PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon 20% slower - official


xan
Jul 7th, 2008, 12:28 AM
An interesting measurement during the coverage of the Federer final.

The destination speed and bounce angle of identical speed Federer serves were compared by the BBC tracker. One serve from 2003, the other for 2008.

The result: Speed at destination was 20% slower for the 2008 serve over the identical 2003 one - due to the change in grass mix and ball specification. The ball also bounced over 20% higher.

That's a very significant change, which helps returners over attackers and big servers. Should they have changed grass play like this?

Craig.
Jul 7th, 2008, 12:30 AM
Yeah. One other thing I've noticed is that the outside courts seem to be much faster than the main ones.

RenaSlam.
Jul 7th, 2008, 12:33 AM
Yeah, fuck that shit. Make it faster.

TakingTheMichael
Jul 7th, 2008, 12:35 AM
They most likely made the clay 20% faster at RG to make up for this.

DaMamaJama87
Jul 7th, 2008, 12:40 AM
I don't get it. The best grasscourters in the women's draw still made the finals. Federer's apologists are looking for excuses. Truth is, he's not so clearly the best anymore and they can't handle it.

Expat
Jul 7th, 2008, 01:03 AM
I don't get it. The best grasscourters in the women's draw still made the finals. Federer's apologists are looking for excuses. Truth is, he's not so clearly the best anymore and they can't handle it.

federer was in decline this year but you cant deny that grass is slowing over the years
watch the 2001 final of ivanisevic and pat rafter vs this final of 2008
you will see how much the grass has changed


even amelie and venus after winning in 2006 and 2007 said that the grass is so slow compared to previous years

ZAK
Jul 7th, 2008, 01:11 AM
Clay should be slow. Grass should be fast. Go back to the old days please!

DaMamaJama87
Jul 7th, 2008, 01:24 AM
federer was in decline this year but you cant deny that grass is slowing over the years
watch the 2001 final of ivanisevic and pat rafter vs this final of 2008
you will see how much the grass has changed


even amelie and venus after winning in 2006 and 2007 said that the grass is so slow compared to previous years

Watch the 2002 final. Hewitt vs. Nalbandian. That is when the grass was slowed down. Federer won all his Wimbledons on this slow grass. If the grass were as fast as the 90's he would have lost the final to Roddick in 2004 and 2005. He could have even lost in 2003 to Philippousis. He could have even lost earlier to big servers or serve and volleyers. He has benefitted as much as anyone from the slowing down of the surface so he should be the last to complain, especially now.

SV_Fan
Jul 7th, 2008, 01:45 AM
vee said the wimbledon and the U.S. open are slower now.

Pheobo
Jul 7th, 2008, 01:58 AM
What's the point of even having grass court tournaments when they're playing almost identically to hard courts? We may as well just play Wimbledon on green hard court...it will have exactly the same effect and people won't be fooled into thinking that tennis contains any semblance of diversity anymore.

Apoleb
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:00 AM
CC was ridiculously slow this year. Even slower than last year. The only thing that makes it feel like grass are the bad bounces. The ball was clearly bouncing higher. The US Open hardcourts have become faster than Wimbledon.

Apoleb
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:02 AM
Watch the 2002 final. Hewitt vs. Nalbandian. That is when the grass was slowed down. Federer won all his Wimbledons on this slow grass. If the grass were as fast as the 90's he would have lost the final to Roddick in 2004 and 2005. He could have even lost in 2003 to Philippousis. He could have even lost earlier to big servers or serve and volleyers. He has benefitted as much as anyone from the slowing down of the surface so he should be the last to complain, especially now.

That's bullshit obviously since his game is designed for quick winners from the serve and the forehand. He also would make a very good S&V. There's so much Fed hate these days.

DaMamaJama87
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:15 AM
That's bullshit obviously since his game is designed for quick winners from the serve and the forehand. He also would make a very good S&V. There's so much Fed hate these days.

Not really. His game is designed around rallying creatively until he gets an opening to unleash that forehnd or get into net to finish the point. Quick winners from the serve and forehand describe Roddick. I admit Federer is one of the best volleyers but he is not a true serve and volley player at all. In most big matches in the past few years he has chosen to stay behind more often than not. He has had great success on slow and fast hardcourts too. So it's a poor excuse to suggest that making grass play like a hardcourt worked against him. He only started winning slams AFTER Wimbledon was slowed down. Like I said before, if Wimbledon were still like in the 90's, Federer wouldn't be able to count on breaking his opponent as freely as he does nowadays.

Apoleb
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:21 AM
He only started winning slams AFTER Wimbledon was slowed down.

You realize that this is a completely moot pooint to make considering Wimbledon was hist first slam ever. That doesn't tell anything.

And Wimbledon is NOT like a hard court, or else Nadal would've sucked there. It's some weird mix of slow and bad bounces.

I don't know what's your point because his only competition is Nadal. Making the court faster would hurt Nadal and benefit him. And :lol: @ that usless prick Roddick. He's going to get beaten on a fast, slow or whatever court by Federer.

DaMamaJama87
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:29 AM
You realize that this is a completely moot pooint to make considering Wimbledon was hist first slam ever. That doesn't tell anything.

It tells that Federer has "owned" this slower grasscourt. It has helped him a lot and the fact that he lost today has nothing to do with the speed of the court.


And Wimbledon is NOT like a hard court, or else Nadal would've sucked there. It's some weird mix of slow and bad bounces.


1.Nadal leads the h2h with Federer on hardcourt :tape:
2.Bad bounces should work against Nadal with his heavy topspin yet still he lost :tape: And it is not "slow". The French Open is "slow". Wimbledon at 20% slower is still playing as fast as a fast hardcourt.


I don't know what's your point because his only competition is Nadal. Making the court faster would hurt Nadal and benefit him.

Clearly that's the hope of his fans.


And :lol: @ that usless prick Roddick. He's going to get beaten on a fast, slow or whatever court by Federer.
That proves your objectivity right there.

Like I said, fedtards are having a doozy of a time coming to terms wih him not clearly being the best anymore.

psst.He's probably not going to end the year no. 1 either :tape: *hides the knives*

Apoleb
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:36 AM
It tells that Federer has "owned" this slower grasscourt. It has helped him a lot and the fact that he lost today has nothing to do with the speed of the court.

It doesn't tell anything about how he'd perform on the supposedly much faster grass courts pre-2002, genius.

1.Nadal leads the h2h with Federer on hardcourt :tape:


He'd probably not even make it to the finals seeing his record in the US Open.

Clearly that's the hope of his fans.

Some shitty unrelated statement that doesn't mean a thing. Fact is: the faster the court is, the more to the disadvantage of Nadal and to the advantage of Federer. That's a fact. Deal with it.

. That proves your objectivity right there.

Like I said, fedtards are having a doozy of a time coming to terms wih him not clearly being the best anymore.

psst.He's probably not going to end the year no. 1 either :tape: *hides the knives*

I'm not much of a fan, though I do admire his game. It does take some nerve however to suggest that making the court faster wouldn't work to his advantage when his only competition on grass is Nadal.

cheo23
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:39 AM
Um Lindsay has said that her court (No.2) is Slower than usual, so yeah!!!

Thanx4nothin
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:40 AM
Nadal is the best player in the world ATM, but I fully respect Federer and expect him to be the overwhelming favourite for the US Open. However the speed of the court really balances itself out I feel, people who call Nadal a 'moonballer' when he hits as hard as anyone, especially on grass need :help:

DaMamaJama87
Jul 7th, 2008, 02:46 AM
It doesn't tell anything about how he'd perform on the supposedly much faster grass courts pre-2002, genius.



He'd probably not even make it to the finals seeing his record in the US Open.



Some shitty unrelated statement that doesn't mean a thing. Fact is: the faster the court is, the more to the disadvantage of Nadal and to the advantage of Federer. That's a fact. Deal with it.



I'm not much of a fan, though I do admire his game. It does take some nerve however to suggest that making the court faster wouldn't work to his advantage when his only competition on grass is Nadal.

Right, so your argument boils down to: let's speed up grass more so that Nadal can't compete with Federer. The fact that this is the last resort left to Federer's fans speaks volumes about Nadal's talent. Careful, don't speed it up too much or you might see the likes of Isner or Karlovic taking out beloved Federer. :tape: What if we slow down the French Open 20% and every other hardcourt 20% so that Federer can get taken out by grinders early in the first week? :tape:

Old saying but so true: "A bad carpenter always blames his tools"

xan
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:00 PM
The thread is not so much about Federer as the changes to the surface itself.

xan
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:04 PM
I'm surprised that people are saying that the grass was slowed before 2003. If there has been a 20% drop in speed since 2003, what on earth has the overall drop since the 1990s been?

I don't see the point in slowing Wimbledon until its just like a hard court. Why the need for uniformity. Would they remodel Saint Andrews golf course so it played like Augusta?

The Daviator
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:05 PM
Last night the best GS final of all time was played, the tennis was incredible, do you people want to watch 50 aces fly by? The grass is great as it is right now, Nadal was simply too good for Fed, Roger was lucky to even have made a 5th set.

Wiggly
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Make it like 2003. Please. Next year. Thanks.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:08 PM
...Should they have changed grass play like this?

No. I think it was simply an effort to appease the whining dirtballers (on the men's side) who would often boycott Wimby because it was too fast for them.

wally1
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:15 PM
I saw this analysis from the BBC too, but what did they do, take a sample of serves with identical speeds and average them out, or just pick one from each year? If the latter, that's a bogus comparison because grass is a natural surface with all sorts or quirks and imperfections, and the same shot could well bounce with different heights and speeds.

In any case it looks a lot slower beacuse now everyone plays from the baseline with topspin. Hard flat shots will still shoot through, it's just that not many do them anymore. Witness the Zheng v Ivanovic match, where Ivanovic just couldn't cope with how low and fast Zheng's shots were coming off the court.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:31 PM
It it remains this slow (or even slower), Roger can say goodbye to his Wimbledon crown for good.... :tape:

vejh
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:57 PM
The slices were no good to me. It's either everyone got really good at returning slices, or everyone had really poor slices. And the drop shots stood up for most to get. This isn't the same court as 2001 where Venus' dropshots literally just dropped;very effective.lol Now all the shots are sitting up.

~{X}~
Jul 8th, 2008, 02:15 AM
Arthur Ashe Stadium holds the fastest court in the Grand Slams now. The US Open in General. The balls fly there. :lol:

tennnisfannn
Jul 8th, 2008, 02:27 AM
that would explain the sharapova loss, but Ana and Sveta???

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 8th, 2008, 02:31 AM
I don't get it. The best grasscourters in the women's draw still made the finals. Federer's apologists are looking for excuses. Truth is, he's not so clearly the best anymore and they can't handle it.

You could not say it better

mirzalover
Jul 8th, 2008, 02:35 AM
I thought they were slowing courts down to weakin the "Big Serve". I'm glad its slower, I wouldnt want to watch people get aced all fucking day long. I guess it wouldnt hurt to speed it up a bit though.

croat123
Jul 8th, 2008, 03:04 AM
what i think is sad is that even federer, who is considered to be a great grass court player, does not play real grass court tennis because the surface is so slow.

FERLKE
Jul 8th, 2008, 03:07 AM
I don't get it. The best grasscourters in the women's draw still made the finals. Federer's apologists are looking for excuses. Truth is, he's not so clearly the best anymore and they can't handle it.


:worship::worship::worship:

Federer :devil::wavey::devil:

gmokb
Jul 8th, 2008, 03:24 AM
Federer just gave Nadal a one year loan. I am not sure the courts are playing that much slower to impact on the results of the games. My guy but Fed didn't lose because the court was playing slower, this is the same court he has been playing on and winning throughout the tournament. His loss was due to the fact that he started flat, placed too much pressure on himself resulting in many stupid errors. The top seed women were never great grass court players, maybe excluding Maria and she made the fatal mistake of patterning the Williamses and not playing a warm up tournament, and they were simple exposed by better grass court players, even if they are lower ranked.

LeonHart
Jul 8th, 2008, 04:11 AM
vee said the wimbledon and the U.S. open are slower now.

It is definitely slower. If it was kept fast the Williams sister would dominate even more on those 2 surfaces probably :eek:

Malva
Jul 8th, 2008, 06:53 AM
An interesting measurement during the coverage of the Federer final.

The destination speed and bounce angle of identical speed Federer serves were compared by the BBC tracker. One serve from 2003, the other for 2008.

The result: Speed at destination was 20% slower for the 2008 serve over the identical 2003 one - due to the change in grass mix and ball specification. The ball also bounced over 20% higher.

That's a very significant change, which helps returners over attackers and big servers. Should they have changed grass play like this?

Very interesting. Perhaps, the reason why a clay court specialist had a slight edge over the 'king of grass' this year (talking about the men's Final).

Beat
Jul 8th, 2008, 07:41 AM
If the grass were as fast as the 90's he would have lost the final to Roddick in 2004 and 2005.

:lol: no he wouldn't have.

spriwi
Jul 8th, 2008, 08:30 AM
that would explain the sharapova loss, but Ana and Sveta???

that would explain nothing. they were just playing shit all. ;)

venus somehow made it without losing a set with SLOW grass after losing in the 3rd round of FO...

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jul 8th, 2008, 09:56 AM
If the grass were as fast as the 90's he would have lost the final to Roddick in 2004 and 2005

I really doubt that. Roddick did everything (even throwing the kitchen sink) at Federer in those 2 finals... and still ended up empty handed.

Julie2810
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:34 AM
This is not good for our Masha, I think. So, I have found this link: http://www.petitiononline.com/fastgras/petition.html

You guys plz sign on this petition, ok?

And if you wanna send letters directly to London, plz contact me: Julie2810@gmail.com

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:43 AM
This means Venus's inability to win the Australian and French Opens are all mental. If she desires those slams as much as she desires Wimbledon, she'd have won them by now.

Crazy Canuck
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:11 PM
They most likely made the clay 20% faster at RG to make up for this.

Ding ding.

Of course, you'll find very few people whining about this.

Julie2810
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:42 AM
Is there any link that is trusty?

moby
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:25 AM
Ding ding.

Of course, you'll find very few people whining about this.Rafa likes fast clay though. More action on his shots.

If they made RG Hamburg-slow, Roger might have more of a chance. :p

On the other hand, slow and high-bouncing grass plays right into Rafa's hands too.

OMG NADAL CONSPIRACY!!!

Infiniti2001
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:50 AM
Is this really grass, and what kind of soil is used? After rain delays there were dudes sweeping what seems like dust to me :unsure: There is no way I can sweep the dirt when I have dry patches on my lawn :eek:

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2008, 09:46 AM
what i think is sad is that even federer, who is considered to be a great grass court player, does not play real grass court tennis because the surface is so slow.

What is "real" grass court tennis? Big serves and volleys all the time? Grass court lawn tennis began in the 19th century and they didn't play serve and volley back then. So there is no such thing as "real" grass court tennis.

Neptune
Jul 13th, 2008, 10:30 AM
I don't get it. The best grasscourters in the women's draw still made the finals. Federer's apologists are looking for excuses. Truth is, he's not so clearly the best anymore and they can't handle it.

Because it doesn't change anything for the womens but the change is important for the men.

Kart
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:10 PM
I first thought that the grass has been slower than it should be since 1999.

It's almost ten years now since then so I was not surprised at all to see that graphic during the Nadal-Federer match.

Julie2810
Jul 14th, 2008, 09:15 AM
Can anyone give me the trusty link that prove this is official?

mal
Jul 14th, 2008, 09:40 AM
Because it doesn't change anything for the womens but the change is important for the men.

It is a competition between men and men, and women and women. If some say playing teams is not fair on individuals, then individuals must beat teams, to prove them wrong.

The game of tennis has changed with diet, and with equipment and training methods and dedication. Fitness is primary. Don't go to war being the second fittest team.

For those who say lawn tennis should be genteel, I say it is like drifting in car racing. Drifting is fine when you are winning, but the fastest line is the most direct, so in a race the one that drifts least will win every time. Don't forget that unless you start to offer the biggest prize money for the runner up, nothing will change the winning formula.

court70
Jul 14th, 2008, 11:45 AM
It's going to be even slower next year to prevent Vee from winning it again.

Lunaris
Jul 14th, 2008, 12:02 PM
Watch the 2002 final. Hewitt vs. Nalbandian. That is when the grass was slowed down. Federer won all his Wimbledons on this slow grass. If the grass were as fast as the 90's he would have lost the final to Roddick in 2004 and 2005. He could have even lost in 2003 to Philippousis. He could have even lost earlier to big servers or serve and volleyers. He has benefitted as much as anyone from the slowing down of the surface so he should be the last to complain, especially now.
Considering Roddick's inability to hit a decent approach shot or volley I very much doubt it. Plus it's not like Federer wouldn't win his own service games on quicker grass.

Can anyone give me the trusty link that prove this is official?
Coaches and players have been saying that grass is slower for years now. You can see by your own eyes that slices and dropshots are no longer as effective as they used to be because of higher bounce. Also on low-bouncing grass some players wouldn't be able to use their extreme western grips like they do now.

I understand why people don't like serve fests, even though that is a bit stretching it - not everyone serves as hard as Roddick or is as tall as Karlovic (certainly no female player), and 2nd serve usually is not an ace. On the other hand in current conditions with current courts we see hardcourt tennis being played everywhere (clay is now faster than it used to be too). You choose what is better. I personally am in favour of diversity. Hard is prevalent surface anyway, so at least a few weeks of something different would be nice.