View Full Version : How much LESS significant is a surface on women's tour then on men's?

May 1st, 2004, 10:02 AM
Venus is supposedly averse to playing on clay apart from carpet, isn't she? Yet, she won her first title in more then a year on clay and is in a winning streak.
Only a few players like Maggie are one court wonders. But when you look at ATP, there are so many certain surface specialists, especially Spaniards on clay. For Linday clay may not be her best surface but still manages to demolish most of the field on it.

May 1st, 2004, 10:25 AM
I read an article in TENNIS magazine before in our school library (They had an archive of it). They were analyzing the 1995/96 season and why the same players seemed to be in the second week of the French Open and Wimbledon, particularly Arantxa and Steffi.
Bottomline was, women played the same style of game no matter what the surface was, that's why you kept seeing the same players more often than not reaching the later stages of tournaments as opposed to the men's tour.

They also asked Arantxa how she adjusted from clay to grass. She said that when the grass season comes, she usually gets a serving coach to help her with serving since it was the biggest factor on grass.

May 1st, 2004, 12:16 PM
because all the women play basically the baseline style of same, with a few exceptions
in mens tennis u have serve-vollyers, all rounders and baseliners

May 1st, 2004, 01:03 PM
because all the women play basically the baseline style of same, with a few exceptions
in mens tennis u have serve-vollyers, all rounders and baseliners
Gotta disagree with you there, because even when the women's game HAD players with wildly varying style, the situation was still that a very few players at the top dominating on all surfaces.

The talent on the women's side is very vertical. There's a small group of players who's better than everyone else, and so much better they overcome the surface. The last eight GS tournaments have has the same four finalists. No one else is breaking though at all.

The talent on the men's side is flatter. By that I mean #30 is closer to #3 than theose same two rankings on the women's tour. Also, because the men can put so much more spin on the ball, they can exaggerate the differences in the surface.

May 1st, 2004, 01:59 PM
Surface doesn't seem to make a big difference in the women's tour. The same good players can play on virtually anything.

May 1st, 2004, 02:16 PM
that's the biggest reason - the men's tour is much deeper with strong players, so a detail like the court surface can make a big difference. In women's, the best players are that much better than the others, so they win no matter what the surface. Also the women tend to all play the same style (flat baseline groundstrokes) reducing the importance of surface. You cannot really say that Maleeva is an indoor specialist, either. How many indoor tournies has she won in the past seven years? Only one, Moscow '02, if i remember right. It's not like Maggie's results have been always great indoors and always terrible on other surfaces. I'd say she is an all surface player. The defining thing about Maggie's career is that she has always performed badly at the Grand Slams - none of which are indoors, true, but i don't think that's the reason she hasn't done well. It's more of a character issue - some players handle the pressure of GS tennis better than others.