards, however I think it has become slower since then. Flip blasting so many aces to reach the final...somehow I don't see that happening in 2009.

Yes. I can see how an ace-fest would be preferable to the sort of Wimbledon final we had last year. Idiot organizers. :mad:

Somebody needs to bring out the "beating a dead horse" emoticon. :)

Tankman
02-10-2009, 01:43 AM
Yes.

FWF/slow grass bashers should also all just agree with me already, get to London, and sign up for Wimbly/Queens curator position :p

Mimi
02-10-2009, 01:56 AM
:lol:of course ruanz33 did not answer this post of yours coz its obvious that no one petitioned for quick grass or complained about it because its Roger and not Rafa won in 2007, should Nadal won, they would petition for quick grass as soon as in 2007, not at 2008 :lol:

Just one question and I will leave you alone and never reply to your comments again.
Did you also post discussion like this in after Wimbledon 2007? Because everything was basically the same, tight match, 5 setter, Nadal had 4 BP in 5th set, but Federer prevailed at the end. Well in 2008 same story, just lady luck shined on Rafa this time. Did you argue like this then? Was 2007 Wibledon still "good old Wibledon" or not? Cos in 2007 as far as i remember i didn't see any petition. If Im wrong, prove it if you can.

2003
02-10-2009, 03:02 AM
The grass has changed theres no doubt about that. And it has benefited Rafael Nadal, there is no doubt about that.

What their is doubt about is whether Federer would still have won either way.

If anything the slowing down of the grass has BENEFITED Federer, because he basically only has to worry about one advisary on the surface now.

Before, guys like Roddck were giving him a hard time on grass. I know Roddick is a headcase against Federer but Fed also isn't as strong as back then and another final like that 2005 one Fed would struggle to get out of that in his present state.

Also, he would have to contend with guys like Murray, Djokovic (who is really good on grass, neally making 2007 Wimbly final), Roddick, Safin, all the guys who have beaten him on hard would have a better chance.

Yeah, Rafa would likely not be winning Wimbly without the grass being slowed down, but to say Fed would have continued winning is baseless.

It's probably cost him a title or two by the end of his career though, but this 19GS bullshit is just that. Bullshit.

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 04:10 AM
The grass has changed theres no doubt about that. And it has benefited Rafael Nadal, there is no doubt about that.

What their is doubt about is whether Federer would still have won either way.

If anything the slowing down of the grass has BENEFITED Federer, because he basically only has to worry about one advisary on the surface now.

Before, guys like Roddck were giving him a hard time on grass. I know Roddick is a headcase against Federer but Fed also isn't as strong as back then and another final like that 2005 one Fed would struggle to get out of that in his present state.

Also, he would have to contend with guys like Murray, Djokovic (who is really good on grass, neally making 2007 Wimbly final), Roddick, Safin, all the guys who have beaten him on hard would have a better chance.

Yeah, Rafa would likely not be winning Wimbly without the grass being slowed down, but to say Fed would have continued winning is baseless.

It's probably cost him a title or two by the end of his career though, but this 19GS bullshit is just that. Bullshit.


For the last time, the issue is not the speed. Nadal would be winning Wimbledon on faster grass courts just the same way he is now (and he has, on the faster grass of Queens). That's because the real issue is that the only top level player who is truly competent on grass courts these days besides Nadal is Federer, and Nadal happens to have a stranglehold over him. The courts are still perfectly receptive to a proper grass game if anyone bothered to attempt it. There's no conclusive evidence that the courts have slowed down any considerable amount more since say 03 when as someone said, Federer serve-volleyed his way to the title. Venus Williams is still winning Wimbledon quite easily the same way she did back in 2000. Mauresmo won Wimbledon the "classic" way in 2006. I seem to remember Mario Ancic taking apart an in form world #5 Ferrer last year at Wimbledon purely serve-volleying, pretty difficult to do on "green clay", etc...

Which begs the question then, why is the art of grass court tennis dying? The answer has absolutely nothing at all to do with Nadal, and everything to do with the homogenization of the tour into uniformly resembling a medium paced hard court, which absolutely dominate the calendar. Noone is being taught how to play on grass anymore from junior level up. The modern technology makes it more difficult for sure, and the benefits of potentially winning Wimbledon with a proper all court, serve-volley game do not outweigh the negative that a solid all round, baseline oriented hardcourt game like Djokovic has is vastly more beneficial to success in today's game. So instead of this "speed up the grass" bullshit, which will have almost no actual impact, certainly not on Nadal's success, how about a "bring back more grass courts" petition?

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 05:18 AM
of course ruanz33 did not answer this post of yours coz its obvious that no one petitioned for quick grass or complained about it because its Roger and not Rafa won in 2007, should Nadal won, they would petition for quick grass as soon as in 2007, not at 2008

Nadal fans are certainly insecure types. Instead of simply accepting the fact that the grass has slowed down and the implications for Nadal's victory, we have some ridiculous excuses. Apparently the grass on which Flip served his way to the Wimby final in 2003 is the same generating the endless topspin rallies behind the baseline now. Apparently because Nadal repeated the efforts of the great Scott Draper by winning Queens - supposedly, so the excuse goes, the same grass as the good old days - his Wimbledon win is valid. And - my favourite - the wonderful break percentages theory, performed with such sound scientific method and verifiable inputs by that most reliable of persons - a Nadal fan.

Why can't Nadal fans be happy with the win as is? I mean, clearly most don't care about the history of the sport and the way Wimbledon should be played and all the minor stuff like that, so surely they can just enjoy the win? After all, Nadal still beat the world's best players in the world's biggest tournament, and by any measure that's still a great effort. Sure, it is not as impressive a victory as that of Agassi and Borg, who actually altered their playing style to do it, but it is still genuinely a pretty damn good performance.

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 05:36 AM
Why can't Nadal fans be happy with the win as is? I mean, clearly most don't care about the history of the sport and the way Wimbledon should be played and all the minor stuff like that, so surely they can just enjoy the win? After all, Nadal still beat the world's best players in the world's biggest tournament, and by any measure that's still a great effort. Sure, it is not as impressive a victory as that of Agassi and Borg, who actually altered their playing style to do it, but it is still genuinely a pretty damn good performance.

Nice double standard there, Nadal fans should just accept the victory for what it is, but fans of other players are welcome to continue pedalling their ridiculous dogma about how his victory is less meaningful based on arbitrary "facts" :haha: Believe me, no Rafa fan (or general tennis fan not blinded by bitterness) has any issue accepting Rafa's victory for what it is :yeah:

*bunny*
02-10-2009, 06:08 AM
The initial slowing I think occurred in 2002 onwards, however I think it has become slower since then. Flip blasting so many aces to reach the final...somehow I don't see that happening in 2009.
No. The first time Wimbledon used 100% rye grass was in 2001.

The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game,
http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/infosheets/grasscourts_general.html

Many ignorant people just get it wrong because in their view Goran's victory in 2001 must be on the old grass and Hewitt's win in 2002 must be on the new grass. That's just their subjective view. Goran didn't mind wheter it was 100% rye or not he just aced away, and Hewitt is a very good grass court player anyway. remember he won Queens four times.

And what they did was to homogenize the surface with a firmer subsurface so that there wouldn't be many bad bounces.

*bunny*
02-10-2009, 06:10 AM
So in other words you could argue Pete lost to Federer because the surface changed in 2001. :p

Tankman
02-10-2009, 06:13 AM
:worship:

see

we actually get useful info in GM now (of course you get my trolling too, but if its the price I have to pay :p)

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 06:21 AM
No. The first time Wimbledon used 100% rye grass was in 2001.

I would be interested to know if the change to rye grass was before or after the 2001 tournament. Three out of the four semifinalists were serve-volleyers and it was only after that year that Henman began his well-publicised complaints about the speed of the grass. In 2001 most people were complaining it was too fast.

Nice double standard there, Nadal fans should just accept the victory for what it is, but fans of other players are welcome to continue pedalling their ridiculous dogma about how his victory is less meaningful based on arbitrary "facts"

Here is an article with a quote from Eddy Seaward, head groundsman of Wimbledon, explaining why the grass was changed.

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."

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

It must be nice to live in an idyllic fantasy world like most of you Nadal fans. :wavey:

Tankman
02-10-2009, 06:22 AM
:rolleyes:

FWF - answer my question. Do you want to solve the grass problem at Wimbly? :p

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 06:31 AM
Here is an article with a quote from Eddy Seaward, head groundsman of Wimbledon, explaining why the grass was changed.



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

It must be nice to live in an idyllic fantasy world like most of you Nadal fans. :wavey:

I'm confused, what is that article meant to prove, that almost a decade ago the Wimbledon grass was slowed down? Is anyone disagreeing with that? :confused: It doesn't change the fact that players can and have had success with a proper grass game on the changed surface, however there are so few playing this style anymore that a player like Nadal who is actually comfortable playing on grass (whatever the speed) has had considerable success.

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 06:47 AM
I'm confused, what is that article meant to prove, that almost a decade ago the Wimbledon grass was slowed down? Is anyone disagreeing with that?

In this thread:

This said, as long as I do not see hard evidence for the "Wimbledon became slower" theory, only strong opinions that are backed up with nothing, I reserve my judgement. The stats I have seen -- notably on break percentages at great tournaments over the years, assembled by a brilliant
poster here -- suggest nothing of the sort.

Sorry, I must have confused you with those Nadal fans who do not accept that the grass has slowed down. I direct you to the break speed theory thread to see more of this genius strain of argument.

It doesn't change the fact that players can and have had success with a proper grass game on the changed surface, however there are so few playing this style anymore that a player like Nadal who is actually comfortable playing on grass (whatever the speed) has had considerable success.

This argument has some merit. However, I disagree that it is still entirely possible to successfully play a net game at Wimbledon as it was before the slowing. I refer you to Tim Henman. Henman's comments on the slowing of the surface are well documented; he simply did not find he was able to continue playing serve-volley on the surface as successfully as he did before, and so he changed to more of an all-court style.

At the end of the day, tennis players are going to play the way that gives them a competitive advantage. If they had a competitive advantage serve-volleying on grass, as they used to, why would they not do it? Can we really believe that these professional athletes are so incompetent?

Q. What chances of recapturing 2001 then against him?
TIM HENMAN: Well, it's about playing to the conditions, and the conditions have changed so much. I just think I'm doing a far better job of playing. I think the last couple of years I wasn't getting the balance right. I was just trying to, you know, play the way that I used to play on grass. But when it's been, you know, so much slower and heavier, I don't think that's the most effective way.

Source:http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=36032

Henry Kaspar
02-10-2009, 06:50 AM
The grass has changed theres no doubt about that. And it has benefited Rafael Nadal, there is no doubt about that.

What I take from this thread is that they changed the grass after 2001 (with the result of giving the ball a higher bounce, less so to slow surface), and that's it.

Hence Federer won all his titles on allegedly "slow" grass. Had they not done it -- who knows, perhaps one of two of his titles would have gone to a big server?

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 07:28 AM
This argument has some merit. However, I disagree that it is still entirely possible to successfully play a net game at Wimbledon as it was before the slowing. I refer you to Tim Henman. Henman's comments on the slowing of the surface are well documented; he simply did not find he was able to continue playing serve-volley on the surface as successfully as he did before, and so he changed to more of an all-court style.

At the end of the day, tennis players are going to play the way that gives them a competitive advantage. If they had a competitive advantage serve-volleying on grass, as they used to, why would they not do it? Can we really believe that these professional athletes are so incompetent?

Source:http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=36032

But who are these players who have the ability to do this against Nadal nowadays, but don't have the option to because of the court speed? I've pointed out in a previous post that various players have had success playing a "faster grass court game" on the newer surface. Henman couldn't apparently, or so he says, that's a standalone issue. As a poster above pointed out, Ivanisevic managed to serve his way to a title in 01 on the reformed grass the same way he always had done.

However the Ivanisevics, Henmans and Rafters are gone, the players that have the ability to play that way nowadays such as Ancic and Karlovic still play that way, and still have success on grass, they're just not in the same league as the aformentioned players. There's really only Federer, and Nadal can handle him. Call it a "weak" era if you will, but it's not a phase, this is the future, and it's naive to think changing the court speed of one tournament is suddenly going to teach everybody to play differently.

*bunny*
02-10-2009, 07:38 AM
What I take from this thread is that they changed the grass after 2001 (with the result of giving the ball a higher bounce, less so to slow surface), and that's it.

Hence Federer won all his titles on allegedly "slow" grass. Had they not done it -- who knows, perhaps one of two of his titles would have gone to a big server?
Read my post on the previous page. I quoted from a page on the Wimbledon Web site that they've been using 100% rye grass SINCE 2001.
If they changed the surface after the tournament in 2001, they wouldn't have written that way.

oranges
02-10-2009, 07:38 AM
However the Ivanisevics, Henmans and Rafters are gone, the players that have the ability to play that way nowadays such as Ancic and Karlovic still play that way, and still have success on grass,

Your arguments are extremely lame. Stop inventing ways to make the situation sound more the way you'd like it to. It's no easier to play S/V on that grass than it is on HC. At the same time, it's easier to top spin till eternity on that grass than it is on HC. End of story.

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 08:46 AM
If they changed the surface after the tournament in 2001, they wouldn't have written that way.

How do you know in what way they wrote it? Please provide definitive evidence that the court speed change occurred prior to the 2001 tournament.

But who are these players who have the ability to do this against Nadal nowadays, but don't have the option to because of the court speed? I've pointed out in a previous post that various players have had success playing a "faster grass court game" on the newer surface. Henman couldn't apparently, or so he says, that's a standalone issue. As a poster above pointed out, Ivanisevic managed to serve his way to a title in 01 on the reformed grass the same way he always had done.

Why is it a standalone issue? Henman was one of the best serve-volley players of the past twenty years. If he could not adjust, why do you think other players should be able to?

It's funny that you mention Ivanisevic as being an example of a player winning on 'slow' grass, because here is what Goran thinks of the grass as it plays now.

You were the last serve-volleyer to win Wimbledon in 2001. How do you think you would do if you were playing in this era and will we ever see a serve-volleyer in the top 10 again?
From jimbo7482

Goran: "Tough, because first of all the grass is very slow. I played the seniors there last year and the bounces on Centre Court and Court One were so high.

Before you couldn't stay back, it was impossible because the court was so quick. Now, I ask Roger Federer why he doesn't come in more and he says, 'I can't, it's too slow.' So I don't think it's going to happen because they're going to make the court even slower and it would be a suicide mission.

I would try but probably I would get passed so I would stay back, I wouldn't have a choice."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7654011.stm

However the Ivanisevics, Henmans and Rafters are gone, the players that have the ability to play that way nowadays such as Ancic and Karlovic still play that way, and still have success on grass, they're just not in the same league as the aformentioned players.

I thought we established that Henman couldn't adjust to the new speed? :confused: And Goran certainly thinks that he couldn't.

I agree with you partially (the level of net play on tour has gone down). In my opinion there are three factors leading to a decline in serve-volley. The first is slower grass. The second is your factor (overall decline in player quality/grass predominance). The third is raquet technology.
It is too basic an analysis to say only one factor is a cause of the decline.

*bunny*
02-10-2009, 09:43 AM
How do you know in what way they wrote it? Please provide definitive evidence that the court speed change occurred prior to the 2001 tournament.
Here is an article written in 2005, which I remember I quoted in full some time ago in one of hundreds of threads on this topic.

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

Wimbledon's courts the past five years have been sown entirely with perennial ryegrass, replacing the mixture of 70 percent rye and 30 percent creeping red fescue that was the norm through 2000.

*bunny*
02-10-2009, 09:45 AM
This is an interesting article so I quote in full again.

At its roots, Wimbledon is about the grass
By Barry Lorge
Special to ESPN.com
June 23, 2005, 10:01 AM ET


WIMBLEDON, England – Roger Federer, the regal two-time defending singles champion, and Paul-Henri Mathieu, the first-round sacrificial lamb from France, set sneakered feet on Centre Court at the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club Monday, the first players to do so since the final day last year.

Save, that is, for four female club members who Saturday engaged in one of Wimbledon's sensibly useful rituals.

Four ladies are invited annually to play "one set of gentle doubles" on Centre and No. 1 courts, 48 hours before the reigning king takes the court to play the tournament's official overture. For the record, this prestigious perk went to Allison Denly, Sally Holloway, Toni Thompsen and Karen Whishaw this year. Their exercise is a final dress rehearsal for scoreboard operators, ballpersons and technicians testing everything from the Cyclops electronic line-calling devices to the microphones on the umpires' chairs.

But the club ladies' light-hearted and light-footed prelude serves another practical purpose, as most Wimbledon traditions do: to get the "juiciness" out of the world's most famous two grass courts, which are used only for the championship tournament.

Grass is the original surface of the game the British still call "lawn tennis." Formally, Wimbledon was long known as "The Lawn Tennis Championships on Grass," but now that has been shortened, with a succinct and justified sense of superiority, to simply "The Championships."

Three of the four traditional Grand Slam tournaments used to be contested on turf. The U.S. Open shifted first to artificial clay (in 1975) and then to cushioned hard courts (in 1978), and the Australian Open switched to a similar rubberized asphalt in 1988. The French Open has always been on slow, red clay. Wimbledon remains the last bastion of lawn tennis.

Gordon Bottomley, an English poet and playwright in the early 20th century, wrote: "When you destroy a blade of grass, you poison England at her roots." The sun long ago set on the British empire, but growing grass is something the Brits still do better than just about anybody in the world, and Wimbledon is duly proud of how it has restored the quality of the 19 courts now used for The Championships. The singular stage that is Centre Court now not only looks like a rectangle of flawless emerald but also plays like a gem.

"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." All the courts are spongier on the surface, which probably makes them slower, although an official statement from the All England Club states: "There has been no intention either this year or in previous years to produce slower courts or ones suited for a particular type of game."

There has been a diligent effort, however, to make the courts sure if not slow, with firmer soil and subsurface that make the ball bounce higher and more reliably. This has been accomplished by marrying the art and science of groundskeeping, as practiced by Eddie Seaward, head groundsman since 1991. Seaward has a staff of 14 and another 14 employed just for The Championships, including fellows from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire. (Yorkshire is fittingly the old stomping grounds of the poet Bottomley, born there in 1874.)

"Wimbledon has always striven to provide the players with the best possible grass courts on which to display their considerable talents," said Tim Phillips, Chairman of the All England Club and The Championships. "Just as the game of tennis does not stand still, neither do we, and we continue to prepare our courts using all our experience and the latest technology. Ultimately, we aim to produce the best possible playing surface."

To that end, Wimbledon's courts the past five years have been sown entirely with perennial ryegrass, replacing the mixture of 70 percent rye and 30 percent creeping red fescue that was the norm through 2000. The All England Club would have gone with rye and ginger if that could have guaranteed the durability and "enhanced presentation and performance" it was seeking in the new millennium, but independent research by the experts in Yorkshire confirmed that 100 proof rye was preferable to any blend.

It was also determined scientifically, confirming generations of intuition, that the height and consistency of a tennis ball's bounce is governed more by what lies beneath than the grass itself. Wimbledon's courts are rolled hard, and the grass is cut to 8 millimeters – the optimum to thrive in the proper soil conditions. All this is monitored daily with sophisticated instruments. As a club spokesman said Monday, "They have a machine that measures the greenness of the grass."

Along with high-tech rackets and fundamental shifts in technique and tactics preferred by professionals, the refurbished courts have decidedly altered the style of play at Wimbledon for the better.

Federer, a shot maker of the first order, almost never followed his serve to net in his tidy 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 victory over Mathieu on Monday. Likewise, Australian Lleyton Hewitt – the champion in 2002 after ascending Federer toppled seven-time champion Pete Sampras – seldom serve-and-volleyed in the traditional Aussie style in dispatching Christophe Rochus of Belgium, 6-3, 6-3, 6-1.

"All grass is different, but today it was pretty slow – very slow – and it felt very soft," said Hewitt, who played on Court 1. "I've got no doubt, though, it's going to quicken up over the next two weeks, the more play it gets, because the show courts haven't had any play at all. Today, they're very green. Both of us were playing from the back of the court, and where we were serving, we were leaving imprints in the court. It was that soft. I've never seen that before."

Hewitt did serve 19 aces, Federer 18. A morning thundershower, which prompted one English pessimist to declare prematurely that "summer has ended," had given way to warm sunshine by the time Federer and Hewitt took to the courts.


"Because of the rain this morning, it definitely played a littler quicker than the last few days, where it was extremely hot and there was quite a high bounce," Federer said. "I even thought you could kick serve, which I was quite surprised to see the last few days."

All around the grounds, men and women alike were winning with aggressive, attacking tennis from the back of the court, occasionally paving their way to the net with good approach shots. Indiscriminate advances were discouraged by punishing passing shots.

High-powered serves will still play a major role in crowning the men's singles champion. That opinion was shared by Phil Dent, the former Australian Davis Cup player, who watched son Taylor Dent win a 7-6 (4), 7-6 (4), 4-6, 6-7 (7), 6-1 decision over Dick Norman on Monday.

"If you've got guys serving cannons 2 inches from the lines all the time," Dent said, "you could be playing on water and the ball isn't coming back."

But gone are the days when a huge-serving but one-dimensional Paul Bunyan could bludgeon a more complete player into a grassy grave at Wimbledon. Both the men's and women's singles can be won largely from the baseline, which used to be unthinkable.

The changing styles are writ large on the lawns.

"If you look at aerial photos in all the annuals, you can see how the pattern of wear on the courts has changed in recent years," said Mark Cox, a Cambridge-educated top English player in the 1960s and '70s. "Now you get this path worn along the baseline, and some mild discoloration on the path to the net. You used to have these great furrows into the net, but there are very few serve-volleyers anymore.

"I don't think the courts are actually slower, but the most noticeable thing is that the return of serve is regularly between the waist and the shoulder rather than between the waist and the knee. That alters the whole perspective of the game. Now the players with extreme grips can get a crack at the ball, whereas in my day you had to use a continental grip to get low and underneath the ball. The ball doesn't skid as much off this grass, either. You're not always lunging for a low volley or half-volley, and you don't have the bad bounces that made players not want to risk letting the ball bounce at all. We had to serve-and-volley. Players have other options now."

ORGASMATRON
02-10-2009, 09:46 AM
Just one question and I will leave you alone and never reply to your comments again.
Did you also post discussion like this in after Wimbledon 2007? Because everything was basically the same, tight match, 5 setter, Nadal had 4 BP in 5th set, but Federer prevailed at the end. Well in 2008 same story, just lady luck shined on Rafa this time. Did you argue like this then? Was 2007 Wibledon still "good old Wibledon" or not? Cos in 2007 as far as i remember i didn't see any petition. If Im wrong, prove it if you can.

Ok its like this. I always thought Rafa was just getting better and Roger was standing still(concerning grass and clay that is). Only after i read some articles and thought things through did i realize the truth. Its not because Roger was standing still, at least that was not the only the reason although that might have played a part i give you that much. But the thing is Wimbledon follows the FO, and Rafa always goes into the grass court season full of confidence while Roger goes into the grass court season every year coming off a loss in the FO finals against Rafa. 1-0 Rafa. As if that isnt enough tennis has also decided to make the grass slower now. And yes after the AO was the first time i thought about the slowness of the grass. Clearly something is wrong when a moonballer like Rafa starts beating the GOAT on his own surfaces. The least Wimbledon can do is to start making the grass faster again, if they care at all about the future of tennis. But i doubt that they do.

ORGASMATRON
02-10-2009, 09:57 AM
:lol:of course ruanz33 did not answer this post of yours coz its obvious that no one petitioned for quick grass or complained about it because its Roger and not Rafa won in 2007, should Nadal won, they would petition for quick grass as soon as in 2007, not at 2008 :lol:

I didnt answer it cos i only just read it :rolleyes:

ORGASMATRON
02-10-2009, 09:58 AM
to?

Not Fed thats for sure, he will never get to play Fed :o

ORGASMATRON
02-10-2009, 10:05 AM
The grass has changed theres no doubt about that. And it has benefited Rafael Nadal, there is no doubt about that.

What their is doubt about is whether Federer would still have won either way.

If anything the slowing down of the grass has BENEFITED Federer, because he basically only has to worry about one advisary on the surface now.

Before, guys like Roddck were giving him a hard time on grass. I know Roddick is a headcase against Federer but Fed also isn't as strong as back then and another final like that 2005 one Fed would struggle to get out of that in his present state.

Also, he would have to contend with guys like Murray, Djokovic (who is really good on grass, neally making 2007 Wimbly final), Roddick, Safin, all the guys who have beaten him on hard would have a better chance.

Yeah, Rafa would likely not be winning Wimbly without the grass being slowed down, but to say Fed would have continued winning is baseless.

It's probably cost him a title or two by the end of his career though, but this 19GS bullshit is just that. Bullshit.

Im sorry but i think this is BS what your saying. When the grass was still fast Roger beat Sampras, the best exponent of the fast grass probably ever. Roger can serve and volley like a God. Forget about all that other players you mentioned, Roger would have owned them. Especially Roddick who cant volley to save his God damn life. Im sorry but you are so wrong its scary.

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 10:06 AM
Why is it a standalone issue? Henman was one of the best serve-volley players of the past twenty years. If he could not adjust, why do you think other players should be able to?

That is why ;)

I thought we established that Henman couldn't adjust to the new speed? :confused: And Goran certainly thinks that he couldn't.

These players aren't out there playing these tournaments anymore, are they? Hence, while they may have opinions on the matter, that doesn't make them authoritive. But as I don't think grass court speed is the crux of this argument, moving on...

I agree with you partially (the level of net play on tour has gone down). In my opinion there are three factors leading to a decline in serve-volley. The first is slower grass. The second is your factor (overall decline in player quality/grass predominance). The third is raquet technology.
It is too basic an analysis to say only one factor is a cause of the decline.

Seems like we've [shockingly] reached a form of agreement :rolls: I think the 3rd factor has helped cause the 2nd. And maybe even the 1st. Wasn't the grass slowed down exactly because the speed was unfit for the modern game? Basically, while slower grass may be a partial factor in stopping current players coming to the net on a few more occasions during a match (which I'd still debate because I still see players who do employ these tactics have success), fixing that issue doesn't having any lasting effect on the real problem, that few people these days can play grass court tennis to begin with. They don't need to, because the tour as it is, and the technology as it is, doesn't require it.

ORGASMATRON
02-10-2009, 10:12 AM
Nadal fans are certainly insecure types. Instead of simply accepting the fact that the grass has slowed down and the implications for Nadal's victory, we have some ridiculous excuses. Apparently the grass on which Flip served his way to the Wimby final in 2003 is the same generating the endless topspin rallies behind the baseline now. Apparently because Nadal repeated the efforts of the great Scott Draper by winning Queens - supposedly, so the excuse goes, the same grass as the good old days - his Wimbledon win is valid. And - my favourite - the wonderful break percentages theory, performed with such sound scientific method and verifiable inputs by that most reliable of persons - a Nadal fan.

Why can't Nadal fans be happy with the win as is? I mean, clearly most don't care about the history of the sport and the way Wimbledon should be played and all the minor stuff like that, so surely they can just enjoy the win? After all, Nadal still beat the world's best players in the world's biggest tournament, and by any measure that's still a great effort. Sure, it is not as impressive a victory as that of Agassi and Borg, who actually altered their playing style to do it, but it is still genuinely a pretty damn good performance.

Excellent post i thought. Why can someone like me who isnt even Rafa's greatest fan accept that what he achieved at Wimbledon is just awesome and shut my mouth? Now the Rafatards are making their man look bad by acting like he is now in the same class as Roger. Suddenly he is technically complete, he can play on all surfaces and he even looks good wile doing it :silly:

Bernard Black
02-10-2009, 11:13 AM
That is why ;)



These players aren't out there playing these tournaments anymore, are they? Hence, while they may have opinions on the matter, that doesn't make them authoritive. But as I don't think grass court speed is the crux of this argument, moving on...



Seems like we've [shockingly] reached a form of agreement :rolls: I think the 3rd factor has helped cause the 2nd. And maybe even the 1st. Wasn't the grass slowed down exactly because the speed was unfit for the modern game? Basically, while slower grass may be a partial factor in stopping current players coming to the net on a few more occasions during a match (which I'd still debate because I still see players who do employ these tactics have success), fixing that issue doesn't having any lasting effect on the real problem, that few people these days can play grass court tennis to begin with. They don't need to, because the tour as it is, and the technology as it is, doesn't require it.

You brush off the opinions of a former professional and champion of the tournament in question and expect us to take yours seriously :lol:

I agree there are no grass court specialists anymore, but what do you expect with the changes to the balls and surface? Grass tennis is all about being aggressive and dominating the net but when your volleys are sitting up and asking to be creamed there isn't much you can do but stay back. Nadal wouldn't have been able to make those passing shots in the 90s when volleys skidded away out of players' comfort zone. I know you're a massive fan of the guy but give up some ground here and admit he got an advantage. Great achievement, but tainted and will never be up with Borg even if he wins five consecutive Wimbledons.

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 11:14 AM
Wasn't the grass slowed down exactly because the speed was unfit for the modern game? Basically, while slower grass may be a partial factor in stopping current players coming to the net on a few more occasions during a match (which I'd still debate because I still see players who do employ these tactics have success), fixing that issue doesn't having any lasting effect on the real problem, that few people these days can play grass court tennis to begin with.

Disagree. It is like Goran said in the quote from him I posted: on a true grass court, you have to play at the net. There is little choice because the bounce of the ball at the back of the court is not true. Only players with exceptional hand-eye coordination and control, like an Agassi, are able to deal with this. Therefore players are forced to develop grass court tennis skills and those with the best ones will come out on top.

In other words, it is no suprise that few players these days can play great grass court tennis when there are no grass courts on tour.

Having faster grass will go some way towards developing diversity in tennis. However, it would be even healthier if we had more grass court tournaments, and some carpet tournaments, like we had in the 90s.

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 11:32 AM
You brush off the opinions of a former professional and champion of the tournament in question and expect us to take yours seriously :lol:

Brush off? I said they're not "authoritive", as in, they're not the last word on the issue as FWF implies.

I know you're a massive fan of the guy but give up some ground here and admit he got an advantage. Great achievement, but tainted and will never be up with Borg even if he wins five consecutive Wimbledons.

And you actually wonder why his fans get testy and defensive when people say things like that? :rolleyes:

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Disagree. It is like Goran said in the quote from him I posted: on a true grass court, you have to play at the net. There is little choice because the bounce of the ball at the back of the court is not true. Only players with exceptional hand-eye coordination and control, like an Agassi, are able to deal with this. Therefore players are forced to develop grass court tennis skills and those with the best ones will come out on top.

This is an exaggeration. Agassi as you say did indeed win Wimbledon playing his standard game thanks to superior hand eye coordination. Hewitt has always been a top grass player, back from the days before the grass apparently changed. It's possibly a difficult thing to accept, but Nadal plays his particular game so effectively that he's been able to transfer it to a surface where it should not logically work either, but it does. What everyone refuses to see is that Nadal is the exception here, not the rule. The surface change hasn't drastically impacted the success of any other players on this surface, so basic logic dictates that it is Nadal, not the surface, that has changed dramatically. The grass was for all intensive purposes the same speed it is now when he crashed out early in 05 despite coming off an impressive RG victory. Nadal has applied himself to improve, if the courts were faster he would have done the same thing. After all, he's done the same thing now on hardcourts, and I don't see any claims being made about those surfaces slowing down. :confused:

In other words, it is no suprise that few players these days can play great grass court tennis when there are no grass courts on tour.

Indeed, this is the real issue. You can't expect players to suddenly start implementing totally different strategies and talents during a few weeks of the year.

Having faster grass will go some way towards developing diversity in tennis. However, it would be even healthier if we had more grass court tournaments, and some carpet tournaments, like we had in the 90s.

We have faster grass courts than Wimbledon, Queens, and I don't see anyone implementing any different grass court strategies there :shrug: Djokovic wasn't suddenly rushing the net against Nadal in the final, was he?

oranges
02-10-2009, 11:58 AM
Brush off? I said they're not "authoritive", as in, they're not the last word on the issue as FWF implies.
Those guys still play on those courts on the senior tour, they are most certainly have the authority and expertise to have the last word.

And you actually wonder why his fans get testy and defensive when people say things like that? :rolleyes:

The part of his fans who feel the need to either argue that the grass has not changed at all or as you that it still favors net players, are the textbook example of defensiveness and denial, for whatever reason is beyond me. None of us here have the power to change the surface anyway, so your idol will be able to topspin his way through the draw until he retires, so relax. OTOH, you will not convince anyone that on slower, high-bouncing surface you can rush the net as effectively as before, but there's just no one who can do it well enough, so its pointless to bicker with the people over it in that respect too. And you wonder why people are irritated :rolleyes:

oranges
02-10-2009, 12:03 PM
Indeed, this is the real issue. You can't expect players to suddenly start implementing totally different strategies and talents during a few weeks of the year.

Why exactly, that was the essence of Wimbledon being special. Grass season has been short for years before the change of surface.Borg, among others, managed the change and different strategies just fine. It only becomes a problem if you're obsessed with one player dominating everywhere and that player is not willing or able to adjust to different enough surfaces, which is all that is the issue for you to begin with.

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 12:15 PM
or as you that it still favors net players, are the textbook example of defensiveness and denial

Defensiveness and denial like the people saying Nadal's titles count for less because the grass has changed, and that is the only reason he could possibly be holding a Wimbledon title? :haha:

None of us here have the power to change the surface anyway, so your idol will be able to topspin his way through the draw until he retires, so relax.

I can sure sleep easier now :yeah:

you will not convince anyone that on slower, high-bouncing surface you can rush the net as effectively as before, but there's just no one who can do it well enough

Of course I can't. Noone in this thread has any interest in being "convinced" of anything. If you believe me to be incorrect though in saying that there are no longer any absolute top level players beyond Federer capable of playing "true" grass court tennis, by all means, fire away.

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 12:21 PM
Why exactly, that was the essence of Wimbledon being special. Grass season has been short for years before the change of surface.Borg, among others, managed the change and different strategies just fine. It only becomes a problem if you're obsessed with one player dominating everywhere and that player is not willing or able to adjust to different enough surfaces, which is all that is the issue for you to begin with.

Ignoring the rambling idiocy of the second sentence... It's an interesting topic and one I alluded to earlier in this thread. I think a large part is that there is simply a lack of prevelance of grass courts nowadays in general, starting at club level. Certainly in Australia they're long since extinct. The technology has a lot to answer for aswell, aswell as changed training techniques. Grass court tennis just isn't practical in today's game :shrug: Young players aren't taught these skills, so they never develop them, and can't apply them when they turn professional. Has anyone watched WTA lately for instance? I don't think I saw a single impressive volley all Aus Open on the women's side.

oranges
02-10-2009, 12:33 PM
Defensiveness and denial like the people saying Nadal's titles count for less because the grass has changed, and that is the only reason he could possibly be holding a Wimbledon title? :haha:
Leave your arguments from tard wars at the door when you want to genuinely discuss something. Will never know whether he would have won or not, will we, and that's not the point anyway.

I can sure sleep easier now :yeah:
If you dozz off and accidentally hit zkllppwq on the keyboard, it will make as much sense as your posts. [/QUOTE]

Of course I can't. Noone in this thread has any interest in being "convinced" of anything. If you believe me to be incorrect though in saying that there are no longer any absolute top level players beyond Federer capable of playing "true" grass court tennis, by all means, fire away.
Just hopeless, care to comment on Tidus' explanation why net rushing is not as effective and present your arguments to the contrary? Some of the guys still playing have actually grew up playing S/V, but hey lets not give them a decent chance because a Rafa tard claims they can't do it and let's make sure that in 10 years there are none left. Brilliant. :worship:

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 01:34 PM
Leave your arguments from tard wars at the door when you want to genuinely discuss something. Will never know whether he would have won or not, will we, and that's not the point anyway.

I would surely love to, but as you continue to drag the fact that I am a fan of a certain player into the discussion, it's needlessly become a part of it :shrug: Not that I'm surprised, we can't have a discussion on this subject without it instantly relating to Nadal in some way, can we Ruanz? After all, we all know Nadal caused all these problems in the first place :retard:

Just hopeless, care to comment on Tidus' explanation why net rushing is not as effective and present your arguments to the contrary?

Net rushing on the current Wimbeldon grass may be more difficult nowadays due to a number of factors (which even TZ doesn't limit to court speed), but it's certainly achieveable, countless examples of players achieving recent succes at Wimbledon the "traditional" way have been put forward, all have been ignored, and on top of that:

We have faster grass courts than Wimbledon, Queens, and I don't see anyone implementing any different grass court strategies there :shrug:

Care to comment on that? The unfortunate fact of the matter is this discussion wouldn't be endlessly pedalled if it weren't for Nadal (where were these threads when he lost on the same grass in 05 :confused:) , who I have already attempted to point out is not the rule, but an exception:

This is an exaggeration. Agassi as you say did indeed win Wimbledon playing his standard game thanks to superior hand eye coordination. Hewitt has always been a top grass player, back from the days before the grass apparently changed. It's possibly a difficult thing to accept, but Nadal plays his particular game so effectively that he's been able to transfer it to a surface where it should not logically work either, but it does. What everyone refuses to see is that Nadal is the exception here, not the rule. The surface change hasn't drastically impacted the success of any other players on this surface, so basic logic dictates that it is Nadal, not the surface, that has changed dramatically. The grass was for all intensive purposes the same speed it is now when he crashed out early in 05 despite coming off an impressive RG victory. Nadal has applied himself to improve, if the courts were faster he would have done the same thing. After all, he's done the same thing now on hardcourts, and I don't see any claims being made about those surfaces slowing down.

No replies here either :rolleyes:

What is this discussion actually about? Proving the Wimbledon grass is slower now than it used to be? Whose denying that? Or claiming that the slowed grass is the reason players are playing the way they are on this surface, and having the various levels of success they are? Because if THAT'S the actual issue (and it damn well should be), then I've already stated my opinion on that matter, and that is that the slowing down of grass is a side effect of a larger transition in the modern game and one that won't be fixed by the speeding up of one tournament. Or if we're being brutally honest, perhaps your precious "tards" are simply looking for a confession of sorts from Nadal fans to satisfy their own feelings on the matter? Sorry to dissapoint. On that note, I think this discussion has gone in circles sufficiently.

:wavey:

Lopez
02-10-2009, 01:59 PM
The speed isn't the only factor, the bounce is way higher and truer nowadays. Surely players would play volleys more if the bounce were as irreregular as it used to be.

More variety equals more fun.

Jaz
02-10-2009, 02:10 PM
I'm more concerned with the homogonenisation of bounce and speed across all surface except USO. Infact it gives LESS variety over the season than ever before. Yes, the odd ball will stay low, this doesn't mean more fun, it means more "luck" and less skill variation.

The slowing and bouncy grass will mean Nadal will dominate for the next few years. It makes absolutely no logical sense to make Wimbly more similar to other surfaces. What's the point?

MalwareDie
02-10-2009, 02:13 PM
The speed has been reduced further since the changing of the composition of the grass. This is something Safin said to explain his semifinal appearance last year. He had said that the courts have been getting slower and slower throughout the years. And for anyone that doesn't know, that means that the speed is still decreasing.

MalwareDie
02-10-2009, 02:15 PM
It makes absolutely no logical sense to make Wimbly more similar to other surfaces. What's the point?

ATP wants somebody to win the Calendar Year Grand Slam because it hasn't been done in such a long time. In the future we will see the US Open become slower than Indian Wells.

TheBoiledEgg
02-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Todd Woodbridge has been keeping a ball from Wimbledon and each one is bigger than the one from the previous year :help:
gonna be playing with footballs soon.

MalwareDie
02-10-2009, 02:30 PM
Todd Woodbridge has been keeping a ball from Wimbledon and each one is bigger than the one from the previous year :help:
gonna be playing with footballs soon.

They should just make Wimbledon a clay court already instead of just slowing it down every year.

Bernard Black
02-10-2009, 03:31 PM
I would surely love to, but as you continue to drag the fact that I am a fan of a certain player into the discussion, it's needlessly become a part of it :shrug: Not that I'm surprised, we can't have a discussion on this subject without it instantly relating to Nadal in some way, can we Ruanz? After all, we all know Nadal caused all these problems in the first place :retard:

It was Hewitt's success on grass that started this debate actually and it became a hot topic when he faced Nalbandian in the Wimbledon final in 2002. In comparison, the 2003 final felt like a relief to many as it was a serve-volleyer vs all court player and was very entertaining to watch. Even Federer though through the years became more defensive on grass, and now we have one of the most defensive players on tour in Nadal winning on the surface. There's a pattern developing that's pretty plain for anyone to see.

Nadal will never have the chance to play on the faster grass so we can't say what he would have been capable of. I think it's fair to say however, and I'm sure the player himself would also admit this - it would have been much tougher for him to claim the title back then, and I think this is simply the point people are trying to make.

True grass court tennis is dead and has been for years now. Unless more weighting is placed on the grass court season itself, things will remain this way. The same argument can be said about clay too, very few specialists remain (meaning the significance Nadal's clay court titles are in question - just kidding ;)).

rafa_maniac
02-10-2009, 03:41 PM
It was Hewitt's success on grass that started this debate actually and it became a hot topic when he faced Nalbandian in the Wimbledon final in 2002. In comparison, the 2003 final felt like a relief to many as it was a serve-volleyer vs all court player and was very entertaining to watch. Even Federer though through the years became more defensive on grass, and now we have one of the most defensive players on tour in Nadal winning on the surface. There's a pattern developing that's pretty plain for anyone to see.

Nadal will never have the chance to play on the faster grass so we can't say what he would have been capable of. I think it's fair to say however, and I'm sure the player himself would also admit this - it would have been much tougher for him to claim the title back then, and I think this is simply the point people are trying to make.

True grass court tennis is dead and has been for years now. Unless more weighting is placed on the grass court season itself, things will remain this way. The same argument can be said about clay too, very few specialists remain (meaning the significance Nadal's clay court titles are in question - just kidding ;)).

Very refreshing, level headed post. Thankyou :cool: And you know what? I agree with everything :eek:

ORGASMATRON
02-10-2009, 07:35 PM
very few specialists remain (meaning the significance Nadal's clay court titles are in question - just kidding ;)).

Nadal is a specialist thats why he takes all these titles. If grass was still fast Federer would be the grass court specialist and no one would beat him there either and tennis would be in a healthy state.

Henry Kaspar
02-10-2009, 08:48 PM
Frankly this endless whining about the allegedly slow grass gets on my nerves. The surface was changed in 2001/02, hence Federer won all his titles on "slow" grass (which isn't so much slower but higher bouncing). And on this "slow" grass we just saw the best Wimbledon final since 1980. Way better than any serve-and-volley (or serve-and-next-serve) final of the past 25 years. Few things greater could have happened to the sport.

Obviously this is good for nothing unless someone needs to rationalize why he can't get over the fact that Federer lost a Wimbledon final. In this case the person has some serious growing up to do, and that's the end of the story.

Henry Kaspar
02-10-2009, 08:52 PM
Nadal is a specialist thats why he takes all these titles.

A specialist who holds slams on three different surfaces. Who won titles from Queens to Monaco. :rolleyes:

If grass was still fast Federer would be the grass court specialist and no one would beat him there either and tennis would be in a healthy state.

I don't think you realize how childish you sound. Like a toddler whose toys were taken away by a bigger kid on the playground. Poor thing.

habibko
02-10-2009, 09:10 PM
Nadal WAS a clay court specialist, but he has adjusted his game and movement well enough to other courts and therefore not a specialist anymore, but clay remains the best surface for his game though, a specialist is someone who only gets results on a certain court type.

Henry Kaspar
02-10-2009, 09:30 PM
Nadal WAS a clay court specialist, but he has adjusted his game and movement well enough to other courts and therefore not a specialist anymore, but clay remains the best surface for his game though, a specialist is someone who only gets results on a certain court type.

Like: fast grass (Queens), "slow" grass (Wimbledon), fast hard court (Melbourne), slow hard court (Dubai), fast clay (Roland Garros), slow clay (Monaco).

habibko
02-10-2009, 09:33 PM
Like: fast grass (Queens), "slow" grass (Wimbledon), fast hard court (Melbourne), slow hard court (Dubai), fast clay (Roland Garros), slow clay (Monaco).

only US Open remains (super fast hard court) and he will be an all-surfaces specialist :worship:

*bunny*
02-10-2009, 09:36 PM
Like: fast grass (Queens), "slow" grass (Wimbledon), fast hard court (Melbourne), slow hard court (Dubai), fast clay (Roland Garros), slow clay (Monaco).
RG and Monaco are both mid-fast clay. Rome is fast and Hamburg is slow.

habibko
02-10-2009, 09:38 PM
RG and Monaco are both mid-fast clay. Rome is fast and Hamburg is slow.

amazingly enough, people forget that Federer bagelled Nadal on the slow clay of Hamburg, so much for slower surfaces being a disadvantage for Fed.

MalwareDie
02-10-2009, 09:40 PM
Melbourne isn't fast.

moon language
02-10-2009, 10:06 PM
It won't be slow enough until the collective whining shatters Waterford crystal.

FairWeatherFan
02-10-2009, 10:57 PM
It's possibly a difficult thing to accept, but Nadal plays his particular game so effectively that he's been able to transfer it to a surface where it should not logically work either, but it does....Nadal has applied himself to improve, if the courts were faster he would have done the same thing.

How Nadal would do on a faster grass court is a matter for speculation. Personally, opposite to yourself, I do not think Nadal would have Wimbledon on the faster grass. But this sort of speculation is not useful for anything, really.
The only matter that can be said is that Nadal DID NOT win Wimbledon on a fast grass court. He also did not win Wimbledon by serve-volleying or playing a style that is traditionally associated with faster surfaces.

We have faster grass courts than Wimbledon, Queens, and I don't see anyone implementing any different grass court strategies there

Where is the evidence that Queens is significantly faster than Wimbledon?
In this article Rusedski describes it as a 'bit' faster than the slowed down Wimbledon grass: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/t...in-482074.html.

If you believe me to be incorrect though in saying that there are no longer any absolute top level players beyond Federer capable of playing "true" grass court tennis, by all means, fire away.

I already posted two direct quotes from the two of your supposed great grass court players of the past who admit that they could not play as they did on the new grass. You respond by effectively stating that you know better them. Needless to say, I find your argument unconvincing.

countless examples of players achieving recent succes at Wimbledon the "traditional" way have been put forward, all have been ignored, and on top of that...

Er, care to put a few more of these 'countless' examples out there? Ancic served-volleyed is the only one I remember you producing.

he slowing down of grass is a side effect of a larger transition in the modern game and one that won't be fixed by the speeding up of one tournament.

Probably. However, speeding up the Wimbledon grass is still an absolutely necessary step in producing more all-court tennis in the sport. How any one can conceive to argue that this is not correct, I don't know.

And on this "slow" grass we just saw the best Wimbledon final since 1980. Way better than any serve-and-volley (or serve-and-next-serve) final of the past 25 years. Few things greater could have happened to the sport.

On the contrary, the 2008 Wimbledon final was one of the worst in the history of the sport.
The 2003 final was the last great Wimbledon final.

MalwareDie
02-10-2009, 11:08 PM
The only matter that can be said is that Nadal DID NOT win Wimbledon on a fast grass court. He also did not win Wimbledon by serve-volleying or playing a style that is traditionally associated with faster surfaces.

Agreed.

Er, care to put a few more of these 'countless' examples out there? Ancic served-volleyed is the only one I remember you producing.

:yeah:

Probably. However, speeding up the Wimbledon grass is still an absolutely necessary step in producing more all-court tennis in the sport. How any one can conceive to argue that this is not correct, I don't know.

You make too much sense.

On the contrary, the 2008 Wimbledon final was one of the worst in the history of the sport.


The future finals will be even worse. As Wimbledon's gameplay is still being altered by the larger and larger balls that bounce higher and higher every year.

ORGASMATRON
02-11-2009, 09:25 AM
A specialist who holds slams on three different surfaces. Who won titles from Queens to Monaco. :rolleyes:



I don't think you realize how childish you sound. Like a toddler whose toys were taken away by a bigger kid on the playground. Poor thing.

Im not looking for excuses, Roger will break Pete's record regardless. Im just being logical here and it would do you good if you can try to use those few brain cells which you still have left. If caly courts result in long boring rallies from the base line then the points on grass should be short. Its just plain common sense, on clay and grass you should have the two extremes of the game while on hard you have everything inbetween. But dumbasses like you want tennis to be same everywhere so that the sport can die. Its already basically dead after a clay court specialist won Wimbledon and now the Australian Open.

MalwareDie
02-11-2009, 04:49 PM
But dumbasses like you want tennis to be same everywhere so that the sport can die. Its already basically dead after a clay court specialist won Wimbledon and now the Australian Open.

Tennis is definitely dead already. Mugboar would have been labelled a clay court specialist in any other era than this shitty era where there is nearly no variety amongst courts. Most courts have been slowed down except the clay courts. There is no such thing as a fast grass court anymore, carpet surfaces are gone, and I think clay is a little faster. The courts these days favor one dimensional baseliners like Mugboar.

Jōris
02-11-2009, 04:55 PM
Frankly this endless whining about the allegedly slow grass gets on my nerves. The surface was changed in 2001/02, hence Federer won all his titles on "slow" grass (which isn't so much slower but higher bouncing). And on this "slow" grass we just saw the best Wimbledon final since 1980. Way better than any serve-and-volley (or serve-and-next-serve) final of the past 25 years. Few things greater could have happened to the sport.

Obviously this is good for nothing unless someone needs to rationalize why he can't get over the fact that Federer lost a Wimbledon final. In this case the person has some serious growing up to do, and that's the end of the story.

This post wins.

GlennMirnyi
02-11-2009, 05:10 PM
Frankly this endless whining about the allegedly slow grass gets on my nerves. The surface was changed in 2001/02, hence Federer won all his titles on "slow" grass (which isn't so much slower but higher bouncing). And on this "slow" grass we just saw the best Wimbledon final since 1980. Way better than any serve-and-volley (or serve-and-next-serve) final of the past 25 years. Few things greater could have happened to the sport.

Obviously this is good for nothing unless someone needs to rationalize why he can't get over the fact that Federer lost a Wimbledon final. In this case the person has some serious growing up to do, and that's the end of the story.

That's what YOU think, and to be honest, it's such a shit opinion.

1 - stop making this a Federer-Nadull bitching issue.
2 - it was the worst Wimbledon final since 2007, and then since 2006. All finals were shit and not grass tennis.
3 - S&V >>>>>>>>>>>> morons hitting topspin.

Action Jackson
02-11-2009, 05:16 PM
Melbourne is medium.

Henry Kaspar
02-11-2009, 09:01 PM
On the contrary, the 2008 Wimbledon final was one of the worst in the history of the sport.
The 2003 final was the last great Wimbledon final.

Nice and gentle as I am I assume in your favor that you mean the ladies' final, Serena vs. Venus in 3, and notify you that you unfortunately landed in the wrong forum (and are wrong anyway, as the 2005 final was as good).

As you surely did not want to imply that a once-in-a-lifetime tennis genius like Federer needed a "great final" to defeat vs. Mark "I don't know what a backhand is" Phillipoussis. :angel:

Primus
02-11-2009, 09:09 PM
Hahah..Seinfeld is nothing compared to some fed's fans comments here :):) Weak, weak people...you are lucky that stupidity isn't painfull.

HattonWBA
02-11-2009, 10:05 PM
surely not

GlennMirnyi
02-12-2009, 02:51 AM
Hahah..Seinfeld is nothing compared to some fed's fans comments here :):) Weak, weak people...you are lucky that stupidity isn't painfull.

Exactly. If stupidity were painFUL, then you'd be suffering from major pain now. :)

FairWeatherFan
02-12-2009, 03:10 AM
Nice and gentle as I am I assume in your favor that you mean the ladies' final, Serena vs. Venus in 3, and notify you that you unfortunately landed in the wrong forum (and are wrong anyway, as the 2005 final was as good).

As you surely did not want to imply that a once-in-a-lifetime tennis genius like Federer needed a "great final" to defeat vs. Mark "I don't know what a backhand is" Phillipoussis.

My friend, please do not insult my taste by suggesting that I pay any attention to women's tennis at all. And I would rather watch Phillippoussis'serve-volley game than any amount of Federer-Nadal snorefests.

dylan24
02-12-2009, 04:21 AM
they need to speed that grass up.

if grass is slow like last year, rafa beats roger in final again and roger probably kills himself or retires from tennis.

if grass is fast, roger wins and all will be right in the tennis world

littleash
02-12-2009, 06:17 AM
AO new surface is so slow too :sad:

2003
02-12-2009, 07:53 AM
This reminds me a lot of the never dying debates in Martial Arts about styles vs styles etc.

Serve and volley tennis is the Karate of sport. It looks pretty in the dojo but it's not adaptable.

Nadal has just found the most effective brand of tennis for the game at the moment.

It's like grappling in fighting. It's more boring than stand up but serve and volley is like being a fighter with no ground game - when it goes to the ground your in shitters creak.

Topspin = future of tennis :(

Primus
02-12-2009, 08:46 AM
Exactly. If stupidity were painFUL, then you'd be suffering from major pain now. :)

Maybe, but on the other hand, you wouldn't survive.

To sum this topic up:
-If Federer wins, grass, hardcourt,clay is fast enough if not, we get stupid threads like that :)

delpiero7
02-12-2009, 09:52 AM
Is this a thread about the Wimbledon grass (as the title implies) or a Nadal centred bitchfest?

:haha: at the comment that all would be right with tennis if BabyFed kept on winning Wimbledon. Suck his knob a bit more why don't you?

I agree that the progressive homogenization of the whole tour is beyond retarded. Every tennis fan enjoys and appreciates different aspects of the game. Clearly a large number on here are particularly fond of serve and volley tennis.

It is ridiculous that given how the grass season is so short in the first place, they are trying to blend it in with the rest of the surfaces. Given that there are only really 3 top level grass tournaments (IMO) 2 of which are played in the same week, the administators should be pushing for the more 'traditional' grass to come back. If fans/players don't like it, the grass season is over in 4 weeks and then it's back to clay/hard.

If the admins are so keen to get every surface the same, they should just tear up every court and switch it to decoturf - job done.

PS, no need to insult Nadal in a thread that isn't about him. :wavey:

ORGASMATRON
02-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Maybe, but on the other hand, you wouldn't survive.

To sum this topic up:
-If Federer wins, grass, hardcourt,clay is fast enough if not, we get stupid threads like that :)

Do you believe me now that people think you are a :retard: ?

Primus
02-12-2009, 10:47 AM
Do you believe me now that people think you are a :retard: ?
If by "people" you mean you and this other fedtrad..then yes, you are right. For once...

Matt01
02-12-2009, 10:51 AM
Do you believe me now that people think you are a :retard: ?


If I was a troll I wouldn't call other people retards.


AO new surface is so slow too :sad:

It's medium not slow. And what's funny is that the TV commentators said that the new AO surface takes slicing very well but not top spin. And despite that Nadal again kicked Roger's arrogant ass :lol:

ORGASMATRON
02-12-2009, 11:01 AM
If by "people" you mean you and this other fedtrad..then yes, you are right. For once...

Are you talking about Glen? If so you are once again displaying your talents at being a :retard: because he's certainly not a Fedtard.

ORGASMATRON
02-12-2009, 11:02 AM
If I was a troll I wouldn't call other people retards.




It's medium not slow. And what's funny is that the TV commentators said that the new AO surface takes slicing very well but not top spin. And despite that Nadal again kicked Roger's arrogant ass :lol:

Im not even bothering with you, you are beyond hope of ever recovering from your rat bastard ways.

Bernard Black
02-12-2009, 11:28 AM
It's medium not slow. And what's funny is that the TV commentators said that the new AO surface takes slicing very well but not top spin. And despite that Nadal again kicked Roger's arrogant ass :lol:

Did you watch the match? Federer doesn't utilise slice against Nadal, there's several whole threads on the issue if you want to hunt them down.

Matt01
02-12-2009, 11:42 AM
Did you watch the match? Federer doesn't utilise slice against Nadal, there's several whole threads on the issue if you want to hunt them down.


Federer uses more slice than Nadal does.
Are you also trying to tell me that Nadal doesn't use top spin against Federer?

Matt01
02-12-2009, 11:43 AM
Im not even bothering with you, you are beyond hope of ever recovering from your rat bastard ways.


:crying2:

Bernard Black
02-12-2009, 12:42 PM
Federer uses more slice than Nadal does.
Are you also trying to tell me that Nadal doesn't use top spin against Federer?

Your first point is debatable. I didn't mention anything to provoke your second point?

Let's stay on topic anyway.

ORGASMATRON
02-12-2009, 01:17 PM
:crying2:

Yes cry bitch :drool:

GlennMirnyi
02-12-2009, 02:46 PM
Maybe, but on the other hand, you wouldn't survive.

To sum this topic up:
-If Federer wins, grass, hardcourt,clay is fast enough if not, we get stupid threads like that :)

To sum it up:

- If you post, any topic becomes shit and irrelevant. :)

Grab your napkin, mate - you just got served. :)

JimmyV
02-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Well they could let the grass grow and turn center our into a cornfield. Or a strawberry field.

This said, as long as I do not see hard evidence for the "Wimbledon became slower" theory, only strong opinions that are backed up with nothing, I reserve my judgement. The stats I have seen -- notably on break percentages at great tournaments over the years, assembled by a brilliant poster here -- suggest nothing of the sort.

Do you need hard evidence to prove to you the sky is blue? Just watch a frigging match on youtube, if you can't deduce for yourself that it's clearly and without question slower than you have some serious perception issues.

Or just find the interview with Federer where he clearly states the grass is slower and it is why he no longer serve volleys at Wimbledon. That is, if you assume he knows more than tennis about you, being a 13 time slam champion and all.

Henry Kaspar
02-12-2009, 03:30 PM
To sum this topic up:
-If Federer wins, grass, hardcourt,clay is fast enough if not, we get stupid threads like that :)

An excellent and comprehensive summary. :worship:

predatore2005
02-12-2009, 03:37 PM
it`s hard when Rafa is at 100%!!!!! :worship:

Action Jackson
02-12-2009, 03:42 PM
Henry Kaspar, the bean counter. Safin said it was slower and that helped him or is he bullshitting as well.

Are the people that construct the courts bullshitting as well changing the composite of the grass, which of course changes the way it plays.

MalwareDie
02-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Henry Kaspar, the bean counter. Safin said it was slower and that helped him or is he bullshitting as well.

Are the people that construct the courts bullshitting as well changing the composite of the grass, which of course changes the way it plays.

Henry Kaspar is a blind Nadulltard who can't face reality. There are so many players who confirm that the courts have been slowed down but he goes on with his inherently flawed statistics.

Henry Kaspar
02-12-2009, 04:57 PM
Do you need hard evidence to prove to you the sky is blue?

I do prefer indeed hard evidence over wishi-washi suspicions.

Just watch a frigging match on youtube, if you can't deduce for yourself that it's clearly and without question slower than you have some serious perception issues.

I see that there is less serve-and-volley. But this does not need relate to court speed. There was a (significantly better) discussion on the topic some time ago, wiht people accepting as the starting point that breaks of serve had not become more frequent in Wimbledon than in prevoius years, and are still far less frequent as in the main clay or hard court tournament. And yet there is the perception of a slower game.

Here are possibilities:

-- a straighter surface with less wild bounces, hence the serve becomesmore predictable for the returner
-- a higher bounce
-- racket technology that allows reasonably accurate returns even out of strechted positions (using your ankles rather than your shoulder, tennis becomes more like squash)
-- a new generation of players that was trained to play like Agassi, hence can't volley but returns excellently.

All these factors would make it far more risky to storm to the net after a first serve, while still giving the serving player enough of an advantage to normally win the point. He just doesn't play the killer ball from the net anymore but from the baseline or in half-field. At the same time, with no players rushing to the net, the game seems slower.

Tsongation
02-12-2009, 07:41 PM
I knew once I read the original post that this thread would turn dumb.

abraxas21
06-06-2011, 07:22 PM
wimbledon is slower than ass

LawrenceOfTennis
06-06-2011, 07:54 PM
They will be playing in a 20 cm tall grass and looking for the ball all the time next year.

Topspin Forehand
06-06-2011, 07:56 PM
Who are these idiots who keep saying Wimbledon is slow? Wimbledon is the fastest slam. If anything, the faster speed helps Nadal's serve.

abraxas21
06-06-2011, 09:56 PM
if wimby is indeed the fastest slam around, im confident in the 'fact' that nadal will add another 20 miles per hour to his serve by adjusting his grip once again. it's amazing how a pro player can hit the ball faster overnight... all due to a simple grip change. nadal, the spartan, must be indeed beyond human.

Super Djoker
06-07-2011, 12:08 AM
It is still the fastest Slam By Far! Don,t buy into all this crap about Wimbledon being slow , it,s total Garbage! YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE COURTS BEING TOO FAST, I just know it!

Topspindoctor
06-07-2011, 12:18 AM
I see the excuses are already in place in case Nadal wins Wimby this year :zzz:

Sham Kay
06-07-2011, 12:47 AM
I see the excuses are already in place in case Nadal wins Wimby this year :zzz:
I actually have to agree with you for once. Though of course, Rafa won't win this time, so it won't become an issue. Fwaahaaha. No really he won't, I saw it all in a premonition, someone with far pastier skin wins on the ultra fast Grass.

Johnny Groove
06-07-2011, 12:49 AM
GM threads, can they get any whinier?

djb84xi
06-07-2011, 12:57 AM
I actually have to agree with you for once. Though of course, Rafa won't win this time, so it won't become an issue. Fwaahaaha. No really he won't, I saw it all in a premonition, someone with far pastier skin wins on the ultra fast Grass.

I know you're referring to Murray winning this and you can keep dreaming because that ain't ever gonna happen. He can't even mentally hold himself together in big matches. What makes you think Wimbledon will be any different? Doesn't matter how fast or how slow the grass at Wimby is, Murray AIN'T winning it. Feel better now?

danton
06-26-2011, 12:35 AM
Apologies if there's another thread, I went back 6 pages but couldn't see anything.

This has been bugging me, the grass is so slow and it seems to me that many matches are having endless rallies that aren't high quality and it takes ages get through a set. It seems slower than RG, the ball sits up to be hit but players are struggling to hit through and put the ball away so we're seeing endless rallies with players slicing the ball.

The Croatian suggested the Wimbledon grass is playing slower than it used to and that this does not help Murray.

"His second serve is definitely weak, I stepped on it many times," explained Ljubicic. "It's by far the slowest court in the world so there are chances to step in and really hit the returns. This is what Wimbledon has become.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/13914441.stm

RG asks their players how quick do you want it, Wimby just continually slows it down to the detriment of Tim and now Andy. :confused:

guga2120
06-26-2011, 12:42 AM
Same court it has been for years, and the speed had nothing to do with Henman losing. There is no question speeding it up would help Andy, though. What Roland garros has done, I don't really know who that was for.

viruzzz
06-26-2011, 12:47 AM
Rafito is happy.

Pirata.
06-26-2011, 12:48 AM
Didn't Rafa say in that stupid interview that the grass is the same speed it has been for decades?

:lol:

Sophocles
06-26-2011, 12:49 AM
He must have meant slowest grass court in the world. Surely.

Beforehand
06-26-2011, 12:49 AM
:lol: Anyone who takes this as more than Ljubicic having sour grapes is being a serious troll. Give me a fucking break, the slowest court in the world.

EDIT: A number of people have said it's playing quicker than last year, because of the weather, actually.

Johnny Groove
06-26-2011, 12:50 AM
Change the tennis balls.

rhinooooo
06-26-2011, 12:50 AM
Yeah, the centre court looks bad. Weather conditions play a part though. Add in the grass wearing down, and also the balls looking heavy. Thought the pace of the court was ridiculous in the djoko/baggy match earlier today.

KoOlMaNsEaN
06-26-2011, 01:00 AM
NBC said Rafael said that he loves playing Wimbledon in the second week because it plays like a clay court

:lol:

s.m.
06-26-2011, 01:12 AM
:lol: Anyone who takes this as more than Ljubicic having sour grapes is being a serious troll. Give me a fucking break, the slowest court in the world.

EDIT: A number of people have said it's playing quicker than last year, because of the weather, actually.

ljubo is one of the guys who is known for his maturtity, one of the reason he s been prominent in player assotiation with the atp board, he s passed the bitter part of the game
he s older now ( even though he always looked physically old :p ), a father, more mature
he speaks what he feels and thinks, and usually he speaks right
i find his comment rather analitical and relevant, he just seems good in that way
he´s maybe wrong of course, but i dont see this as a comment of a sore loser

Pirata.
06-26-2011, 01:13 AM
NBC said Rafael said that he loves playing Wimbledon in the second week because it plays like a clay court

:lol:

:lol:

moon language
06-26-2011, 01:28 AM
Mmmmmm hyperbole.

rubbERR
06-26-2011, 01:40 AM
Ljubicic crying after he lost, what a surprise, not first and not last time :lol:

philosophicalarf
06-26-2011, 01:50 AM
He played under the roof at night, that's always dog slow. Remember Wawrinka-Murray?

Doubt he's complaining btw, slower clearly helps him on grass.

tests
06-26-2011, 02:16 AM
wimby is quite slow.. but slowest in the world? not sure

Nasi
06-26-2011, 02:43 AM
He played under the roof at night, that's always dog slow. Remember Wawrinka-Murray?

Doubt he's complaining btw, slower clearly helps him on grass.

Yeah, I don't understand at all why people are framing this as a complaint. He's very clear in saying that the conditions helped him.

abraxas21
06-26-2011, 02:54 AM
he's no the first one to complain about this and most likely wont be the last

wimbledon is a joke these days. they have slowed down everything.

emotion
06-26-2011, 03:24 AM
Those claiming sour grapes (by the way, look up what that expression means, it's not that), he said it helped him

SheepleBuster
06-26-2011, 03:46 AM
I still want Adam Helfant to be tried for crime against tennis. For turning everything to clay. Even if it is not his fault, someone has to pay for it. And I feel this baseball/softball imposter of an ATP chief needs to pay. His sentence should be like blue balls by tennis balls

yesh222
06-26-2011, 04:01 AM
Hopefully they will speed it back up again when more players start coming to net again and move away from the baselining that tennis has become. (Not saying that the modern game is worse or better than it used to be. I just would like to see the bigger variation between the different surfaces that there used to be.)

Beforehand
06-26-2011, 04:03 AM
Those claiming sour grapes (by the way, look up what that expression means, it's not that), he said it helped him

He said it hurt Murray, yes, but considering he lost the match and then had the nerve to say "It's now the slowest court in the world! (which wouldn't be good for him at all)" doesn't suggest he's particularly pleased, does it?

EDIT: In fact, he's suggested only one part it helped. But its' not like anyone is seriously going to argue that Ljubicic was thrilled about the prospect of trying to hit through Murray on the "slowest court in the world!".

Myrre
06-26-2011, 09:18 AM
I do prefer indeed hard evidence over wishi-washi suspicions.



I see that there is less serve-and-volley. But this does not need relate to court speed. There was a (significantly better) discussion on the topic some time ago, wiht people accepting as the starting point that breaks of serve had not become more frequent in Wimbledon than in prevoius years, and are still far less frequent as in the main clay or hard court tournament. And yet there is the perception of a slower game.

Here are possibilities:

-- a straighter surface with less wild bounces, hence the serve becomesmore predictable for the returner
-- a higher bounce
-- racket technology that allows reasonably accurate returns even out of strechted positions (using your ankles rather than your shoulder, tennis becomes more like squash)
-- a new generation of players that was trained to play like Agassi, hence can't volley but returns excellently.

All these factors would make it far more risky to storm to the net after a first serve, while still giving the serving player enough of an advantage to normally win the point. He just doesn't play the killer ball from the net anymore but from the baseline or in half-field. At the same time, with no players rushing to the net, the game seems slower.

Here's what Sampras says in his book "A champion's mind" after the Sampras - Ivanisevic final in '94. "The match marked the high point in the growing debate about grass-court tennis. A growing chorus of critics charged that Wimbledon tennis had degenerated into a serving contest between two giants who almost couldn't lose serve, but couldn't break each other, either". He goes on to say "In the wake of our 1994 match, Wimbledon went to softer, slower balls and they began to develop a new grass mixture that ultimately slowed down the courts and made grass-court play more rally-friendly". Now who you gonna believe? Henry Kaspar or Pete Sampras?

Beforehand
06-26-2011, 12:17 PM
Did Pete Sampras really disagree with anything in that post? I"m confused.

philosophicalarf
06-26-2011, 12:29 PM
Here's what Sampras says in his book "A champion's mind" after the Sampras - Ivanisevic final in '94. "The match marked the high point in the growing debate about grass-court tennis. A growing chorus of critics charged that Wimbledon tennis had degenerated into a serving contest between two giants who almost couldn't lose serve, but couldn't break each other, either". He goes on to say "In the wake of our 1994 match, Wimbledon went to softer, slower balls and they began to develop a new grass mixture that ultimately slowed down the courts and made grass-court play more rally-friendly". Now who you gonna believe? Henry Kaspar or Pete Sampras?


Wimbledon themselves have said as much, they changed the ball requirements they demand of Slazenger for the 95 event. They also changed the grass cut height in 95, although I don't know if that's related (hasn't changed since, although the grass seeding mixture changed in 01).


I think a lot of the slowing is down to the need to make the courts cope with modern shoes and play styles. They changed the grass in 2001 for that reason, then had to roll it harder (thus the higher bounce). However, harder-wearing grass > more friction > the balls fluff up more.

The balls themselves are not that heavy out of the can - they're actually fractionally lighter than the US Open balls. However, all you hear constantly from the players is heavyheavyheavyheavyheavyheavy, "heaviest balls I've ever played with", "like serving rocks", etc etc. They must be fluffing up massively and picking up a ton of moisture.

MacTheKnife
06-26-2011, 12:33 PM
Anybody with a brain knows the grass was slowed down. Anyone arguing against that simply has some other agenda. There are a lot of factors involved in controlling surface speed(s). The latest in vogue is varying the balls.

peribsen
06-26-2011, 12:38 PM
Didn't Rafa say in that stupid interview that the grass is the same speed it has been for decades?

:lol:

Answer: No, he didn't. He said he hadn't noticed any change since the first time he played here (2003). He added that he obviously couldn't know about how it was before that.

You keep trying to make fun of him, and you keep failing.:wavey:

Tennis-Life
06-26-2011, 12:42 PM
no it can't, slower only water surface in these days

http://s15.radikal.ru/i189/1106/38/ce2b8bbd48a4.jpg

philosophicalarf
06-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Wimbledon themselves say the grass hasn't changed since 2001. Same grass seeding, same cut height, same bounce/speed targets.

It's the balls.

Myrre
06-26-2011, 01:22 PM
Did Pete Sampras really disagree with anything in that post? I"m confused.

Kaspar says "... as long as I do not see hard evidence for the "Wimbledon became slower" theory, only strong opinions that are backed up with nothing, I reserve my judgement. The stats I have seen -- notably on break percentages at great tournaments over the years, assembled by a brilliant poster here -- suggest nothing of the sort".

Still confused?

MaxPower
06-26-2011, 01:41 PM
Wimbledon themselves say the grass hasn't changed since 2001. Same grass seeding, same cut height, same bounce/speed targets.

It's the balls.

they do????? I have heard they are from a while back using a new type of grass that is more robust for starters. But who cares really. The ball isn't that different. Then logically it would bounce like crazy on certain clay and hardcourts. Or maybe Wimbledon uses a special magical ball. I mean the proof is all over that the surface has changed. Like the classic:

soJ_FVnijAw

philosophicalarf
06-26-2011, 04:02 PM
they do????? I have heard they are from a while back using a new type of grass that is more robust for starters.

Yes, in 2001.

Wimbledon ball is a grass ball, it's only used on ..... grass. All the other grass events but Newport use it.

That youtube clip is just absolutely amateurish. It's rolled out so often, constantly derided, then comes back again.

Once again: a sample size of one. Different temperatures, humidities, sunshine. New balls or old balls? Different trajectory, probably different spin. And on, and on, and on, and on.

safin-rules-no.1
06-26-2011, 04:03 PM
Slow grass makes me sad :sad:

Britain's no.2
06-26-2011, 05:13 PM
i can see why they have done this, to the great majority less enthusiastic tennis fans at wimbledon, it is THE only tennis tournament of the year, apart from maybe that thing that happens at the O2 dome in November. so longer rallies generally make for a more entertaining watch. Though for true fans this just means an extension of the type of matches we have seen in the clay-court swing. I really hope they speed it up soon. seeing as more people are moaning, perhaps what we need is for someone like almagro to make the final :rolleyes:

Start da Game
06-26-2011, 05:33 PM
grass is still grass no matter how you cut it......look no further than the ongoing wimbledon......look at the serve statistics and look how low the properly executed slices are keeping......also look how well an all serve journeyman could still trouble the world no.1 with booming serves......look how easily llodra moved into the 4th round......

there's no denying that grass has been slowed down since 2001 but big servers and good finishers at the net are still benefiting as much as ever......

Hensafmurrafter
06-26-2011, 05:58 PM
grass is still grass no matter how you cut it......look no further than the ongoing wimbledon......look at the serve statistics and look how low the properly executed slices are keeping......also look how well an all serve journeyman could still trouble the world no.1 with booming serves......look how easily llodra moved into the 4th round......

there's no denying that grass has been slowed down since 2001 but big servers and good finishers at the net are still benefiting as much as ever......

This is a surprisingly good attempt at a well-balanced response and for that I am proud of you. But you're wrong. If serve and volleyers were benefiting as much as ever they would be winning the tournament consistently.

Duncan
06-26-2011, 06:14 PM
One day they will make it even slower.


It's not what it was that's for sure!

wally1
06-26-2011, 06:34 PM
[/B]

This is a surprisingly good attempt at a well-balanced response and for that I am proud of you. But you're wrong. If serve and volleyers were benefiting as much as ever they would be winning the tournament consistently.Hardly, as there's almost no S&V players left anymore. And no-one is going to completely change their style of playing for two weeks in a year. Interestingly, I just saw an interview with Federer on the tennis channel, where he says the courts haven't changed much since he first went to Wimbledon in 1999.

Topspin Forehand
06-26-2011, 06:43 PM
[/B]

This is a surprisingly good attempt at a well-balanced response and for that I am proud of you. But you're wrong. If serve and volleyers were benefiting as much as ever they would be winning the tournament consistently.
lol There aren't any high quality serve and volleyers now. Baseline game has gotten so good.

Clay Death
06-26-2011, 07:13 PM
grass is still grass no matter how you cut it......look no further than the ongoing wimbledon......look at the serve statistics and look how low the properly executed slices are keeping......also look how well an all serve journeyman could still trouble the world no.1 with booming serves......look how easily llodra moved into the 4th round......

there's no denying that grass has been slowed down since 2001 but big servers and good finishers at the net are still benefiting as much as ever......



excellent post.


its the players who are making it seem slower.

the fact of the matter is that you just cant rush the net blindly these days. top players can blast winners from anywhere with a blink of an eye.

reason to rush the net: you know you are going to get killed if caught in a rally. in other words, if your game is not complete then you will be forced to take more risks.

KaiserT
06-26-2011, 09:59 PM
its the players who are making it seem slower.




So the surface isn't actually slower then, right? :rolleyes: