Mens Tennis Forums banner

Does anyone think grass tennis is quite boring?

4K views 74 replies 52 participants last post by  oregoneyes 
#1 ·
Without having biased reasons because you are a fan of Nadal or something, unless Federer is oncourt or there is some great drama between 2 good players I find grass quite boring. Federer on grass is pure art, but watching all these queens matches on tv today has made me sick of tennis. Boring audiance, no emotions, serves, serves and more serves. No one sweating, no one fighting, no one screaming in the audiance. I dont want anyone to bash me for feeling this way, it is just my honest opinion, not trying to say grass is a lesser surface or something, it does have its qualities (like how refreshing it is to see players go to the net). I just find it kind of boring compared to other surfaces.
 
#7 ·
grass sucks, always has, always will. i almost fell asleep watching halle today. god, i'm REALLY looking forward to the hardcourt season. these 4 weeks of grass are just horrible.

booooooooooooooooooooooooooring. thank god the age of the todd martins and krajiceks and henmans and all that lot is over. that way we might even get to see SOME rallies. though non of them are even close to being as exiting as hardcourt-fighting or clay-scrambling.
 
#8 ·
I enjoy tennis on all surfaces, but two huge servers playing each other on grass is pretty dire.

I remember Goran joking in a press conference about an upcoming match with Rusedski, he said something like; "It will be a really exciting match for you guys - 15-0, 30-0,40-0, Game. 15-0, 30-0,40-0, Game."
 
#9 ·
I like the atmosphere of grass, it feels very... traditional and all. I also like that it's such a novelty these days, it gives the tournaments a special aura (mainly Wimbledon), but I agree that the tennis that is played on grass courts is very often dull as hell. I know people complain about the zillon shot rallies on clay, and in the early rounds this is true, but with grass it's basically ace, double fault, ace, UE, ace, UE, ace, game. I hate that, it's why I always cheered against Mark Philipousis despite being an Aussie because that kind of tennis irritates me no end. Basically I wish we could just fast forward to a Rafa/Roger Wimbly rematch, that is all I really care about seeing this grass season.
 
#10 ·
Grass is interesting. Especially when Fed plays on it:yeah:! ...but I suppose its because he makes it look so good, no?
 
#13 ·
Question of personal taste.
Some adore long physical claycourt matches.
Other like short tactic grasscourt matches.
Personally I like diversity and like both surfaces because I get to see different styles and game plans.
 
#18 ·
Other like short tactic grasscourt matches.
uhm...tactics? what would you need that for if there are hardly any rallies? oh, you mean like "hm, do i serve like a hammer on his backhand or do i serve like a hammer on his forehand? well, anyways, either ace or service winner. and if THAT's not the case, i'll finish the point with my second stroke."...

wow...:eek:
 
#17 ·
I mean if Roddick-Hewitt will play in qf it will be great entertainment but watching 2 avarage players play each other is very boring on grass, or even 2 quite good players like Del Potro-Johansson. On clay and hardcourt I love watching 2 avarage players battle it out in 5 sets in the early rounds. On grass it is very boring.
 
#20 ·
Reasons why Grass Court tennis is great...by Fumus

1) No 20 shot rallies ending in a forehand into the net. The average rally on grass lasts about 3 or 4 shots ending with usually a winner or forced error.

2) Pressure building tennis. When you know one break is all it's going to take to win a set it can become quite suspenseful anytime a player has a break point. Breaks on grass mean so much more, also because of this pressure mounts alot more throughout the whole set. Sets build like a pressure cooker, until the tension breaks.

3) Power tennis! The ball is struck harder, and stays hit. It's just fun to watch what these players can do on a surface that will take their pace. This surface is for the quick and the brave. The players with quick hands and eyes, that are willing to take chances at the right moments and attack the net. Attacking tennis, it's just fun to watch because the surface gives such an advantage to the server. So the server can play alot more aggressive making the style of play alot different than anything else you see all year round.

4)It's a very short season. Clay is played on damn near year round, so is hard court. There's only a very brief one month period for grass, it makes it kind of like Christmas, or any other seasonal pleasure that comes but once a year. Heck even if you hate watching grass court tennis, you have got to love the fact that the season is so brief.

5) History, there's just nothing like it. When you watch a match at Wimbledon.... there's just something about it, it feels like tennis. You are back to the root of where everything started.
 
#22 ·
Grass tennis sucked in the 90's, but since it got slowed down I find it really enjoyable. Watching Federer on grass is something any tennis fan HAS to experience. Overall, I do find hard court tennis to provide the highest enjoyment - it seems to be the one surface where everybody plays well.
 
#27 ·
I love power tennis, but from the baseline and not based on the serve. Guys like Gonzalez, Berdych, Blake and Youzhny who are not really the greatest guys on grass but certanly they are the most powerful players out there. Roddick is not really a power player, his baseline is defensive and without any killer shot and only power in his game is his serve. Nadal is more powerful from the baseline than guys like Roddick, Karlovic and Ancic in my opinion.

Grass tennis is all about serves, how you serve, how you take advantage of your serve (aka serve and volley) and how you return heavy serves. Power tennis from the baseline you can find in USOPEN not in wimbledon.
 
#30 ·
depends on who's playing and how.

I have the Wimbledon final between Sampras and Ivanisevic in 1994, 7-6, 7-6, 6-0. By the time the third set started, the ball had been in play for just over 4 minutes in total (!!!!).

Technically, it was an absolutely beautiful match to watch, especially if you appreciate 'serve and volley'. But other than that it didn't seem that exciting.

Now if you skip forward to the 1999 final between Sampras and Agassi, yes another straight sets win for Sampras, but what a match; two very contrasting styles, and what an awsome display of tennis.

Technically maybe just as great as the 1994 final, but definitely more exciting.

I don't find the monotonous play of today any better than the 90s. Back then everyone came to the net, now everyone stays behind.

What I need is variety.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top