[Mane]

grass

[Billabong]

I adore both hardcourt and clay!

[amethyst]

Clay. Nothing is as good as a 3-hour-French-Open fivesetter for me.

[Scotso]

clay

[Drake]

Hard

[Ma. Estefania]

Hardcourt, followed by clay.

[faboozadoo15]

though i love all surfaces... i take a preference to hardcourt.
are we talking about to watch or to play?
my vote would be the same though... by small margin

[joske]

Clay gives you the most exciting play (a lot of variation, fewer aces *i think?*, ...)

[joske]

Originally Posted by amethyst

Clay. Nothing is as good as a 3-hour-French-Open fivesetter for me.

mmmmm I have to agree with you on that one

[Action Jackson]

Only 3 hrs how wimpy are you joske ? Come on real clay 5 setters should at least have a minimum of 4hrs 20 mins.

I have sat through a 6hr match Davis Cup match on clay and the Corretja/Gumy match from the French Open 1998 that went for 5 and a half hours ah what great stuff.

[Mane]

Tennis is the best on the grass

[Action Jackson]

Ah, to the Individual Formerly Known As WyverN

Watching iron men run horizontally across the baseline for close to 4.5 hours is certainly not the best demonstration of tennis.

Sergi Bruguera has stopped playing now, and there is actually more strategy invloved with claycourt tennis than on grass. I like the fact, that you don't need a huge serve to succeed and the old moonball down the centre tactic doesn't work anymore on clay. There is much better use of angles, spin and tactics on claycourt tennis, plus I do enjoy the different movement skills and that the endurance levels can play a part as well.

Then again with this kind of topic is very subjective, I know you don't like claycourt tennis and that's your choice. I know I don't like grass court tennis match and there was a time that I swore I wouldn't go anywhere near a grasscourt. I got over my allergy and appreciate it for the differences of grasscourt tennis, but it will never be my favourite surface.

[WyveN]

If you get 2 players, ranked very close to each other who have played only on hardcourts.

Put them on a clay court and the fitter of the two will win

Put them on a grass court and the more talented of the two will win

It is no coincidence wimbledon doesn't get the Verkerk types in the finals

[maratski]

Don't forget Verkerk NEVER played on grass before!! Rosmalen 2003 was his first match on grass!!

[Action Jackson]

Verkerk only played on grass for the first time last year. So were Malivai Washington or Chris Lewis talented players? I doubt if they were more talented than say Petr Korda or Rios to use an example who never made Wimbledon finals, but had success on other surfaces.

Your above statement isn't necessarily true. I will give you a scenario.

Agassi vs Nalbandian who would win on clay? Then who would win on grass? Do you think Agassi would win on both, or just on grass? The fitness levels would be cancelled out, so who do you think would win and why?