Rome Compared to Monte-Carlo Surface [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rome Compared to Monte-Carlo Surface

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 03:08 AM
I notice a big difference in the speed between these 2 courts. Monte-Carlo is the ideal surface for Nadal. He really can't be blown off the court in Monte-Carlo. The courts are too slow but still pretty high bouncing. Rome to me seems like a high bouncing hardcourt that is slippery. If you can deal with the high bouncing and slipperiness and you hit flat and hard like the many players Nadal struggles with on hardcourts, you got a shot against Nadal. That is what Gulbis was able to do for one set. Interesting that Fed always seems to struggle at Rome. You would think Fed could be more effective here with his serve and all-court game. History shows that this is probably the tournament least suitable to him. He seems to prefer Monte-Carlo though like Nadal. I've heard that Rome is clay put on top of asphalt while Monte-Carlo is clay on top of a softer surface. Anyways thought I would share my knowledge on the differences between these 2 tournaments and if anyone wants to share more about the differences, that would be great.

kobulingam
05-02-2010, 04:51 AM
Fed prefers the lower bouncing clay courts.

CyBorg
05-02-2010, 06:02 AM
Excellent observations. It was amazing watching Gulbis smack all of those serves and just drive his groundstrokes from angle to angle with power. If he had a bit more maturity and consistency he would have won.

But at the French Open it'll be more like Monte Carlo. The opponent's groundies, no matter how flat, will stay up and Nadal will get to every ball. And you can't outgrind the man.

Unless he's hurt.

Kolya
05-02-2010, 09:01 AM
Well before beating Nadal in Hamburg and Madrid when Nadal was clearly fatigued. Federer was closest to win in Rome in the 5 set final.

yesyesok
05-02-2010, 01:28 PM
He wasn't fatigued in Hamburg.


And Soda hit him off the French court last year, and even if Nadal was injured it didn't show.

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 05:02 PM
He wasn't fatigued in Hamburg.


And Soda hit him off the French court last year, and even if Nadal was injured it didn't show.
Um yes he was tired in Hamburg in both finals to Federer and found a way to win the second one. What a warrior. And Nadal's movement was like his legs were in cement. Not usual the way he played and Soderling made him pay for it.

lurker
05-02-2010, 05:58 PM
Monte Carlo is higher bouncing, court is better for movement. Nadal looked like he got stuck moving a couple of times here in Rome, and the forehand cannot penetrate due to the lower bounce. He has trouble getting to control the baseline from his forehand like he can in Monte Carlo. The rainy gloomy conditions doesn't help his cause either.

And I don't agree with whomever said if Nadal was injured it didn't show in last year's French. He was moving like s*&^! all season, he even struggled in Monte Carlo last year.

kobulingam
05-02-2010, 06:01 PM
French Open used faster balls last year. It is faster than MC now.

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 06:09 PM
French Open used faster balls last year. It is faster than MC now.
Agreed. Some need to stop saying Monte-Carlo is similar to RG. RG is much faster now unless they went back to the old balls. Which I doubt.

M4RC
05-02-2010, 06:09 PM
Rome has less clay and it is much looser. I don't like the quality of the courts actually. In Barcelona, for example, they're much better prepared.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 07:05 PM
Um yes he was tired in Hamburg in both finals to Federer and found a way to win the second one. What a warrior. And Nadal's movement was like his legs were in cement. Not usual the way he played and Soderling made him pay for it.

Yeah, by taking a fake injury timeout in the 1st set when Fedmug was spanking him. What a warrior indeed (more like what a cheater).

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:13 PM
I don't get it when people say Rome is low-bouncing. The truth is, it is very high bouncing and the balls go through the air quicker than at MC or RG.

Also, Rome isn't necessarily slippery, it's actually a harder surface than MC or RG. It's easier for traction but harder to slide effectively.

Federer struggles at Rome in comparison to MC because his backhand is easier exposed, and he has less time to execute his shots, less time to come to the net behind his serve, things of that nature.

philosophicalarf
05-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Djokovic on Rome: "The ball bounces a lot higher than on other (clay) surfaces. The courts are really fast and the fact that they are slippery makes them even faster."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iq1p2ibFPxDEz5uW6KZ5YbXMXBiA


That was 2008, Rome was having one of its quicker years, but wasn't far different this year. 2009 was pretty slow and dead from the rain though.


If you want a low bouncing clay court, look at Barcelona.

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 07:41 PM
Fed prefers the lower bouncing clay courts.

That's why he won Hamburg multiple times.

ossie
05-02-2010, 08:31 PM
rome seems to be quicker with less bounce

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:38 PM
rome seems to be quicker with less bounce

It's higher bouncing than the others.

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 10:33 PM
It's higher bouncing than the others.
RG and Madrid are higher bouncing imo. Rome is about the same as Monte-Carlo with the height of the bounce. Maybe slightly higher due to the weather.

Action Jackson
05-02-2010, 10:37 PM
Rome has less clay and it is much looser. I don't like the quality of the courts actually. In Barcelona, for example, they're much better prepared.

RG the base is limestone, and Rome the base is cement that in addition to the less clay on the surface. Put this together with dry and warm weather. Then you have a high bouncing and slippery court, well considering if the day is dry and warm of course.

Action Jackson
05-02-2010, 10:39 PM
Rome is the fastest and highest bouncing of the main clay events.

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 10:44 PM
RG the base is limestone, and Rome the base is cement that in addition to the less clay on the surface. Put this together with dry and warm weather. Then you have a high bouncing and slippery court, well considering if the day is dry and warm of course.
The hardness of the surface has more to do with the horizontal speed. Hardcourts aren't as high bouncing as clay courts. And RG seems to not use much clay either. You can see the underground surface easily there. RG is like a trampoline effect type of surface.

Action Jackson
05-02-2010, 10:55 PM
The hardness of the surface has more to do with the horizontal speed. Hardcourts aren't as high bouncing as clay courts. And RG seems to not use much clay either. You can see the underground surface easily there. RG is like a trampoline effect type of surface.

It depends on how often they water the courts, which way they were swept. There are many factors into how they prepare a clay court and yes the fact what the base that they are laid on makes a significant difference in addition to regular climatic conditions.

Acyrilic is a lot different to crushed brick dust isn't it. One is an unnatural surface and the other one is a natural surface which needs time to settle and compact together.

Courts play very differently at RG.

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 03:54 AM
RG and Madrid are higher bouncing imo. Rome is about the same as Monte-Carlo with the height of the bounce. Maybe slightly higher due to the weather.

Rome is definitely the highest bouncing.

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 03:59 AM
I guess looking back now that Rome is for sure slippery, but it seems harder (obviously because of how the court is made) than the other surfaces, like it is much easier to get your feet caught and harder to slide effectively. That's what I personally see in terms of players movement.