PDA

View Full Version : Slower courts???


VS Fan
Jul 8th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Amelie stated that the court was slower. I can't help but wonder what the tourney organizers are doing.

Why do these tourney organizers keep f'in with the court speed , the balls weight etc??? They are trying to nullify the "power" game. They say to make the game more "competetive"

I think that the player's traing alone should be what makes the game "more competetive"

Please go back to the grass that was used in 1995 or earlier and let the players development control the competetiveness of the game.

This way just maybe we could compare players from different eras

DarkC0re
Jul 8th, 2006, 10:44 PM
It helps baseliners more than anything. You see the biggest change on the men's side...in a span of 10 years or less most of the men do not serve & volley at Wimbledon anymore.

Corswandt
Jul 8th, 2006, 11:16 PM
Amelie stated that the court was slower.

I noticed that too. Until now I thought it was mostly excuses from players who are tipped to do well at Wimbledon but don't. I noticed, when comparing the bounce, that Wimbledon seemed slower than Eastbourne, and *way* slower than Queen's. Even so, it seemed reasonably fast for the first couple of days or so, while the grass was wet and not as worn and damaged as it is now. But I dismissed it, since it's something that is difficult to assess merely by watching it on a TV screen.

But if Mauresmo herself said it, when she was the winner and had no need for excuses, then there must be something to it.

Tennisaddict
Jul 8th, 2006, 11:23 PM
Why do you think Nadal is in the final, altough I'm absolutely thrilled about that.
I hope he beats Federer. This is why players like Gonzalez can get further in the draw at Wimbledon.

VS Fan
Jul 8th, 2006, 11:24 PM
Slowing the courts helps baseliners???!!!

I thought it was the opposite.

dagamezbest
Jul 8th, 2006, 11:54 PM
Slowing the courts helps baseliners???!!!

I thought it was the opposite.

It is the oppostie slowing down the court is a disadvantage to power players who hit big groundstrokes from the baseline....which is the cause of Venus early round exit....and also the reason Justine was able to make it to the final.

Cris Senior
Jul 8th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Slowing the courts helps baseliners???!!!

I thought it was the opposite.
Well said. It is just the previous posters are tennis ignoramuses. Also any child knows that as days pass by , grass wears out and turns intp dirt, quasy clay.

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:14 AM
It is the oppostie slowing down the court is a disadvantage to power players who hit big groundstrokes from the baseline....which is the cause of Venus early round exit....and also the reason Justine was able to make it to the final.

This is sort of what I was thinking, and also we did not see many players slipping on the grass (dirt) as in past years.

To be fair Venus played very badly in the third round and Justine has the game to make a final, but I still hate that there are those that choose to manipulate the game, rather than just let the players play.

They HAVE slowed down the court and I think it sucks!

hablo
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:20 AM
It helps baseliners more than anything. You see the biggest change on the men's side...in a span of 10 years or less most of the men do not serve & volley at Wimbledon anymore.
That's what I think too, it helps the baseliners...

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:22 AM
That's what I think too, it helps the baseliners...

Excuse me, but How in the HELL can slowing down the courts help baseliners??

I wait with baited breath.....

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:30 AM
Clarification: Baseliners thrive on power and speed. The low bounce gives them an advantage on hard courts and up until recently even more so on grass courts.

I would hazard to guess that now even hard courts except AO are FASTER than Wimbledon. The only thing left at Wimby is the awkward bounce that can occur on the worn surface.

The game at Wimbledon has changed, and I think not for the better.

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:37 AM
Ummm.. I am rethinking this and I can see how it would hurt serve and volley players.

So perhaps some of you have a point.

To serve and volley you must have a great serve which will be less formidable on a slower court. Perhaps I am wrong on this.

Maybe it is why Pete Sampras stopped winning there.

raquel
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:38 AM
Excuse me, but How in the HELL can slowing down the courts help baseliners??

I wait with baited breath.....
For a start the serves don't go through the court so fast, so returners on the baseline get a better view of the serve and a better chance to return. Having a better chance to return means any incoming serve-volleyer would have to make a really good volley to stay in control of the point so many people don't serve-volley anymore. With less people serve-volleying baseliners don't have to come up with so many passes. They can rally from the baseline. When the courts where extra fast, they wouldn't often even get into a rally to being with - especially on the mens side.

Corswandt
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:38 AM
Excuse me, but How in the HELL can slowing down the courts help baseliners??

I wait with baited breath.....

The problem is the logical leap. In three steps:

1) Slowing down the courts doesn't necessarily help baseliners with a big game.

2) Slowing down the courts favours defensive players, who can thus survive more powerful or more aggressive (i.e. net rushers) opponents more easily because a higher bounce/slower court provides them with the time they need to reach and return the big shots of their opponents, including serves.

3) But defensive players are all baseliners.

So we can qualify that statement by saying that slowing down the courts helps defensive baseliners.

spiceboy
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:39 AM
Tell me if this looks like a grasscourt :tape: :tape:

http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/albumes/2006/07/06/wimbledon_decima/424619a73d32f4e3cee77c5a45308ba3_extras_albumes_0. jpg (http://www.elmundo.es/albumes/2006/07/06/wimbledon_decima/index_8.html)

Reuchlin
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:41 AM
That is why I was VERY surprised to see Justine at net so much (often getting passed). What she needed to do was sit on the baseline and wait for Amelie to self-destruct. Especially since Amelie hit very few winners from the baseline. Amelie is at her worst when she has time to think aobut a shot--and is great in reflex situations (like when someone is at net).

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:45 AM
For a start the serves don't go through the court so fast, so returners on the baseline get a better view of the serve and a better chance to return. Having a better chance to return means any incoming serve-volleyer would have to make a really good volley to stay in control of the point so many people don't serve-volley anymore. With less people serve-volleying baseliners don't have to come up with so many passes. They can rally from the baseline. When the courts where extra fast, they wouldn't often even get into a rally to being with - especially on the mens side.

See my post above, I acknowledge that it kills serve and volleyers who would always dominate on this surface unaltered... such as Pete Sampares.

It also allows great clay court players to compete better.

I just wish they would quit trying to alter the game with either court manipulations or ball weight changes.

raquel
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:49 AM
That is why I was VERY surprised to see Justine at net so much (often getting passed). What she needed to do was sit on the baseline and wait for Amelie to self-destruct. Especially since Amelie hit very few winners from the baseline. Amelie is at her worst when she has time to think aobut a shot--and is great in reflex situations (like when someone is at net).Justine was hitting quite a lot of forehand errors from the back though. She was even running round the forehand to hit backhands a couple of times. Anytime they got into a rally from the back Justine was breaking down with errors just as often as Amelie.

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:51 AM
The problem is the logical leap. In three steps:

1) Slowing down the courts doesn't necessarily help baseliners with a big game.

2) Slowing down the courts favours defensive players, who can thus survive more powerful or more aggressive (i.e. net rushers) opponents more easily because a higher bounce/slower court provides them with the time they need to reach and return the big shots of their opponents, including serves.

3) But defensive players are all baseliners.

So we can qualify that statement by saying that slowing down the courts helps defensive baseliners.

I think you nailed it.

So why isn't Kim the Wimbledon champ??? Who knows!

raquel
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:56 AM
I just wish they would quit trying to alter the game with either court manipulations or ball weight changes.Well back in the 1990s mens tennis at Wimbledon was a real snooze-fest. Almost unwatchable. One final between Pete and Ivanisevic had one 5 stroke rally. And that was as long as the rallies got. And only once in the whole match (!). Now in the men's game, big servers can still serve big, but you get great rallies every game. The men's tennis at Wimbledon is great now compared to 10 years ago so in a way it's better that it's been slowed down since then.

In the women's event I think it's slightly less noticable. Venus, Serena, Maria, Lindsay - all Wimbledon winners/finalists the last few years playing hard hitting tennis and their power wasn't blunted too much. Today Justine and Amelie played some great all court tennis and in the end it was Amelie's aggression that won the match for her and not defensive baseline play, so overall grass still favours attacking tennis and powerful groundstrokes/volleys.

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 01:11 AM
Well back in the 1990s mens tennis at Wimbledon was a real snooze-fest. Almost unwatchable. One final between Pete and Ivanisevic had one 5 stroke rally. And that was as long as the rallies got. And only once in the whole match (!). Now in the men's game, big servers can still serve big, but you get great rallies every game. The men's tennis at Wimbledon is great now compared to 10 years ago so in a way it's better that it's been slowed down since then.

In the women's event I think it's slightly less noticable. Venus, Serena, Maria, Lindsay - all Wimbledon winners/finalists the last few years playing hard hitting tennis and their power wasn't blunted too much. Today Justine and Amelie played some great all court tennis and in the end it was Amelie's aggression that won the match for her and not defensive baseline play, so overall grass still favours attacking tennis and powerful groundstrokes/volleys.

Well, I would rather endure "snoozefest" until the other players adapted to the current superior players of the day. Maybe this is just me!?

DarkC0re
Jul 9th, 2006, 01:12 AM
Well said. It is just the previous posters are tennis ignoramuses. Also any child knows that as days pass by , grass wears out and turns intp dirt, quasy clay.

By "baseliner" I mean "not serve and volleyer". Slower courts are better suited for baseliners. Agassi won in 1992 and literally unheard of for a baseliner to go that far in Wimbledon. Now it happens all the time (Hewitt, Nalbandian, Nadal). Federer has dominated because he has an excellent baseline AND net game.

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2006, 01:57 AM
Slowing the courts helps baseliners???!!!

I thought it was the opposite.

Hahaha this is so typical. The courts are so slow these days that people forget entirely about serve and volleyers and assume the two styles of play are baseliners and retrievers:lol: .

Yes, the slower the courts are, the more time baseliners have to set up their passing shots and to react to a serve/volleyer's serve.;)

Giggles
Jul 9th, 2006, 02:18 AM
The problem is the logical leap. In three steps:

1) Slowing down the courts doesn't necessarily help baseliners with a big game.

2) Slowing down the courts favours defensive players, who can thus survive more powerful or more aggressive (i.e. net rushers) opponents more easily because a higher bounce/slower court provides them with the time they need to reach and return the big shots of their opponents, including serves.

3) But defensive players are all baseliners.

So we can qualify that statement by saying that slowing down the courts helps defensive baseliners.

This seems right. My understanding is that a slower court makes it easier to return and hit passing shots, and therefore gives a harder time for a serve & volleyer to do one-two punch.

VS Fan
Jul 9th, 2006, 02:32 AM
This seems right. My understanding is that a slower court makes it easier to return and hit passing shots, and therefore gives a harder time for a serve & volleyer to do one-two punch.

This means that Wimbledon has abandoned its heritige and allowed the serve and volley game to die out. I hear SO MANY complaints about this.

Please put the SAME grass back on the court and use the SAME balls that were used in the 1980s... then let the chips fall....

johnoo
Jul 9th, 2006, 09:54 AM
This means that Wimbledon has abandoned its heritige and allowed the serve and volley game to die out. I hear SO MANY complaints about this.

Please put the SAME grass back on the court and use the SAME balls that were used in the 1980s... then let the chips fall....
this is so true and I really agree with you,I saw a interview with the head groundsman at wimbledon and he says there using a special clay that goes rock hard like concrete,this combined with the heavier ball has made,like tim henman said,wimbledon slower than RG,they have done this to appease the clay courters like nadal, but to me wimbledon and the grass will never be the same and they may as well concrete it and paint it green,oh hang thats already what they have done. :sad:

mike/topgun
Jul 9th, 2006, 10:32 AM
this is so true and I really agree with you,I saw a interview with the head groundsman at wimbledon and he says there using a special clay that goes rock hard like concrete,this combined with the heavier ball has made,like tim henman said,wimbledon slower than RG,they have done this to appease the clay courters like nadal, but to me wimbledon and the grass will never be the same and they may as well concrete it and paint it green,oh hang thats already what they have done
yeah saw that too
they're really into slowing the game to the maximum....slower courts, heavier balls
and we still wonder where the S&V players gone:tape:

johnoo
Jul 9th, 2006, 11:07 AM
yeah saw that too
they're really into slowing the game to the maximum....slower courts, heavier balls
and we still wonder where the S&V players gone:tape:
it reminds me of F1 where they ditched the slick tyres and limited engine capacity etc to slow them down,trouble is F1 now sucks big time.

wally1
Jul 9th, 2006, 11:16 AM
Well back in the 1990s mens tennis at Wimbledon was a real snooze-fest. Almost unwatchable. One final between Pete and Ivanisevic had one 5 stroke rally. And that was as long as the rallies got. And only once in the whole match (!). Now in the men's game, big servers can still serve big, but you get great rallies every game. The men's tennis at Wimbledon is great now compared to 10 years ago so in a way it's better that it's been slowed down since then.

In the women's event I think it's slightly less noticable. Venus, Serena, Maria, Lindsay - all Wimbledon winners/finalists the last few years playing hard hitting tennis and their power wasn't blunted too much. Today Justine and Amelie played some great all court tennis and in the end it was Amelie's aggression that won the match for her and not defensive baseline play, so overall grass still favours attacking tennis and powerful groundstrokes/volleys.Well put. i wonder how many people here actually remember clearly the Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek etc matches at Wim in the 90's? They were completely unwatchable (forget S&V, it was serve only) and something had to be done.

johnoo
Jul 9th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Well put. i wonder how many people here actually remember clearly the Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek etc matches at Wim in the 90's? They were completely unwatchable (forget S&V, it was serve only) and something had to be done.
well that same grass was ok when you had borg,mcenroe,connors playing,grass is suppose to be different,soon people will be moaning about nadal and the likes slugging it out for 10 hours every match,the general public have a short attention span and I personally would rather watch sampras and his big serve than nadal who takes 10 minutes just to set himself up before he even throws the bloody ball in the air to serve.

~Carsten~
Jul 9th, 2006, 11:45 AM
Well I miss the times of Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Rafter.
They played the game for Grass. And that why I loved Wimbledon. But no it's boring. A Rafael Nadal would never be in the Final of Wimbledon in the 90's.
I loved to watch Mauresmo yesterday! She played a great Grass Tennis. And that's how it should be. Agressive and short strokes! Not this boring 10 minute strokes like this year.

:sad: I want the good old times back :lol:

mike/topgun
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:27 PM
I want the good old times back

Current trends are so different from classic serve and volley style, and along with the rackets, balls and courts making the play slower, it is going to be a real miracle to see some players like Rafter/Ivanisevic lurking around in the holy grounds of AELT&CC again.
Well, it seems we should all forget about proper grasscourt tennis, which was the symbol of The Championships, when even the best player, namely Roger F., refuses to come in more, cos no one else does it, so why bother. We'll see if he beats Rafa with staying back and getting involved in long rallies.
Let's go Fed:yeah: :lol:

johnoo
Jul 9th, 2006, 12:33 PM
Well I miss the times of Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Rafter.
They played the game for Grass. And that why I loved Wimbledon. But no it's boring. A Rafael Nadal would never be in the Final of Wimbledon in the 90's.
I loved to watch Mauresmo yesterday! She played a great Grass Tennis. And that's how it should be. Agressive and short strokes! Not this boring 10 minute strokes like this year.

:sad: I want the good old times back :lol:
I remember I was off on the monday Ivanisevic and rafter played and that match was just so good,best ever final mens or womens.

raquel
Jul 9th, 2006, 05:11 PM
well that same grass was ok when you had borg,mcenroe,connors playing
The grass was the same. The racquet technology wasn't and that made a huge difference. The Borg era and the Sampras era can't really be compared.

johnoo
Jul 9th, 2006, 05:30 PM
The grass was the same. The racquet technology wasn't and that made a huge difference. The Borg era and the Sampras era can't really be compared.
maybe but despite the slower courts the mens tournament has been boring,one man has won the last 4 times and easy,so what are wimbledon going to do now make it even slower so the claycourters can win? my point is why should people who have big serves and can volley be penalised just so lesser grasscourt players can compete,hell I think they should change the clay at RG to make it faster otherwise nadal and henin are going to win there for years and its just not fair on players who like fast surfaces. :rolleyes:

mike/topgun
Jul 9th, 2006, 10:26 PM
I think they should change the clay at RG to make it faster otherwise nadal and henin are going to win there for years and its just not fair on players who like fast surfaces
They won't cos cousrts are getting slower every year to make it more "watchable" for tv viewers. And it's a part of the longterm program they started in the year 2000.The balls are going to be bigger too.:rolleyes: