Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[Murat Baslamisli]

There are so many variables when it comes to understanding court speed. As a fan, it is even more difficult. I was watching Halle last year and I could swear it was double the speed of Wimby...it looked crazy fast, but I am pretty sure the lower camera angle had something to do with it. I saw UO live last year, and i thought it was really fast, compared to what I saw on TV.

One thing is for sure: I have never heard any player on the tour say " Man, what are you talkin about, the speed of the courts are exactly what they were 20 years ago." Things have slowed down, but homogenisation is happening more on the playing style rather than the surface, but slowing down of the surfaces are contributing to it, in an unbalanced way. I believe there a lot more slow to med slow hards than fast hards. That should change. Sure, maybe bringing back carpet is not going to happen, but I would love to see at least 4-5 big tournaments where the surface is fast and awards attacking play.

They have resurfaced all the courts in my club. Everyone was like" Man, this is slow as molasses" and I was telling folks, "listen, this is a new surface, and there is a lot of grit on it now, wait till we use it a couple months, and it will speed up" Surely, once it got played on , it got smoother and faster. I am wondering how often tournaments resurface their courts...Every year, every other year? Because even within a tournament , the court speed will change towards the end, get faster, except Wimbledon, which I think gets a little slower when the slippery new grass is gone and the balls start sitting up more as opposed to skidding low when a heavy slice is hit.

Either way, great ones find a way to win tournaments one way or the other.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

No, the joke a random guy on a tennis forum saying Hewitt is stupid for wanting faster courts, thinking he knows Hewitt's own game more than Hewitt himself. The joke is some random guy on a tennis forum ignoring Hewitt's 2 Grand Slam wins on fast surfaces, saying that Hewitt hasn't done anything since, while ignoring that he has NEVER DONE ANYTHING ON SLOWER SURFACES. Don't you realize the stupidity of that argument?

No. He is a grinder who happens to do well on fast(er) surfaces than the others.

He has been blown away on fast courts far more than he has prevailed. Safin blew him away in the final, Federer at the US final, etc. etc. Stop the name calling. You are too aggressive.

First of all, I'm not resorting to name calling, though this type of arguments makes it pretty inviting. Hewitt being blown away by Fed and Safin has nothing to do with what type of courts he prefers, it just means that Federer and Safin played much better than him (Federer of course, is a far superior player).

My question to you, oh mighty expert, is WHEN HAS HEWITT EVER DONE WELL ON SLOW SURFACES? Until you can answer that question, and explain how he's had better results on faster surfaces, keep your silly arguments away.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, the term "homogenised" suggests that all surfaces are the same substance, which obviously they're not. Grass isn't clay, and there are differences in how the ball reacts off each surface. But when the term "homogenisation" is used, it's accurate in the sense that the "game has become the same on all surfaces"

But that's exactly because of the dominance of baseline tennis. My issue is not with "homogenization," it's with "the surfaces" part. What is homogeneous is the nature of the game now, which heavily relies on baseline tennis. The surfaces however, are not, despite grass being slowed down. Obviously, grass being slowed down makes it more possible to play baseline tennis, but in general, it is the game that is homogenized. There's still substantial differences between how baseline tennis is played on clay, and how it's played on grass. In fact, the best highlight of this is Nadal himself, and the way he approaches each.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think what Broken is trying to say is that Hewitt has even less of a chance against a Federer or a Safin on a slow court than he does on a fast court.

On a slower court Hewitt's serve is nullified and he has never been able to hit 3 or 4 aggressive groundstrokes in a row (although he can do 1 or 2 and then come to the net).

It's pointless to argue because luxilon just keeps repeating the same points without bothering to argue the questions I'm raising.

Hewitt is not really good at generating his own pace, at least not compared to guys like Federer, Safin, and Roddick in Andy's his early days (I'm comparing him to guys of his generation). As such, on slower surfaces, he finds it very difficult to hit through them. That of course, does not mean he can't win, or can't do well on slower surfaces. After all, he's reached the AO final. However, on faster surfaces, he can use their own pace against them, and Hewitt's own "counter-punches" have more bite to them. That's why he's won Wimbledon, the US Open, and reached aother final at the US Open. Of course, his US Open win came by beating one of the greatest aggressive players of all time, Pete Sampras.

So yeah, Luxilon saying "Hewitt HAPPENS to win on faster surfaces" is just as ridiculous as it "happens" to sound.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are so many variables when it comes to understanding court speed. As a fan, it is even more difficult. I was watching Halle last year and I could swear it was double the speed of Wimby...it looked crazy fast, but I am pretty sure the lower camera angle had something to do with it. I saw UO live last year, and i thought it was really fast, compared to what I saw on TV.

One thing is for sure: I have never heard any player on the tour say " Man, what are you talkin about, the speed of the courts are exactly what they were 20 years ago." Things have slowed down, but homogenisation is happening more on the playing style rather than the surface, but slowing down of the surfaces are contributing to it, in an unbalanced way. I believe there a lot more slow to med slow hards than fast hards. That should change. Sure, maybe bringing back carpet is not going to happen, but I would love to see at least 4-5 big tournaments where the surface is fast and awards attacking play.

They have resurfaced all the courts in my club. Everyone was like" Man, this is slow as molasses" and I was telling folks, "listen, this is a new surface, and there is a lot of grit on it now, wait till we use it a couple months, and it will speed up" Surely, once it got played on , it got smoother and faster. I am wondering how often tournaments resurface their courts...Every year, every other year? Because even within a tournament , the court speed will change towards the end, get faster, except Wimbledon, which I think gets a little slower when the slippery new grass is gone and the balls start sitting up more as opposed to skidding low when a heavy slice is hit.

Either way, great ones find a way to win tournaments one way or the other.

Good post. Regarding Halle, it always seemed faster to me than Wimbledon, as did Queens.

 

[Front242]

Agree about Halle and Queens being faster than Wimbledon. Newport is the fastest of the lot and the fact that Hewitt has done well there at this stage in his career shows just how fast it is as the slower grass in Wimbledon this past decade has meant he has no chance.

 

[Kieran]

Well, the term "homogenised" suggests that all surfaces are the same substance, which obviously they're not. Grass isn't clay, and there are differences in how the ball reacts off each surface. But when the term "homogenisation" is used, it's accurate in the sense that the "game has become the same on all surfaces"

But that's exactly because of the dominance of baseline tennis. My issue is not with "homogenization," it's with "the surfaces" part. What is homogeneous is the nature of the game now, which heavily relies on baseline tennis. The surfaces however, are not, despite grass being slowed down. Obviously, grass being slowed down makes it more possible to play baseline tennis, but in general, it is the game that is homogenized. There's still substantial differences between how baseline tennis is played on clay, and how it's played on grass. In fact, the best highlight of this is Nadal himself, and the way he approaches each.

With all the talk about homogenisation, it's a bit like the chicken and egg: did the baseline game become prevalent because the surfaces slowed? Or would it have happened anyway?

I think that tennis is like any other creaturely culture: the evolution occurs to suit the environment. Players play that way because it works better across the board. When he was young, Sampras ditched the two-handed backhand because he knew he could succeed better at Wimbledon without it. If he played today, he wouldn't ditch it and could still win Wimbledon, while having a greater chance in Paris.

I think in twenty years if they speed up grass and use faster balls at Flushing Meadows, the culture will change again and you'll find top players who ply their trade more in the forecourt than they do now.

Nowadays, all top players have a shot at all the slams, though some are better for them than others. So this proves that the process of homogenisation is in no way complete, thank God! So Rafa has 8 slams on clay and Roger has 7 on grass, but on grass Rafa only has 2 and Roger has only 1 on clay. This is obviously because there are still enough differences that count. Still, we see how today's star players encroach more easily on courts which previous generations found too prohibitive due to the range of changes involved. So it doesn't mean that the surfaces haven't come closer to each other than they were, particularly clay and grass. Maybe a lot of this is down to the balls and technology too.

Just a question about this years surface and balls used at Oz: I know it's the same as last year (according to a report above), so it's the same as 2012 also? Or were different balls used then?

Thanks!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Agree about Halle and Queens being faster than Wimbledon. Newport is the fastest of the lot and the fact that Hewitt has done well there at this stage in his career shows just how fast it is as the slower grass in Wimbledon this past decade has meant he has no chance.

Yeah, Andy Roddick always said Queens had the best grass courts in the world.

 

[Kieran]

Agree about Halle and Queens being faster than Wimbledon. Newport is the fastest of the lot and the fact that Hewitt has done well there at this stage in his career shows just how fast it is as the slower grass in Wimbledon this past decade has meant he has no chance.

Yeah, Andy Roddick always said Queens had the best grass courts in the world.

A lot of players have said the same. It often made me wonder why Wimbledon didn't just go ahead and buy the groundsman off the Queens Club! The transfer window is now open and they can have him for about 50 grand and a chip butty every day for lunch!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Agree about Halle and Queens being faster than Wimbledon. Newport is the fastest of the lot and the fact that Hewitt has done well there at this stage in his career shows just how fast it is as the slower grass in Wimbledon this past decade has meant he has no chance.

Yeah, Andy Roddick always said Queens had the best grass courts in the world.

A lot of players have said the same. It often made me wonder why Wimbledon didn't just go ahead and buy the groundsman off the Queens Club! The transfer window is now open and they can have him for about 50 grand and a chip butty every day for lunch!

He's got an exclusive deal and Queens are not prepared to release him to a rival tournament. Though he did promise not to celebrate when players hit aces against his former employer.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

From your reply, I presume that you did not even bother open the link. The article
that I was citing is a fairly technical article on court speeds. You might want to go through
it before responding.

I need to watch a video to determine that it's ridiculous to claim the AO is faster than Wimbledon? No, I did not watch it, because that claim alone turned me off.

1. The video in that link does not demonstrate that AO is faster than Wimbledon.
That video demonstrates the slowing of wimbledon courts over the years.
It is just a 52 second video.

2. From your response, it is clear that you did not even bother to click on the
link that I provided.

3. I am giving another link in which the tournament director of AO explicitly
claims that it is faster than wimbledon since they changed it to
Plexicushion surface from Rebound Ace Surface.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/melbourne-slicker-than-wimbledon/2007/12/17/1197740182164.html

You think your knowledge of tennis is greater than that of AO director's.

Look, You can believe in anything that you want. It is impossible to
argue with someone who cannot take facts into account.

Go ahead do not click this link either. You might be confronted with
facts that are against your beliefs and that will make you uncomfortable.

 

[brokenshoelace]

While on the topic of court speeds, let me give you a link to a nice article on it
(originally found by britbox). According to this article, AO comes next only to USO
in having a fast surface. Even Wimbledon is slower than AO's plexicushion.

The article also discusses other factors that should be considered apart from
court speed. This will open the eyes of those who think court speed is the
be all and end all.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

Don't miss the last video in it that depicts the slowing down of Wimbledon.

LOL @ Wimbledon being slower than the Australian Open. I'll watch the video, but that's a preposterous proposition. It's not even slower than the US Open. That's a Johnny Mac myth that he created and everyone just started repeating. Remember the 54 stroke exchange between Nadal and Djokovic at the US Open? How many of those take place at Wimbledon? The number of aces at Wimbledon is still substantially higher than that of any other slam, and the average strokes per rallies is lesser.

That said, yes, the Australian Open isn't a slow hard court. It's always been medium paced (that's also a misconception that people just threw around). And yes, thank you for pointing out that court speed is not as simple as it sounds (a point I've been trying to make all thread long).

From your reply, I presume that you did not even bother open the link. The article
that I was citing is a fairly technical article on court speeds. You might want to go through
it before responding.

I need to watch a video to determine that it's ridiculous to claim the AO is faster than Wimbledon? No, I did not watch it, because that claim alone turned me off.

1. The video in that link does not demonstrate that AO is faster than Wimbledon.
That video demonstrates the slowing of wimbledon courts over the years.
It is just a 52 second video.

2. From your response, it is clear that you did not even bother to click on the
link that I provided.

3. I am giving another link in which the tournament director of AO explicitly
claims that it is faster than wimbledon since they changed it to
Plexicushion surface from Rebound Ace Surface.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/melbourne-slicker-than-wimbledon/2007/12/17/1197740182164.html

You think your knowledge of tennis is greater than that of AO director's.

Look, You can believe in anything that you want. It is impossible to
argue with someone who cannot take facts into account.

Go ahead do not click this link either. You might be confronted with
facts that are against your beliefs and that will make you uncomfortable.

1) Everyone knows Wimbledon has been slowed down.

2) I didn't click, and I said as much.

3) LOL that link is from 2007. Really? So you're telling me, the AO has been playing faster than Wimbledon for 6-7 years, but NOT A SINGLE PLAYER HAS NOTICED? Are you serious? Don't you think tennis pros would have been able to tell the difference and comment on that? Seriously, just sit back, think about it for a second, and you'd notice how ridiculous this sounds.

Did you watch the videos I provided? The videos of the two same players, playing two different matches, one in Wimbledon, one at the AO? If so, what were your conclusions?

The only thing that makes me "uncomfortable" is how gullible people can be.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, so GSM, please read this blog, since you love them so much, and see why the ITF criteria is so flawed, and why it's not the end-all be-all. Then, add some logic, and you'll see why their rankings of surface speed is preposterous:

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Hewitt just beat Federer on the courts of Brisbane, after talks all week about how fast the courts were playing. Stupid Hewitt, thinking he needs the courts to be fast! What does he know! Former world number 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion... He should prefer slower courts because he's a counter-puncher, his success on faster courts be damned.

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

No, the joke a random guy on a tennis forum saying Hewitt is stupid for wanting faster courts, thinking he knows Hewitt's own game more than Hewitt himself. The joke is some random guy on a tennis forum ignoring Hewitt's 2 Grand Slam wins on fast surfaces, saying that Hewitt hasn't done anything since, while ignoring that he has NEVER DONE ANYTHING ON SLOWER SURFACES. Don't you realize the stupidity of that argument?

No. He is a grinder who happens to do well on fast(er) surfaces than the others.

He has been blown away on fast courts far more than he has prevailed. Safin blew him away in the final, Federer at the US final, etc. etc. Stop the name calling. You are too aggressive.

First of all, I'm not resorting to name calling, though this type of arguments makes it pretty inviting. Hewitt being blown away by Fed and Safin has nothing to do with what type of courts he prefers, it just means that Federer and Safin played much better than him (Federer of course, is a far superior player).

My question to you, oh mighty expert, is WHEN HAS HEWITT EVER DONE WELL ON SLOW SURFACES? Until you can answer that question, and explain how he's had better results on faster surfaces, keep your silly arguments away.

"Mighty Expert"? You are just as guilty as trying to drown everybody in your world view.

My INITIAL comment which started you off on a tirade is that I thought it was amusing Hewitt asked Tennis Australia to speed up the Open. Then we got into all sorts of back and forth about a counter puncher is.

Let me make you happy..Hewitt is a grinder. Does that sound better?

A simple explanation of why Hewitt has not done better on clay is that he is one of the rare breed of consistent baseliners without a ton of rotation on his ball.

Let me offer this is side thought, not particularly related to the discussion,yesterdays final reminded me of the Hewitt's US win when Sampras just self destructed like Mission Impossible tape recorder.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK, so GSM, please read this blog, since you love them so much, and see why the ITF criteria is so flawed, and why it's not the end-all be-all. Then, add some logic, and you'll see why their rankings of surface speed is preposterous:

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

Broken, thanks for posting the link. You have now come full circle. What you did not
realize is that you you are posting the exact same link as I posted (which you admitted
you did not bother to click on) in my original post that you ridiculed so much. This is
what happens when you do not listen and only want to talk.

I already mentioned earlier posts that court speed is not the be all and end all;
it is just one of the factors on how a surface playes. The bounce provided by a court
is independent parameter and the liveliness of balls is another independent parameter
(not to mention the weather factor, altitude factor etc).

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, so GSM, please read this blog, since you love them so much, and see why the ITF criteria is so flawed, and why it's not the end-all be-all. Then, add some logic, and you'll see why their rankings of surface speed is preposterous:

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

Broken, thanks for posting the link. You have now come full circle. What you did not
realize is that you you are posting the exact same link as I posted (which you admitted
you did not bother to click on) in my original post that you ridiculed so much. This is
what happens when you do not listen and only want to talk.

I already mentioned earlier posts that court speed is not the be all and end all;
it is just one of the factors on how a surface playes. The bounce provided by a court
is independent parameter and the liveliness of balls is another independent parameter
(not to mention the weather factor, altitude factor etc).

Wait, so you read the above blog, and you still came up with the conclusion that the AO is faster than Wimbledon? I'm amazed. And no, it's not just balls and weather conditions that make Wimbledon faster. It's the very nature of the surface. The very blog you provided talks about how their criteria proves nothing and not just because of balls or conditions, but because the surface is only tested originally, yet you didn't acknowledge that. But yes, it's not just about the surface, but that's a point everyone agrees on and nobody debated. In fact, that's a point I made in this thread.

The fact that I posted the same link only make your insistence and arguments like "DO you know better than the AO director" all the more baffling. But anyway, nice arguing with you about nothing. What you're saying is "The AO is faster because the director says so, but Wimbledon is faster because of the balls." Quite compelling, and not at all conflicting.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hewitt is the luckiest player on the face of the planet. He played A Federer who sprayed more balls around than a graffiti artist sprays paint. TWENTY TWO MINUTE first set.

Damn lucky Federer played 5 sets the day before too. What a joke to use this as a gauge.

No, the joke a random guy on a tennis forum saying Hewitt is stupid for wanting faster courts, thinking he knows Hewitt's own game more than Hewitt himself. The joke is some random guy on a tennis forum ignoring Hewitt's 2 Grand Slam wins on fast surfaces, saying that Hewitt hasn't done anything since, while ignoring that he has NEVER DONE ANYTHING ON SLOWER SURFACES. Don't you realize the stupidity of that argument?

No. He is a grinder who happens to do well on fast(er) surfaces than the others.

He has been blown away on fast courts far more than he has prevailed. Safin blew him away in the final, Federer at the US final, etc. etc. Stop the name calling. You are too aggressive.

First of all, I'm not resorting to name calling, though this type of arguments makes it pretty inviting. Hewitt being blown away by Fed and Safin has nothing to do with what type of courts he prefers, it just means that Federer and Safin played much better than him (Federer of course, is a far superior player).

My question to you, oh mighty expert, is WHEN HAS HEWITT EVER DONE WELL ON SLOW SURFACES? Until you can answer that question, and explain how he's had better results on faster surfaces, keep your silly arguments away.

"Mighty Expert"? You are just as guilty as trying to drown everybody in your world view.

My INITIAL comment which started you off on a tirade is that I thought it was amusing Hewitt asked Tennis Australia to speed up the Open. Then we got into all sorts of back and forth about a counter puncher is.

Let me make you happy..Hewitt is a grinder. Does that sound better?

A simple explanation of why Hewitt has not done better on clay is that he is one of the rare breed of consistent baseliners without a ton of rotation on his ball.

Let me offer this is side thought, not particularly related to the discussion,yesterdays final reminded me of the Hewitt's US win when Sampras just self destructed like Mission Impossible tape recorder.

Hewitt IS a counter-puncher. Nobody ever debated that. Just like nobody ever, until you, debates that he does better on faster surfaces. Which is why he wanted the AO to speed up the courts. Makes sense doesn't it?

But no of course, you think he's stupid for doing so.

"A simple explanation of why Hewitt has not done better on clay is that he is one of the rare breed of consistent baseliners without a ton of rotation on his ball."

They're not a rare breed. Davydenko, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Murray and even Djokovic play pretty flat.

 

[Front242]

Best example of Hewitt playing well on fast surfaces even in the twilight of his career is the fast 90's style grass courts at Newport where he's done very well last few years. Like Federer and Haas, the older players have better results on faster surfaces as they reward attacking tennis more and give less time to defend as more winners can be hit.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

No, the joke a random guy on a tennis forum saying Hewitt is stupid for wanting faster courts, thinking he knows Hewitt's own game more than Hewitt himself. The joke is some random guy on a tennis forum ignoring Hewitt's 2 Grand Slam wins on fast surfaces, saying that Hewitt hasn't done anything since, while ignoring that he has NEVER DONE ANYTHING ON SLOWER SURFACES. Don't you realize the stupidity of that argument?

No. He is a grinder who happens to do well on fast(er) surfaces than the others.

He has been blown away on fast courts far more than he has prevailed. Safin blew him away in the final, Federer at the US final, etc. etc. Stop the name calling. You are too aggressive.

First of all, I'm not resorting to name calling, though this type of arguments makes it pretty inviting. Hewitt being blown away by Fed and Safin has nothing to do with what type of courts he prefers, it just means that Federer and Safin played much better than him (Federer of course, is a far superior player).

My question to you, oh mighty expert, is WHEN HAS HEWITT EVER DONE WELL ON SLOW SURFACES? Until you can answer that question, and explain how he's had better results on faster surfaces, keep your silly arguments away.

"Mighty Expert"? You are just as guilty as trying to drown everybody in your world view.

My INITIAL comment which started you off on a tirade is that I thought it was amusing Hewitt asked Tennis Australia to speed up the Open. Then we got into all sorts of back and forth about a counter puncher is.

Let me make you happy..Hewitt is a grinder. Does that sound better?

A simple explanation of why Hewitt has not done better on clay is that he is one of the rare breed of consistent baseliners without a ton of rotation on his ball.

Let me offer this is side thought, not particularly related to the discussion,yesterdays final reminded me of the Hewitt's US win when Sampras just self destructed like Mission Impossible tape recorder.

Hewitt IS a counter-puncher. Nobody ever debated that. Just like nobody ever, until you, debates that he does better on faster surfaces. Which is why he wanted the AO to speed up the courts. Makes sense doesn't it?

But no of course, you think he's stupid for doing so.

"A simple explanation of why Hewitt has not done better on clay is that he is one of the rare breed of consistent baseliners without a ton of rotation on his ball."

They're not a rare breed. Davydenko, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Murray and even Djokovic play pretty flat.

Agree about Davydenko (in general) and Nalbandian, but surely you must be mistaken about Joker and Murray. We cannot be talking about the same two players. I have sat courtside side for over 50 of their matches and practice sessions. The amount of rotation on their ball is phenomenal. Really, this is not a matter of interpretation.

John Yandell measured Nadal at an average of 3300 rpm, Federer AND Joker and 2700, and Murray at
2400. Sampras? 1000.

Please don't spin this..no pun intended.

I have a question for you..do you think Federer uses an Eastern or Semi Western? There is much debate. I fall on the side of Semi Western.

I believe the ARE a rare breed...flat grinders.

 

[britbox]

^ Federer uses both and somewhere in between with subtle adjustments depending on the shot. "Officially" it's usually claimed to be an Eastern, but agree that if you look at photos/footage it usually looks more like a semi-western.

I remember discussing this a few years ago and apparently Federer himself isn't really sure himself.