1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESULTS - Page 3 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 07-28-2011, 08:04 AM   #31
country flag Foxy
Registered User
 
Foxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ruse
Age: 32
Posts: 2,596
Foxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond reputeFoxy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

I never believed 90s grass was faster than now. And rightly so after I read this study. I have on DVD lots of matches from 90s and 00s and they look more or less the same to me in terms of ball bounce/speed.
__________________
06.07.08 - The Resurrection Of Tennis!
01.02.09 - Resurrection Confirmed!
06.06.10 - Phoenix Rises From The Ashes!
04.07.10 - Rafa's Express Faster Than The Rest!
13.09.10 - Who is the GOAT now?!
05.06.11 - Where is clayGoat Djokovic?
11.06.12 - NoleSlam denied! 7th Heaven it is!
09.06.13 - Hi8tory!
09.09.13 - #Lucky13
08.06.14 - Unsto99able!

Last edited by Foxy : 07-28-2011 at 09:56 AM.
Foxy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 07-28-2011, 09:49 AM   #32
country flag NYCtennisfan
Fed Fo Mod
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On vacation...
Age: 43
Posts: 11,206
NYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

To add another wrinkle into the conversation, the mean heights of the players entered in Wimbledon 1994 and Wimbledon 2011 are almost identical. It could be supposed that the mean height in 1994 was somewhat skewed by the fact that grass specialists (who tended to be taller players) were in the draw in place of players who skipped the tournament although most of the top 100 was in the field.

NYCtennisfan is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2011, 10:11 AM   #33
country flag NYCtennisfan
Fed Fo Mod
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On vacation...
Age: 43
Posts: 11,206
NYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond reputeNYCtennisfan has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Here are the listed heights as per ITF's website.


Last edited by NYCtennisfan : 07-28-2011 at 10:27 AM.
NYCtennisfan is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2011, 02:41 PM   #34
country flag philosophicalarf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,453
philosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxy View Post
I never believed 90s grass was faster than now. And rightly so after I read this study. I have on DVD lots of matches from 90s and 00s and they look more or less the same to me in terms of ball bounce/speed.
Wimbledon in the 90s definitely had a lower bounce, head groundsman has said as much. Not so much because of the grass change, but they roll the earth much harder than before (to make sure the grass lasts two weeks).
philosophicalarf is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 01:48 PM   #35
country flag laurie-1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 526
laurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxy View Post
I never believed 90s grass was faster than now. And rightly so after I read this study. I have on DVD lots of matches from 90s and 00s and they look more or less the same to me in terms of ball bounce/speed.
What really changed was style of play.
__________________
check my website

http://www.classictennismatches.net/
laurie-1 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 01:52 PM   #36
country flag laurie-1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 526
laurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond reputelaurie-1 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophicalarf View Post
Wimbledon in the 90s definitely had a lower bounce, head groundsman has said as much. Not so much because of the grass change, but they roll the earth much harder than before (to make sure the grass lasts two weeks).
It can be put into two categories. The early 1990s and late 1990s. By the late 1990s the grass on centre court was considered harder and higher bouncing, aiding rallying and kick serves. Pat Cash mentioned this every Wimbledon whilst main commentator / analyst for BBC during this period.

That makes sense, both Rafter and Agassi had a lot of success with the high bouncing kick serve during that period from 1998 through 2001. Rafter previously mentioned that the grass beforehand didn't help his famous kick serve on both deuce and ad courts.
__________________
check my website

http://www.classictennismatches.net/
laurie-1 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 02:41 PM   #37
country flag philosophicalarf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,453
philosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond reputephilosophicalarf has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by laurie-1 View Post
It can be put into two categories. The early 1990s and late 1990s.
There was a ball change in 95, that might be related.

What I was mentioning came with the 2001 grass change though. The new mixture allowed a harder roll.
philosophicalarf is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 03:18 PM   #38
country flag MaxPower
Registered User
 
MaxPower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Age: 30
Posts: 7,077
MaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond reputeMaxPower has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Makes you think how the stats would look if they did NOT slow down grass. Since racket technology and the overall strength off players have improved so much they would have stunning numbers on fast grass. Some guys on the tour that average around 200kmh on their FS would serve so many aces that it wouldn't even be funny. (Karlovic/Isner/Roddick/Soderling etc). Even on slow grass they can get a pretty sick payoff with big serves.

With that in mind it was probably the right decision to slow the grass down. It surely created different Wimbledon winners but it prevented the all serve contest that could have happened otherwise. I think most organizers are obsessed with having the top4 guys making deep runs. Most of the tour is slow court so the top guys in the ranking doesn't necessarily want fast courts. Just makes them more vulnerable. They want as much points in play as possible because that lowers the risk of being upset early in a tournament.
MaxPower is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 12:32 AM   #39
country flag romismak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 23
Posts: 3,814
romismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond reputeromismak has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower View Post
Makes you think how the stats would look if they did NOT slow down grass. Since racket technology and the overall strength off players have improved so much they would have stunning numbers on fast grass. Some guys on the tour that average around 200kmh on their FS would serve so many aces that it wouldn't even be funny. (Karlovic/Isner/Roddick/Soderling etc). Even on slow grass they can get a pretty sick payoff with big serves.

With that in mind it was probably the right decision to slow the grass down. It surely created different Wimbledon winners but it prevented the all serve contest that could have happened otherwise. I think most organizers are obsessed with having the top4 guys making deep runs. Most of the tour is slow court so the top guys in the ranking doesn't necessarily want fast courts. Just makes them more vulnerable. They want as much points in play as possible because that lowers the risk of being upset early in a tournament.
Agree with you, i wrote in my post here before something similar- about fast surfaces and quicker balls in 2011 with this racquets, strings and strenght of guys on serve like Karlovic, Isner,Raonic, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga - their first serves would be probably untouchable - you have something like 80% winning on 1st serve by top servers - i wonder what number average there would be with those ,,faster,, conditions - maybe 90-95% won average on 1st serve? So even that i am against homogenization i must admit that faster conditions would make the game all serve contest and what is most important all SV style fans must admit too that today, there is no way to play SV style with return, passing shots and other improovements by players - even on faster Wimbledon it will be very difficult with modern tennis skills and racquets to play SV - i mean it is impossible to make drop volley as winner when guy who is returning your 1st serve bomb give you back superfast return... so SV style would be most likely dead even without ATP changes - it is hard to play volleys when returns are much faster then before, difficult to handle volley to the court and also with faster conditions there won´t be probably time for volley, because good 1st serve would be service winner, so SV style would be dead even without ATP changes and slowing down of grass and faster HC and canceling carpet.
romismak is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 05:42 PM   #40
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

BUMP

At the moment I'm fed-up with the threads about that "speed" topic which are getting to complete bullshit imo, with a lot of gossipings about Federer everywhere especially which imo would deserve a specific thread for his own case.

At least this thread (found thanks to Kiedis's nice finding) was interesting like often NYCtennisfan's posts
__________________
useless old guy

Last edited by duong : 03-04-2012 at 06:27 PM.
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 06:02 PM   #41
country flag Vida
Registered User
 
Vida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,570
Vida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond reputeVida has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

zing!
__________________
reliability...
Vida is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 06:09 PM   #42
country flag Kiedis
Registered User
 
Kiedis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,561
Kiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
BUMP

At the moment I'm fed-up with the threads about that "speed" topic which are getting to complete bullshit imo, with a lot of gossipings about Federer everywhere especially which imo would deserve a specific topic.

At least this thread (found thanks to Kiedis's nice finding) was interesting like often NYCtennisfan's posts
In MTF there are a gem like this every 1.000 threads, unfortunately. And the worst thing is when someone finally makes a really good one almost nobody seems to care. If the tards can't fight then the thread has very few answers and poor attention.
__________________
Free Edward Snowden | Free Brad Manning | Free SDG | Free CD

God is killing me
Kiedis is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 06:14 PM   #43
country flag LisaKoh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 874
LisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond reputeLisaKoh has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

It's an interesting test but I think to get a better idea of how much court surface has changed at Wimbledon it would be better to compare a set of stats (i.e. 93-97) with a different set when the alleged "slowing" began (2005-2010). Don't get me wrong, the t-tests you applied are great, but I think a more complete picture could be calculated from comparing the "fast years" with the "slower years" rather than one year with another.
__________________
Trolling is defined by Herring as baiting and luring others into pointless and time-consuming discussions.

4 criteria of trolls:

1. Appearance of outward sincerity.
2. Posts designed to incite anger or "flames"
3. Posts designed to waste everybody's time with useless argument
4. Desperate desire for attention, any attention at all

Recognize them, don't engage and put 'em on your ignore list where they belong. Feed a troll and you're just encouraging their attention-seeking.
LisaKoh is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 06:14 PM   #44
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

This OP about Wimbledon has some interesting and unexpected results fitting with some which other people have noted thanks to the newly published on a long period ATP Ricoh match stats.

I think of that thread : Stats prove that it was easier to return in the 90's than in the 00's

I think of the lower % of aces in 1994, also the much lower % of points won on second serve and that the best players on second serve were not actually Sampras as some think but Agassi and Courier.

I think that apart from Wimbledon, those ATP Ricoh stats should be exploited more by statisticians about that.

And further analyses should be generally done about those topics taking into account the many evolutions which occurred other than just the "speed" of the court (which in Wimbledon is rather about the bounce imo, highness as well as unpredictability, also in Wimbledon it depends first week or second week, maybe Nyctennisfan might make some interesting stats comparing first week and second week's stats in Wimbledon in both those eras, including for some specifi players like Nadal for instance)

Although sometimes these Ricoh stats are wrong : for instance I noted that the Ricoh stats for 2003 on return are clearly wrong when you compare them with the stats from 2002 and 2004, the results are just impossible then clearly their computer programs or their data had one problem in 2003.

PS : I'm a professional statistician myself but I'm not in favour of putting too much attention on significance tests, esp when they are published. It just makes it look too complicated for people, and here you could say that all of the results or nearly all of them are statistically significant (or you could just not publish the ones where the difference is not statistically significant).
More generally, I think your work was great, Nyctennisfan, but you paid too little attention to the way you published and presented the results, which makes the thread look too complicated for some people, and also the main results should be put more in evidence, and the results and analyses should be more separated from the method.
But I understand that when we do this kind of work for passion as I sometimes do myself, we think more for ourselves than for the others then we spend less time and attention about the way we present the results
__________________
useless old guy

Last edited by duong : 03-04-2012 at 06:28 PM.
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 06:27 PM   #45
country flag wally1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 282
wally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond reputewally1 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 1994 WIMBLEDON ("FAST GRASS") vs. 2011 WIMBLEDON ("SLOW GRASS"): INTERESTING RESU

Interesting thread I don't remember reading before.

While there certainly has been some change in conditions at Wimby since the 90's, I'm pretty sure if you had Sampras play Ivanisevic in today's conditions, using S&V on both serves, they'd look pretty fast... What has killed variety in playing styles far more than anything that happens in two weeks in London, has been changes in rackets, the death of carpet and slowing down of hard courts around the world.

One more point - the complaints you read in forums like this about Wimbledon being slow are absolutely nothing to the complaints there used to be in the mainstream media in the 90's. The UK papers used to have continual stories about how boring 1&2 shot rallies were, how Wimbledon was unwatchable, wasn't real tennis, how the tournament was becoming irrelevant etc. Worth remembering.
wally1 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios