Do you think it takes more skill to play on grass or clay?

[TsarMatt]

I've been thinking about this lately, so I thought I'd ask you tennis buffs.

Both surfaces are obviously drastically difference - clay is slow and grass is much faster. I know we've sadly seen the speed of the grass courts reduced over the years, particularly center court at Wimbledon, but most of them out there are still pretty quick. Well, in comparison to the dirt, anyway.

To be a proficient clay-court player you need to have great defensive skills, of course. You also need to have great endurance as rallies usually last longer. I think one can never really excel on the clay courts if you aim to be a full-on aggressive player. Serve and volleying is very hard, and trying to ball-bash winners is much more arduous because the surface slows it down. The effectiveness of your serve is also diminished. It's a very defensive court, and I think the reason why, say, Nadal has accomplished so much on the dirt is because he one of the best defensive players of all time and moves impeccably well on clay. He knows when to go for his shots and seldom over-plays or over-hits. He's not too aggressive.

Grass is much different. Serve and volleying is easier (volleying in general is much more accessible, really), the serve is much more potent, and playing risky aggressive tennis is much more rewarding if it pays off. Just look at Rosol - he just served and smashed his way to victory against Nadal.

So which surface do you think requires more skill? Do you think there is a definitive answer or do both surfaces enhance different skills? For grass, it enhances your offensive game. For clay, your defensive. Is it that black and white or is there more to it?

Your thoughts?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I've been thinking about this lately, so I thought I'd ask you tennis buffs.

Both surfaces are obviously drastically difference - clay is slow and grass is much faster. I know we've sadly seen the speed of the grass courts reduced over the years, particularly center court at Wimbledon, but most of them out there are still pretty quick. Well, in comparison to the dirt, anyway.

To be a proficient clay-court player you need to have great defensive skills, of course. You also need to have great endurance as rallies usually last longer. I think one can never really excel on the clay courts if you aim to be a full-on aggressive player. Serve and volleying is very hard, and trying to ball-bash winners is much more arduous because the surface slows it down. The effectiveness of your serve is also diminished. It's a very defensive court, and I think the reason why, say, Nadal has accomplished so much on the dirt is because he one of the best defensive players of all time and moves impeccably well on clay. He knows when to go for his shots and seldom over-plays or over-hits. He's not too aggressive.

Grass is much different. Serve and volleying is easier (volleying in general is much more accessible, really), the serve is much more potent, and playing risky aggressive tennis is much more rewarding if it pays off. Just look at Rosol - he just served and smashed his way to victory against Nadal.

So which surface do you think requires more skill? Do you think there is a definitive answer or do both surfaces enhance different skills? For grass, it enhances your offensive game. For clay, your defensive. Is it that black and white or is there more to it?

Your thoughts?

No more or less skill. They require slightly different skill sets to excel.

On clay, endurance, patience, and spin are traditionally at the top of the list.

On grass, return of serve and the ability to take the ball earlier, and the slice backhand and slice serve are key.

But let's face it, the styles of play, which used to be SO different, have been homogenized.

Is title a surprise that the guys who have played numerous times in French finals have also played in a bunch of Wimby finals?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think one can never really excel on the clay courts if you aim to be a full-on aggressive player.Your

Interesting thread.

The quoted part above though, is not necessarily true, especially in today's game. Tsonga, Soderling, Del Potro, Gonzalez have all reached French Open semis (finals in the case of Soderling) playing all out attacking tennis. Someone could say "yeah, but they didn't win," but that's because of who they are (and who their competition is), not due to their style of play. Plus, to be honest, watching clay court tennis in the past 5 years or so, the more aggressive player usually wins (provided they're playing well, of course, and not spraying errors left and right). Of course you can find exceptions, but on a match-to-match basis, that's the case. Defensive players aren't really doing that well on clay (unless you believe Luxilon Borg and think that's how Nadal has been winning his French Opens).

Some of the ideas in the OP are true but a tad outdated given the change we've seen in both surfaces and the game in general.

Ultimately, if someone actually claims it takes more skill to win on one surface over the other, they're likely speaking out of bias towards a player/brand of tennis. It takes an equal amount of skill. You just need to utilize different skills depending on the surface.

In before "clay rewards defensive players/counterpunchers and therefore the better player doesn't always win," only to be countered by "yeah, but on grass, you can fluke out a win by pure serving." Obviously, both are extremely flawed arguments.

Also, in before this turns into a 7 page discussion about Nadal and/or homogenization of the surfaces/and or how it was more difficult in the 80's-90's.

 

[Kieran]

Good topic, Matt!

Now, if “serve and volley was easier,” on grass, obviously they’d all be doing it. But they largely avoid it, apart from the odd exception here and there. It was never easy, it was like any high-level set of skills, it required huge talent and a high level of skill. But the fact that players avoid it, or can't serve-volley like players used to, says more about how the culture in tennis is geared towards attrition skills and ability from the back court. If you can win Wimbledon - as Rafa did, in 2008 - by serve-volleying only once in a long five set final, then why change and do something different?

Also, I always thought, the faster the court, the less time you have, the more difficult it becomes, so that makes serve-volley fairly much the most difficult, instantaneous of skills. But really, clay was always more difficult for the guys who found fast courts to be more suitable to their games, and vice versa. So I suppose it comes down to the player, at the end, and their own set of skills. Federer finds grass easier, Nadal finds clay to be better for him…

 

[TsarMatt]

Some interesting points you've all raised, actually. I must admit, I don't know a whole lot about the technicalities of tennis, so you all have provided some good insight.

Broken_Shoelace - I actually think you might be right in regards to aggressive players and clay courts. After all, if I recall correctly, the way Soderling beat Nadal in '09 was basically outhitting him all over the court, and playing some flat, hard tennis. I do think, however, that one can not truly excel on the dirt if they just ball bash. You need a considerable level of good defence skills if you want to play consistently well on clay, but, then again, I guess that's applicable to every surface, regardless of speed.

Kieran - yeah, that makes a lot of sense, actually. I personally think the grass is more suitable for a serve-and-volley type game if you can do it right, but the quickness of the court would intrinsically make it more difficult because you have less time to execute it properly. It's a shame that S&V has diminished over the years. Part of what makes Wimbledon so fun to watch is seeing the relatively obscure players really change things up. I'll never forget Dustin Brown's epic performance against Hewitt.

 

[Kieran]

The thing Broken is saying about clay, we see clearly how Rafa plays less well against Nole when it's a damp, slow court. Rafa likes to be the aggressor and a hot dry court is perfect for his spins, movement, bashing the ball through his opponent. On the slower swampy wet court, Nole slides across and gets these back and it requires a different set of skills to win the point.

S&V has almost completely vanished. I call this era the Second Great Serve-Volley Crisis. The First One was in the mid- to late-seventies, when the Aussies had declined and the new era, started by Mac and brought to glory by Becker, Edberg, often Cash, eventually Pete, hadn't yet started. Borg won five in a row, facing Connors a few times, but only actually one great S&V player, or I should say, only one great champion who played S&V tennis, which was McEnroe, in 1980.

Now, I think S&V is possible, but it's going to require a genius to kickstart it and change the culture. Back then, it seemed baseline tennis was invincible. Now? Same thinking. It'll require a player with huge capabilities to play S&V for five sets against the craft of today's baseliners. However, I'd like to see top players use it more, even as a surprise tactic. More than once a match, anyway. Nole seems to be coming round to this, if his recent displays are anything to go by. It is easier on fast surfaces and they all have serves which can set this up fairly handily. It's the net craft and confidence at the net is missing. Speaking of which style is "easier", they all find it easier to stay back and swat winners from there...

 

[tented]

If you can win Wimbledon - as Rafa did, in 2008 - by serve-volleying only once in a long five set final, then why change and do something different?

I don't know if serve-volleying is the answer, especially for Nadal, but after losing to Rosol and Darcis, something needs to change, no?

 

[shawnbm]

It all comes down to how one defines "skill". One man will say knowing how to time the slide into a ball on clay and hitting with proper spin and depth requires great skill, whilst another will speak of how quick the reflexes must be to pick up the low bouncing shots on grass and whatnot. Certainly certain spinny services have more effect on grass than clay, and power appears to be rewarded more on grass than clay. The touch of the drop shot or the carved volley in the forecourt works better on grass than clay because the ball does not bounce as high. Then again, clay court tennis requires stamina and physicality, which demands certain skills of a player. Tough call--but I prefer grass court tennis and love that there is still a place where we can see serve and volley tennis.

 

[Moxie]

^Right, but we do have to go back to which skills for which surface. However, the fact that both are natural surfaces must come into the conversation. I would say movement/footwork in both cases features hugely. Clay requires sliding into a shot, while grass often asks you not to slip. And both surfaces seem to offer the greater possibility for odd bounces, so that improvisational skills come into play.

 

[Ricardo]

It would be over-simplifying to pick one over another, but if we include 'mental' skills (how to keep focus for longer, how to fight while being down etc) then i think clay demands players with more mental ability to win. But looking at physical skills, we can only call it requires different skill sets on each.... what i noted though, it takes players to have one or more very notable ball-striking related weapons to win Wimbledon while on average you see more players win RG with more balanced set of skills, possibly without one such outstanding weapons.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

It would be over-simplifying to pick one over another, but if we include 'mental' skills (how to keep focus for longer, how to fight while being down etc) then i think clay demands players with more mental ability to win. But looking at physical skills, we can only call it requires different skill sets on each.... what i noted though, it takes players to have one or more very notable ball-striking related weapons to win Wimbledon while on average you see more players win RG with more balanced set of skills, possibly without one such outstanding weapons.

I agree with you in general Ricardo, but that bolded part reminds me of a part of Sampras's book, where he explains how mentally draining it was to play against Goran in those Wimbledon matches, watching ace after ace go by and having to wait for that one weak second serve and when that arrived, the pressure to make something with it because that would pretty much mean the difference between winning or losing that set...So, I guess both surfaces have their unique mental and physical challenges.