Which Grand Slam records will fall?

[mrzz]

I guess Djokovic falls in the same category of Federer and Nadal, he is so good that he would have found a way. Murray is surely a very fine player, but he is not in the same category.

But it is impossible not to believe that the personal achievements would be less, for at least one reason: more variety leads to specialized players, and those dark horses could very well end up in the way of an all time great here and there. For example, Tsonga could have upset anyone of the top three in a good day at Wimbledon (in fact, he already did) had the courts been even faster.

 

[mrzz]

And, by the way, as things stand right now, I guess that the record that is closest to be broken is the titles one, by the holder himself...

 

[mightyjeditribble]

And, by the way, as thing stand right now, I guess that the record that is closest to be broken is the titles one, by the holder himself...

Ok, just to clarify, what I meant was whether Federer's tally will be beaten - i.e. he is still allowed to add to the records himself to make it harder to be overtaken.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Well, the question of surfaces is an interesting one. From what I recall, Wimbledon stated that they didn't set out to slow the grass down. They used a different type of grass which was more resilient, to improve the quality of the courts - and the fact that the ball bounced higher was a side effect of this.

Anyway, I am not sure that a setting where the best players on one surface wouldn't even compete on the other is the best for the sport.

Ideally, the surfaces would be similar enough that great players can feasibly play well on all of them - but different enough that they have to genuinely adapt their games and strategies to do so.

I guess the pendulum had swung quite far in one direction in the 90s, maybe swung back too far in the 2000s and early 2010s, and might be adjusting a little bit again now?

 

[Kieran]

I think the point of different surfaces isn't that it's better for the sport if the top players can compete on each surface. To me, a claycourt naturally plays a certain way, a grasscourt too, they have an integrity that's organic to the surface, and it's up to the players to adapt to learn how to play on the surface, but it's not up to the surfaces to change to suit the players, you know? There was actually something unpredictable and exciting watching great grasscourt players try make a charge on clay.

There was also something in it for claycourters who'd been hammered by Pete on grass to have a chance to get their own back on their own surface. There was a divide, sure, but I think it challenged the players to try be better on other surfaces, but also to try defend their patch - and rankings, and livelihood - on their specialist surface. So in a real way, the sport was far more competitive than it is now. As you say, it's swung too far in the other direction, where it suits the great players and so they can much more easily break all the records...

 

[DarthFed]

There was definitely a conscious effort to slow courts down with the purpose of having longer rallies. Wimbledon not only changed their surface, they also went to a heavier ball and they got their wish, there are a lot more rallies now than there were in the 90's. Other tournaments have followed suit including the USO which has definitely been playing slower for at least the past few years.

I don't think there's a decent argument that slowing the courts down has helped Roger, especially the grass at Wimbledon. Even today Rafa and Djokovic would have next to zero chance against him on the grass we saw in the 90's and Roger's game is generally stronger on faster and lower bouncing surfaces. The only argument against Roger winning more Wimbledons than he has is that he may have been upset in the early rounds by big servers on occasion.

And we just saw what happened as soon as they sped up the Australian Open courts, a 35 year old Fed who hadn't played in about 7 months won the whole damn thing. On top of resurfacing the court later I think they may have been using a different ball as well. Still, it is undeniable that play on RLA was noticeably quicker and it will be interesting to see going forward if the change is here to stay or if it is a one time thing.

As far as I know RG hasn't really changed (I could be wrong on that though)? With the exception of 2011 when they played with a lighter ball which quickened play up and guess who beat the 45-0 Djokovic and made the final?