MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESULTS Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



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

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

Password:


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

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

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



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
03-06-2012 02:07 PM
Slice Winner
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

And if Karlovic would win on that court, well surely that's what he deserves, since serve is his weapon.
He'll barely win matches on tour level clay tournies, so that's the whole point of having different surfaces.
03-06-2012 02:02 PM
Slice Winner
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by romismak View Post
It´s tragedy to watch baseline tennis on fast grass with bad bounces. I would prefer Llodra-Stepanek there, or Tsonga-Federer from top guys. That match with Tomic wasn´t nothing great to watch, because they both slice a lot and bounce was bad and low, so if you want to play rallies with slices all the time is boring.
I thought it was a great match actually.
Really showed off how brilliant Federer's footwork is.

The point I was making was not that serve stats won't improve - of course they will. My point was that the tennis does not become serve dominated. Sure if Karlovic plays on it, he's got a better chance of winning, but for the rest, it's not like suddenly Rafa will become Ivanisevic.
03-06-2012 01:58 PM
romismak
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson View Post
That was a very much an old school grass court with poor bounces and the Hewitt vs. Wawrinka match was just baseline tennis on bad bouncing grass in addition to this.
It´s tragedy to watch baseline tennis on fast grass with bad bounces. I would prefer Llodra-Stepanek there, or Tsonga-Federer from top guys. That match with Tomic wasn´t nothing great to watch, because they both slice a lot and bounce was bad and low, so if you want to play rallies with slices all the time is boring.
03-06-2012 12:51 PM
Forehander
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

This is impressive
03-06-2012 12:49 PM
Action Jackson
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice Winner View Post
Those of you saying fast and low bouncing grass with today's serving would cause twice the aces that the 90s saw, please watch this.

[youtube]-MJZf3rxFLE[/youtube]

This was fast, old-school grass, which even had quite a few bad bounces. Returning was obviously much more difficult on it, yet they both seem to rally from the baseline for most of the match, and don't get aced twice per game.

Tomic isn't a world class server or returner, but Feds is, so Tomic surely shouldn't be able to get a racquet on his serve on fast, low-bouncing grass.
That was a very much an old school grass court with poor bounces and the Hewitt vs. Wawrinka match was just baseline tennis on bad bouncing grass in addition to this.
03-06-2012 12:48 PM
romismak
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice Winner View Post
Those of you saying fast and low bouncing grass with today's serving would cause twice the aces that the 90s saw, please watch this.

[youtube]-MJZf3rxFLE[/youtube]

This was fast, old-school grass, which even had quite a few bad bounces. Returning was obviously much more difficult on it, yet they both seem to rally from the baseline for most of the match, and don't get aced twice per game.

Tomic isn't a world class server or returner, but Feds is, so Tomic surely shouldn't be able to get a racquet on his serve on fast, low-bouncing grass.
I know what i wrote, of course 2x as many aces, unreturnable isn´t exactly the number- i was just comparing that if we had old grass it would be much more about serve. I watched that tie SWI-AUS, bad bounces, much faster surface as Wimbledon for sure and i remember statitstics much more aces and service winners than normally Fed has. Even Hewitt had much better serve statistics than he normally does. Yes they played from baseline, because neither of them is used to play SV from that tie, but i can bet my house, that if Llodra played that tie - FRAN-AUS for example that he would loved to play there. And Federer did have much more aces, unreturnable than he normally does. Tomic and Hewitt aren´t exactly great servers, Wawrinka the same.but all 3 of them had great serve statistics.
03-06-2012 12:36 PM
Slice Winner
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Those of you saying fast and low bouncing grass with today's serving would cause twice the aces that the 90s saw, please watch this.

[youtube]-MJZf3rxFLE[/youtube]

This was fast, old-school grass, which even had quite a few bad bounces. Returning was obviously much more difficult on it, yet they both seem to rally from the baseline for most of the match, and don't get aced twice per game.

Tomic isn't a world class server or returner, but Feds is, so Tomic surely shouldn't be able to get a racquet on his serve on fast, low-bouncing grass.
03-05-2012 09:25 PM
MuzzahLovah
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by romismak View Post
THis. Totally agree. People still don´t get it that some slowing down of surfaces was neccessery for next years. But they did it too much.. this is just joke - so slow, but if they let old grass-fast grass, quicker balls for Wimbledon, we would have here in today´s conditions 2x as big ace-fest than in 90s. Not only modern better racquets made serve even bigger-more important shot, but another aspect is physicality of tennis. Everyone is working hard on gym and so on-simply even average tennis player now is much stronger physically than before, so if we had old grass here and new racquets-new players from GYM - 1st serve would be unreturnable serve 90% of the time, if not unreturnable than it would be easy point with 1-2punch combo with easy FH to open court.

I think Raonic is nice example here- he is one of best servers, but my point here is compare Raonic at AO and San Jose for example, how many more free points he got on faster surface, now if we had old grass were the bounce is much lower, and the ball really slips there, his 1st serve would be service winner or unreturnable serve 95% of the time i think.
He didn't play any decent returners at San Jose either.
03-05-2012 09:16 PM
romismak
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Start da Game View Post
better racket technology ==> better and bigger serves with high percentages.....meaning breaks of serve would almost be impossible on fast grass if the match is between even two decent servers.....i said breaks of serve and not service returns because better racket technology should also account for better gets and control on the return of serve.....however the return part also involves anticipation and you get much lesser time to react compared to past.....so the return is overshadowed by the serve.....

so the only possible solution was to either slow down surfaces or limit the racket technology.....i think grass is still grass and good servers and good volleyers(those who can punch deep volleys and not just clueless drop volleys all the time) have enjoyed playing on this grass too.....

the speed of the game needed to be compensated and they thought that the best way was to do it by slowing down surfaces.....limiting the racket technology to a point would have been the best solution in my honest opinion.....but ITF tie ups with corporates forced them to slow down the surfaces rather than limit racket technology which was not desirable for business.....
THis. Totally agree. People still don´t get it that some slowing down of surfaces was neccessery for next years. But they did it too much.. this is just joke - so slow, but if they let old grass-fast grass, quicker balls for Wimbledon, we would have here in today´s conditions 2x as big ace-fest than in 90s. Not only modern better racquets made serve even bigger-more important shot, but another aspect is physicality of tennis. Everyone is working hard on gym and so on-simply even average tennis player now is much stronger physically than before, so if we had old grass here and new racquets-new players from GYM - 1st serve would be unreturnable serve 90% of the time, if not unreturnable than it would be easy point with 1-2punch combo with easy FH to open court.

I think Raonic is nice example here- he is one of best servers, but my point here is compare Raonic at AO and San Jose for example, how many more free points he got on faster surface, now if we had old grass were the bounce is much lower, and the ball really slips there, his 1st serve would be service winner or unreturnable serve 95% of the time i think.
03-05-2012 08:52 PM
MuzzahLovah
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

For the overall game, it's not that surprising that serve has become more dominant - watching Raonic's matches you see how sparse good returners are outside of the very top. Other than Djokovic and Murray, all of the top returners seem to be clay courters for obvious reasons.
03-05-2012 08:15 PM
wally1
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen View Post
You don't understand how greatly a low bounce affects a baseliner. If you don't have a rhythm, you can't trade from the back. Standing behind can be easily more dangerous than trying to get in and finish the point.
Given modern rackets, you'd have to be talking about courts where the ball hardly bounced at all to make it worth while for a player to change his whole game style for one tournament (maybe something like US Open style grass courts of the early 70's). Wimbledon courts have never been that way - I remember watching highlights of Borg v Gerulaitus in the 77 SF and when they were in baseline rallies the ball was often bouncing shoulder high.

S&V is also something you don't become good at just by doing it every now and then (i.e. at one tournament). The great S&V players like Edberg, Rafter, McEnroe, Newcombe et al used it as a main tactic throughout the year.
03-05-2012 03:47 PM
Start da Game
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

better racket technology ==> better and bigger serves with high percentages.....meaning breaks of serve would almost be impossible on fast grass if the match is between even two decent servers.....i said breaks of serve and not service returns because better racket technology should also account for better gets and control on the return of serve.....however the return part also involves anticipation and you get much lesser time to react compared to past.....so the return is overshadowed by the serve.....

so the only possible solution was to either slow down surfaces or limit the racket technology.....i think grass is still grass and good servers and good volleyers(those who can punch deep volleys and not just clueless drop volleys all the time) have enjoyed playing on this grass too.....

the speed of the game needed to be compensated and they thought that the best way was to do it by slowing down surfaces.....limiting the racket technology to a point would have been the best solution in my honest opinion.....but ITF tie ups with corporates forced them to slow down the surfaces rather than limit racket technology which was not desirable for business.....
03-05-2012 03:42 PM
Li Ching Yuen
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by wally1 View Post
It wouldn't happen at all. Nobody would change their entire style of play for one tournament, no matter how important - particularly with modern rackets/strings making approaching the net a risky proposition no matter how fast the surface.
You don't understand how greatly a low bounce affects a baseliner. If you don't have a rhythm, you can't trade from the back. Standing behind can be easily more dangerous than trying to get in and finish the point.
03-05-2012 03:39 PM
wally1
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen View Post
If you made Wimbledon faster today I would guarantee you that it would take quite a few years before some of the players adopted S&V effectively again on that court. Things don't just happen from one day to another.
It wouldn't happen at all. Nobody would change their entire style of play for one tournament, no matter how important - particularly with modern rackets/strings making approaching the net a risky proposition no matter how fast the surface.
03-04-2012 07:15 PM
Li Ching Yuen
Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

You have one convoluted way of expressing yourself. Are you gonna go out for a whole page about how I put "just" in one of my posts? Really?...

Anyway, I'll aggregate my points below:

- Wimbledon is significantly slower today with a much higher bounce than what it was in the 90's thus facilitating slow conditions where the "average" tennis player has a lot of time on the ball, relatively speaking. Racket technology has a say on control not on how quick a tennis court plays. Sure, I won't deny that part of why there was so much S&V in the 90s was that control from the baseline was not a given like it is today.

- A fast slam is desperately needed. I'll extend this idea and say that a fast court "season" is needed even more.

- The players that were playing tennis in 1994 at Wimbledon were predominantly speaking, offensive minded, not grinders like they are today. And that was not the result of Wimbledon being super duper fast but more of a tradition that was embedded in the sport much earlier.
If you made Wimbledon faster today I would guarantee you that it would take quite a few years before some of the players adopted S&V effectively again on that court. Things don't just happen from one day to another.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

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