Mercedes Cup, Stuttgart Open 2018, ATP 250

[Fiero425]

Wait a minute. It just hit me. Why didn't dull play this tournament?

Scared! It's a mental thing on grass with him! Rafa should skip this part of the season like Roger does with spring on clay! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

By the way, here is what Murray and Nadal had to say about this back in 2010. Sure, things might have changed since then, but notice how pro players discuss conditions and types of ball used. So maybe you should start looking beyond your nose? Just a suggestion.

Both Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal have been mentioned that Wimbledon is still the fastest surface compared to U.S. Open. But the balls used at the latter are lighter and hence zip through the court faster than the ones at Wimbledon, which makes the courts appear faster.

.

You are (most probably deliberately) providing a straw-man argument. I never said that Wimbledon is slower in comparison to US Open courts. In fact, if you look at the CPI chart from the article that I posted (in case you actually bother to look at them), it says CPI for USO courts in 2017 is 35.7 and for Wimbledon it is 37.

The correct claim is that AO is faster than Wimbledon (not always, but in the recent years). This also explains as to why Roger found it little bit easier going there recently.

Finally, players are human beings. Their opinions when comparing surface speeds (especially when it involves different time periods and relying on memory) is not bound to be as accurate as the actual measurements taken (which were posted in the article that I cited).

 

[DarthFed]

That was Roger's best performance against Rafa at RG, so it's a stretch to say he was "awful." In fact, he was coming off of stopping Djokovic's streak, so he was in good form and full of confidence and momentum. Plus, you're saying that Roger was aided by the fast balls. Given that Roger is an ATG, and Djokovic, too, yes, I'd say that he'd have won the 10 and even the 11. The tightest one was SF v. Novak, which was fairly won. Which of the 11 would you say he wouldn't have won, had conditions been different? Keeping in mind that he won 3 without dropping a set, and this last one only dropping one set.

That's the point. Roger had a dismal year up until that tournament and stunk after it too. Due to the change in balls that was not your typical RG and that's why he handled Nole and even caused mild drama in the final despite having no chance mentally. Same situation but a different year when he was actually playing good tennis? He may have won one or more vs Rafa from 05-07.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Scared! It's a mental thing on grass with him! Rafa should skip this part of the season like Roger does with spring on clay! :whistle:

Wrong comparison. There is absolutely no logical reason for Rafa to skip Wimbledon. Once Rafa scoops up all the clay points and bites the
Coupe des Mousquetaires, his basic mission for the year is over. Anything else that happens in that year is gravy. He does not have to save himself anymore, given that his basic mission is over. So, he will and should play in grass.

If the grass season is right before clay season, it might make some sense for Rafa to skip grass season. But, not under the current conditions.

On the other side of the coin, if grass season is right before clay season, once Roger wins Wimby, he might be inclined to take his chances at RG. Now, he needs to save himself for Wimbledon. Again, kind of unlucky situation for Roger.

 

[Moxie]

That's the point. Roger had a dismal year up until that tournament and stunk after it too. Due to the change in balls that was not your typical RG and that's why he handled Nole and even caused mild drama in the final despite having no chance mentally. Same situation but a different year when he was actually playing good tennis? He may have won one or more vs Rafa from 05-07.

I don't really see it. The 1-hander was a big liability. If he'd taken Rafa 5 in that time I might give credence to it, but as it was, I don't think you have a good case.

 

[Fiero425]

Wrong comparison. There is absolutely no logical reason for Rafa to skip Wimbledon. Once Rafa scoops up all the clay points and bites the
Coupe des Mousquetaires, his basic mission for the year is over. Anything else that happens in that year is gravy. He does not have to save himself anymore, given that his basic mission is over. So, he will and should play in grass.

If the grass season is right before clay season, it might make some sense for Rafa to skip grass season. But, not under the current conditions.

On the other side of the coin, if grass season is right before clay season, once Roger wins Wimby, he might be inclined to take his chances at RG. Now, he needs to save himself for Wimbledon. Again, kind of unlucky situation for Roger.

I'm glad you said it! It's been obvious going back to the beginning of his career! For whatever reason, he becomes satisfied after winning the clay season and collecting another FO title! He winds up coasting the rest of the way like no other TOP player I can remember! He may have seriously tried to win a few summer HC Masters and the USO, but it could just be happenstance for all I know! His YEC campaigns have been a waste of a flight! At Wimbledon I'm now accustomed to him going out early; esp. after that 2nd round loss to Rosol in 2012! His only decent run since 2011 was in 2014 getting to the 4th RD losing to a newbie at the time; Nick Kyrgios! I'm starting to think it truly is mental since the grass is so homog'd & isn't what it was for baseliners from the past like when Borg & Lendl had to play on it! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Wrong comparison. There is absolutely no logical reason for Rafa to skip Wimbledon. Once Rafa scoops up all the clay points and bites the
Coupe des Mousquetaires, his basic mission for the year is over. Anything else that happens in that year is gravy. He does not have to save himself anymore, given that his basic mission is over. So, he will and should play in grass.

If the grass season is right before clay season, it might make some sense for Rafa to skip grass season. But, not under the current conditions.

On the other side of the coin, if grass season is right before clay season, once Roger wins Wimby, he might be inclined to take his chances at RG. Now, he needs to save himself for Wimbledon. Again, kind of unlucky situation for Roger.

That's all true, except for the notion that Rafa's mission is over. There are still 2 more Majors on offer. But he definitely has the benefit of playing clay and seeing how he feels about grass. Even if he plays it, he has recovery time after, and before the US HC swing. Roger has to calculate skipping clay.

 

[Moxie]

I'm glad you said it! It's been obvious going back to the beginning of his career! For whatever reason, he becomes satisfied after winning the clay season and collecting another FO title! He winds up coasting the rest of the way like no other TOP player I can remember! He may have seriously tried to win a few summer HC Masters and the USO, but it could just be happenstance for all I know! His YEC campaigns have been a waste of a flight! At Wimbledon I'm now accustomed to him going out early; esp. after that 2nd round loss to Rosol in 2012! His only decent run since 2011 was in 2014 getting to the 4th RD losing to a newbie at the time; Nick Kyrgios! I'm starting to think it truly is mental since the grass is so homog'd & isn't what it was for baseliners from the past like when Borg & Lendl had to play on it! :whistle:

If you think Nadal has coasted the rest of the year after clay, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Fiero425]

If you think Nadal has coasted the rest of the year after clay, you haven't been paying attention.

Did you read the post? I spelled it out! For someone who was proclaimed the GOAT several years ago by past and present stars commentating, I think Rafa's results in comparison to Federer and Djokovic are a joke! How many times do I have to say Nadal's wins weren't balanced where most of his titles are on clay! I don't begrudge him his status except to say Roger and Nole have accomplished more off the dirt by a huge margin! It's evidenced by how many YEC titles they each possess while Nadal's been only lucky to make a final or 2! Why's that so hard to sink in for you? :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

Did you read the post? I spelled it out! For someone who was proclaimed the GOAT several years ago by past and present stars commentating, I think Rafa's results in comparison to Federer and Djokovic are a joke! How many times do I have to say Nadal's wins weren't balanced where most of his titles are on clay! I don't begrudge him his status except to say Roger and Nole have accomplished more off the dirt by a huge margin! It's evidenced by how many YEC titles they each possess while Nadal's been only lucky to make a final or 2! Why's that so hard to sink in for you? :whistle: :cuckoo:

I did read your post. I don't think Nadal's accomplishments off of clay are a joke, but you don't make the comparison with their accomplishments on clay, which are, by comparison, also a "joke." And, not to put too fine a point on it, Djokovic's results in the past two years are, well....

 

[Federberg]

I did read your post. I don't think Nadal's accomplishments off of clay are a joke, but you don't make the comparison with their accomplishments on clay, which are, by comparison, also a "joke." And, not to put too fine a point on it, Djokovic's results in the past two years are, well....

Either their clay accomplishments are a joke or Rafa really is that good on clay

 

[Moxie]

Either their clay accomplishments are a joke or Rafa really is that good on clay

Of course it's the latter. Thus the ironic quotation marks. I do get tired of posters who call what Nadal has done off of clay a joke, or the like, though. Take all of the clay off, and it's still a HOF career.

 

[Fiero425]

Either their clay accomplishments are a joke or Rafa really is that good on clay

Fans of Nadal make sport of Nole and Roger for only owning one Cup from RG! Well Rafa's wanting in several other venues himself! They're all great players and have something the others don't! Nole was coming up on them so quickly in 2016 with his Nole-Slam, it just seemed he would surpass them both since Fedal were aging and breaking down at the time! That hope's been dashed, but seeing as Fedal regained their status, it's always possible that Nole can get close to what he was and win 2-4 majors before all's said and done! These 3 guys truly should set themselves apart from all others even though their jobs were made simpler with tech, new training, and making the courts so homogenized! In the past, a clay court specialist from Spain would be lucky to make it out of the 1st round! Federer will get more credit not only for having more majors (spread wider), but having substantial records that have elevated him even more so going on 20 years of excellence! I'll still take Nole over Fedal for now! I really want the Next Gen to make their move, but so far they've only been able to crack the top, not take it over yet! :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[Federberg]

Fans of Nadal make sport of Nole and Roger for only owning one Cup from RG! Well Rafa's wanting in several other venues himself! They're all great players and have something the others don't! Nole was coming up on them so quickly in 2016 with his Nole-Slam, it just seemed he would surpass them both since Fedal were aging and breaking down at the time! That hope's been dashed, but seeing as Fedal regained their status, it's always possible that Nole can get close to what he was and win 2-4 majors before all's said and done! These 3 guys truly should set themselves apart from all others even though their jobs were made simpler with tech, new training, and making the courts so homogenized! In the past, a clay court specialist from Spain would be lucky to make it out of the 1st round! Federer will get more credit not only for having more majors (spread wider), but having substantial records that have elevated him even more so going on 20 years of excellence! I'll still take Nole over Fedal for now! I really want the Next Gen to make their move, but so far they've only been able to crack the top, not take it over yet! :whistle: :cuckoo:

I don't understand, what do you mean by the bolded bit?

 

[DarthFed]

I don't really see it. The 1-hander was a big liability. If he'd taken Rafa 5 in that time I might give credence to it, but as it was, I don't think you have a good case.

I wouldn't expect you to. And he may have lost all of them anyways. Only thing I'm positive of is Roger would've destroyed Rafa and Nole each and every time if they played on real grass. And I'm not even sure he'd have even had to face them as they likely don't see many or any finals. Those chaps have had the surface advantage in a huge way for most of their careers. But it hasn't stopped Rafa or his trash uncle from complaining.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You are (most probably deliberately) providing a straw-man argument. I never said that Wimbledon is slower in comparison to US Open courts. In fact, if you look at the CPI chart from the article that I posted (in case you actually bother to look at them), it says CPI for USO courts in 2017 is 35.7 and for Wimbledon it is 37.

The correct claim is that AO is faster than Wimbledon (not always, but in the recent years). This also explains as to why Roger found it little bit easier going there recently.

Finally, players are human beings. Their opinions when comparing surface speeds (especially when it involves different time periods and relying on memory) is not bound to be as accurate as the actual measurements taken (which were posted in the article that I cited).

Lol @ "most probably deliberately," yeah, because I'm Trump and a forum argument is so important for me that I'm desperately trying to swing the narrative. Look, I don't have a problem with you but if your perspective is too narrow to understand a simple point, that's not my problem. The reason I posted the above is to highlight how players (in this case Murray) highlight the importance of other factors when it comes to how quick a surface plays (conditions, balls used, etc...), as opposed to providing a scientific study that is supposed to be the end-all be-all. So again, you do understand that balls and conditions also play a determining factor in court speed right? Or is your bible of an article the only thing we need to look at and not more?

Also, lol @ "this explains why Roger found it a little easier at the AO," when he won Wimbledon far more easy and cruised through the tournament without breaking as sweat.

Now again, please explain to me how is it that people whose games you'd expect to do well on fast surfaces like grass are doing far better on grass than they are at the AO, and how Nadal continues to struggle so much at Wimbledon if the surface plays slower. I'm not saying this is irrefutable evidence or anything, but if you don't think everything we see from the brand of tennis being played, to the shorter rallies on grass compared to the AO (particularly the first week), the higher ace count, to the results themselves indicate that grass might still play quicker than the AO then you're really bizarrely infatuated with your article.

Also, it's very convenient that you (most probably deliberately) ignored the following part:

"Also important to note that grass has always been an erratic surface to measure, because there's quite a difference in court speeds depending on cover, age and length of grass, wear and tear, etc... So for example, if the surface speed is measured towards the tail=end of the second week of Wimbledon, it's not that surprising that it comes off as Medium to fast. But if it's measured early in the first week, it'll likely be much faster. And we don't know when the surface speed has been measured at all, but I'm sure @GameSetAndMath and his otherworldly fact-checking, researching ability, and wealth of tennis knowledge can help us out."

And also, just for curiosity's sake, please explain why Roger being less dominant at Wimbledon than Rafa is at the FO is due to the nature of the surface if the surface doesn't play that quick anymore and is even slower than the AO. I'm just offering two different arguments that you've provided and wanted to make sense of them.

 

[brokenshoelace]

1. First of all, if an "internet article" wants to fool you, they don't even have to admit the problems in the data.
2. The problem in the data is clearly explained. The discrepancy is between 38.9 and 39.1 coming from two different sources
for the Paris 2016 tournament. First, the numerical difference of 0.2 is negligible (not anything compared to the difference of 5 between
the speed of AO and Wimbledon courts). Second, it is explained why the difference arose in the first place. The 38.9 was the CPI at
a specific instant in the tourney), whereas the 39.1 was the overall average CPI. It is well known that the speed of the same surface
in the same year can change slightly during the course of the tourney.
3. Whether a service becomes an ace or not depends not just on the speed, but also on the bounce (and various other factors such as predictability etc). So, just because there are more aces in Wimbledon (I don't know whether that is a fact and need to check on it) does not mean it is faster than AO.
4. The last paragraph is meaningless and/or your subjective opinion and so, I cannot argue with it.

1) Never suggested the article wants to fool me, WTF? Who the fuck would even put so much effort in an article just to drive home a tennis-related agenda?

2) No, the real problem with the data, which the article fails to mention (unless I've missed it, and I'm serious here, please point out if it's mentioned somewhere) is what I pointed out about earlier about how inconclusive measuring grass speed is due to the volatile nature of the grass itself: Wear and tear, length, etc... So the grass speed would differ if it's measured on the first day of Wimbledon or the last.

3) I agree with this, and yes, there are more aces at Wimbledon. I never said this is irrefutable evidence. I'm saying there's A LOT of circumstantial evidence when you look at player stats, rally length, aces, whether big servers are excelling, which brand of tennis being favored, etc...to cast doubt on the AO being faster than Wimbledon. TO BE CLEAR I AM NOT SAYING THE NUMBERS IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED ARE INACCURATE SO PLEASE DO NOT GET OFFENDED. I am simply saying, for the 1000th time, there are A LOT more factors in determining surface speed.

4) It is my subjective opinion, but it's only meaningless if you refuse to actually analyze and just want scientific evidence in something that isn't an exact science.

 

[Fiero425]

I don't understand, what do you mean by the bolded bit?

I'd prefer him leading the tour as #1 that's all; been over Fedal for years! He reminds me so much of Lendl back in the day who had to fend off the likes of Connors, Edberg, Becker, Borg, Agassi, & McEnroe over the yrs, yet got no love from the press or fans! :whistle:

 

[Federberg]

I'd prefer him leading the tour as #1 that's all; been over Fedal for years! He reminds me so much of Lendl back in the day who had to fend off the likes of Connors, Edberg, Becker, Borg, Agassi, & McEnroe over the yrs, yet got no love from the press or fans! :whistle:

Gotcha. Personal preference. That's cool

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Lol @ "most probably deliberately," yeah, because I'm Trump and a forum argument is so important for me that I'm desperately trying to swing the narrative. Look, I don't have a problem with you but if your perspective is too narrow to understand a simple point, that's not my problem. The reason I posted the above is to highlight how players (in this case Murray) highlight the importance of other factors when it comes to how quick a surface plays (conditions, balls used, etc...), as opposed to providing a scientific study that is supposed to be the end-all be-all. So again, you do understand that balls and conditions also play a determining factor in court speed right? Or is your bible of an article the only thing we need to look at and not more?

Also, lol @ "this explains why Roger found it a little easier at the AO," when he won Wimbledon far more easy and cruised through the tournament without breaking as sweat.

Now again, please explain to me how is it that people whose games you'd expect to do well on fast surfaces like grass are doing far better on grass than they are at the AO, and how Nadal continues to struggle so much at Wimbledon if the surface plays slower. I'm not saying this is irrefutable evidence or anything, but if you don't think everything we see from the brand of tennis being played, to the shorter rallies on grass compared to the AO (particularly the first week), the higher ace count, to the results themselves indicate that grass might still play quicker than the AO then you're really bizarrely infatuated with your article.

Also, it's very convenient that you (most probably deliberately) ignored the following part:

"Also important to note that grass has always been an erratic surface to measure, because there's quite a difference in court speeds depending on cover, age and length of grass, wear and tear, etc... So for example, if the surface speed is measured towards the tail=end of the second week of Wimbledon, it's not that surprising that it comes off as Medium to fast. But if it's measured early in the first week, it'll likely be much faster. And we don't know when the surface speed has been measured at all, but I'm sure @GameSetAndMath and his otherworldly fact-checking, researching ability, and wealth of tennis knowledge can help us out."

And also, just for curiosity's sake, please explain why Roger being less dominant at Wimbledon than Rafa is at the FO is due to the nature of the surface if the surface doesn't play that quick anymore and is even slower than the AO. I'm just offering two different arguments that you've provided and wanted to make sense of them.

1. The article clearly admits that the speed can vary during the course of the tournament. The speed mentioned is the average over the whole tournament.

2. When they scientifically measure the speed of a court, it is not that they are sending a patch of clay or grass to a lab and the lab spit s out a number. They actually hit balls on the surface and measure the response.

3. Surely, the heaviness/lightness of the ball and the weather plays a role in determining how fast the actual play is. But, their role is much minor compared to the role played by the surface. In particular, their role will not be powerful enough to overcome a speed difference of 5, which is substantial.

4. It is hard to base the speed of the court, based on which players are succeeding. The reason being a player's success depends on various factors. For example, in 2011 RG, the balls used were actually giving rise to faster playing conditions. Yet, many players whom you would think would benefit from such conditions actually lost early.