Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Nadalfan2013]

Fast grass is not good for tennis just like fast food is not good for health. I'm glad that the grass is now slower because even as early as the 90's we already had matches decided by aces and 2 shot rallies so they had no choice but to save the game. If the balls and surfaces weren't slowed down a little bit, today tennis would have died due to players being too powerful, the technology of rackets and therefore non-existing rallies. Even now with this slower grass, you still have matches with barely any rallies. Grass was great when people were serving 80 mph but not anymore. Get with the times people!

 

[Horsa]

Fast grass is not good for tennis just like fast food is not good for health. I'm glad that the grass is now slower because even as early as the 90's we already had matches decided by aces and 2 shot rallies so they had no choice but to save the game. If the balls and surfaces weren't slowed down a little bit, today tennis would have died due to players being too powerful, the technology of rackets and therefore non-existing rallies. Even now with this slower grass, you still have matches with barely any rallies. Grass was great when people were serving 80 mph but not anymore. Get with the times people!

Grass should be grass. You know that natural, green, long stuff that is found growing in fields & meadows what cattle, goats & horses eat. Not the artificial stuff. Artificial grass is o.k. on lawns when people don't have time to mow their lawn & want something that is low-maintenance but it's not like real grass grown from grass-seed.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Grass should be grass. You know that natural, green, long stuff that is found growing in fields & meadows what cattle, goats & horses eat. Not the artificial stuff. Artificial grass is o.k. on lawns when people don't have time to mow their lawn & want something that is low-maintenance but it's not like real grass grown from grass-seed.

Are you implying that the Wimbledon grass is not real grass?

 

[Horsa]

Are you implying that the Wimbledon grass is not real grass?

What do you think?

 

[Moxie]

lol! Seriously? Errrrm…. year end championship Moxie? Come on now...

Look, I didn't say "never" nor did I mean to imply it, but the last time I seriously argued that was like 3 forums ago. And if a Nadal fan brings that one up...it's one tournament. Sort of proves my point that you had to dig that one up. Meantime, we get posts all the time from Fed fans using phrases like "non-clay" (results, records, etc.), "old grass" and now "proper grass", and complaints that the USO has slowed down, now Queens...and on and on.

 

[Federberg]

Look, I didn't say "never" nor did I mean to imply it, but the last time I seriously argued that was like 3 forums ago. And if a Nadal fan brings that one up...it's one tournament. Sort of proves my point that you had to dig that one up. Meantime, we get posts all the time from Fed fans using phrases like "non-clay" (results, records, etc.), "old grass" and now "proper grass", and complaints that the USO has slowed down, now Queens...and on and on.

I'm not going to try to litigate the issue, the point is that everyone is guilty of it or none are. For my part my issue with surface speed has nothing to do with Federer at all. I like fast court tennis, I would love to see carpet back for example. But the most common reason I see people (apart from Darth of course) talk about it, is when looking at cross era comparisons. With the greatest of respect as a Federer fan I'm just arrogant enough to think I don't need to make excuses for the great one he is ahead in any number of stats I could mention, I would hate to bore you with the details..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One of the reasons behind the grass slowing down was to keep it in better condition, so I think balancing that with preventing it from changing in the second week is difficult.

Also, your opening sentence is my issue with a lot of people's takes on the slowing down thing. I too, would like to see more variety but the way you guys phrase it is often way too alarmist, sensationalist, and borderline conspiracy theorist. Nobody's winning Wimbledon by playing a defensive game, let's not kid each other.

Can you support your suggestion with evidence. I believe the reason for slowing down was because people thought the game was being too much server oriented and no rallies and people felt it was boring at that time.

Once they slowed down, obviously lot of rallies happen and so by the beginning of the second week all grass is stomped upon and becomes almost dirt at the baseline especially.

I don't think slowing down was ever in support of keeping it in better condition. Where did you get that from.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not going to try to litigate the issue, the point is that everyone is guilty of it or none are. For my part my issue with surface speed has nothing to do with Federer at all. I like fast court tennis, I would love to see carpet back for example. But the most common reason I see people (apart from Darth of course) talk about it, is when looking at cross era comparisons. With the greatest of respect as a Federer fan I'm just arrogant enough to think I don't need to make excuses for the great one he is ahead in any number of stats I could mention, I would hate to bore you with the details..

I was responding to Broken who said that Nadal fans shouldn't bring up surface, and I replied with a smart-ass remark that we don't have to, since it comes up all the time, anyway. It was a throwaway, and there is no need to debate it. I know why you miss the faster surfaces, and I know that you are a sensible Fed fan who knows that the Maestro has won a lot, and on all of the surfaces on offer. Also, I know you don't like to indulge in the what-ifs and coulda's. But, without prejudice, I know that you also can't have missed that there is a lot of whining about surfaces, along with the gnashing of teeth over how much more Roger would have won, etc. It's been a fixture of the grass season for I don't know how long, now. (Since 2007-8?) "Wimbledon Grass-gate" gets a bit old. But I know it doesn't come from you.

 

[Moxie]

Can you support your suggestion with evidence. I believe the reason for slowing down was because people thought the game was being too much server oriented and no rallies and people felt it was boring at that time.

Once they slowed down, obviously lot of rallies happen and so by the beginning of the second week all grass is stomped upon and becomes almost dirt at the baseline especially.

I don't think slowing down was ever in support of keeping it in better condition. Where did you get that from.

Here is an article from The Guardian in 2001 when they made the change. When the decision was made, it was about addressing durability, and the unpredictability of the bounce, and to slow down play to allow more rallies.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Can you support your suggestion with evidence. I believe the reason for slowing down was because people thought the game was being too much server oriented and no rallies and people felt it was boring at that time.

Once they slowed down, obviously lot of rallies happen and so by the beginning of the second week all grass is stomped upon and becomes almost dirt at the baseline especially.

I don't think slowing down was ever in support of keeping it in better condition. Where did you get that from.

My "suggestion" is not at all a suggestion. I got it from actually reading and researching the topics I discuss, instead of acting like a condescending teacher and asking for evidence supporting claims that for many tennis fans, are basic knowledge.

But, for your kind reference, enjoy:

"The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm (since 1995) is the optimum for present day play and survival.


Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game. "

Source:

https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/grass_courts.html

That would be the official Wimbledon website, for those keeping track.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Except one of those points is pretty debatable. Roger tends to return better on any court with a lower bounce. Speed of the surface is a much lesser factor for him on return. I don't think he'd have lost to Roddick or anyone else those years in his prime. I highly doubt he's sitting on a measly 8. And he's a combined 31-7 in QF, SF, and Finals since 2003. Barely 80% win which happens to correspond with the surface getting less and less to his liking. Yeah I know the competition gets tougher too but still a bad % for it being his best surface. Do that with the other greats at their best event and you don't see that loss %

I don’t think Roger benefited from the slowing down of the surface. Roger was comfortable playing serve and volley, in addition to his all court game. And with other facets of his game that were improving, he would have been hard to beat on fast grass.

Guys, I get there's an important agenda at stake here, but this is common sense and basic tennis knowledge. OF COURSE it is easier to return serves when the ball doesn't stay too low. This applies to literally every tennis player in history, including the GOAT, Roger Federer.

Interestingly, here are Roger's comments on Halle vs. Stuttgart from last year:

“This is an easier court to play than last week in Stuttgart,”

“The ball bounces up higher into my strike zone. I was connecting well on returns and I could read his serve."

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/977270/Roger-Federer-Halle-Stuttgart-grass-court

Now please can you guys for once try to be objective and logical when it comes to this topic? Yes, Roger 10000% benefited from the slowing down of Wimbledon in terms of being able to play his all around game while dominating from the baseline, as it increased the margins, relatively neutralized serves against big servers, allowed him to return far more comfortably, and basically meant that whoever plays better from the baseline has a very good chance of winning. Needless to say, Roger was the best baseliner of his generation.

Now, this DOES NOT mean that he wouldn't have done extremely well on the old grass too, and he certainly would have preferred that grass vs. the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, but yes, there's literally no way to deny it, he benefited from slower grass conditions as he perfectly combined his attacking baseline game with his all around game. The results from his prime years speak from themselves, and he didn't need to make huge adjustments when playing on grass so the transition from and to other surfaces was easier, the same way it was for everyone else.

Roger being comfortable playing serve and volley tennis does not negate that. He sure was comfortable, but not nearly as comfortable as playing his natural offensive baseline game and combining it with coming to the net.

 

[Federberg]

Guys, I get there's an important agenda at stake here, but this is common sense and basic tennis knowledge. OF COURSE it is easier to return serves when the ball doesn't stay too low. This applies to literally every tennis player in history, including the GOAT, Roger Federer.

Interestingly, here are Roger's comments on Halle vs. Stuttgart from last year:

“This is an easier court to play than last week in Stuttgart,”

“The ball bounces up higher into my strike zone. I was connecting well on returns and I could read his serve."

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/977270/Roger-Federer-Halle-Stuttgart-grass-court

Now please can you guys for once try to be objective and logical when it comes to this topic? Yes, Roger 10000% benefited from the slowing down of Wimbledon in terms of being able to play his all around game while dominating from the baseline, as it increased the margins, relatively neutralized serves against big servers, allowed him to return far more comfortably, and basically meant that whoever plays better from the baseline has a very good chance of winning. Needless to say, Roger was the best baseliner of his generation.

Now, this DOES NOT mean that he wouldn't have done extremely well on the old grass too, and he certainly would have preferred that grass vs. the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, but yes, there's literally no way to deny it, he benefited from slower grass conditions as he perfectly combined his attacking baseline game with his all around game. The results from his prime years speak from themselves, and he didn't need to make huge adjustments when playing on grass so the transition from and to other surfaces was easier, the same way it was for everyone else.

Roger being comfortable playing serve and volley tennis does not negate that. He sure was comfortable, but not nearly as comfortable as playing his natural offensive baseline game and combining it with coming to the net.

to be fair to my Fedfan compatriots I think you're taking them too literally. When they say that Roger hasn't benefited from slower courts they mean it in a relative sense. You surely know this anyway

Btw... the one question I was actually able to ask Roger when I met him in 2012 was about slowing down surfaces. And he immediately said that he was the primary beneficiary. I think two things can be true... slower courts have indeed benefitted Roger in an absolute sense..... and faster courts would have benefitted him relatively more

 

[brokenshoelace]

to be fair to my Fedfan compatriots I think you're taking them too literally. When they say that Roger hasn't benefited from slower courts they mean it in a relative sense. You surely know this anyway

Btw... the one question I was actually able to ask Roger when I met him in 2012 was about slowing down surfaces. And he immediately said that he was the primary beneficiary. I think two things can be true... slower courts have indeed benefitted Roger in an absolute sense..... and faster courts would have benefitted him relatively more

That's fair. I'd also add that the reason many are resistant to the idea that slower courts benefited him is the fact that they have benefited Nadal and Djokovic even more, which is undeniably true. So I guess the logic is Roger would have done better vs. those two on faster courts, which is also obviously true, but it also ignores a major chunk of Roger's career where he was winning almost literally everything in sight.

 

[atttomole]

Guys, I get there's an important agenda at stake here, but this is common sense and basic tennis knowledge. OF COURSE it is easier to return serves when the ball doesn't stay too low. This applies to literally every tennis player in history, including the GOAT, Roger Federer.

Interestingly, here are Roger's comments on Halle vs. Stuttgart from last year:

“This is an easier court to play than last week in Stuttgart,”

“The ball bounces up higher into my strike zone. I was connecting well on returns and I could read his serve."

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/977270/Roger-Federer-Halle-Stuttgart-grass-court

Now please can you guys for once try to be objective and logical when it comes to this topic? Yes, Roger 10000% benefited from the slowing down of Wimbledon in terms of being able to play his all around game while dominating from the baseline, as it increased the margins, relatively neutralized serves against big servers, allowed him to return far more comfortably, and basically meant that whoever plays better from the baseline has a very good chance of winning. Needless to say, Roger was the best baseliner of his generation.

Now, this DOES NOT mean that he wouldn't have done extremely well on the old grass too, and he certainly would have preferred that grass vs. the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, but yes, there's literally no way to deny it, he benefited from slower grass conditions as he perfectly combined his attacking baseline game with his all around game. The results from his prime years speak from themselves, and he didn't need to make huge adjustments when playing on grass so the transition from and to other surfaces was easier, the same way it was for everyone else.

Roger being comfortable playing serve and volley tennis does not negate that. He sure was comfortable, but not nearly as comfortable as playing his natural offensive baseline game and combining it with coming to the net.

The ball bouncing to his strike zone is a relative thing. He would not say the same about RG, which bounces even higher, I guess. There is a comfort zone when it comes to bounces. I don’t think a lower bounce would have been a problem for Roger at Stuttgart. Rather, it would have benefited him more. A good example is the WTF surface.

Roger’s all court game is not just about baseline play. With the old grass, his backhand would be more effective and his drop shots and approach shots would be almost untouchable. In addition, the points would be shorter, which would have been good for him as he aged.

 

[monfed]

depends on dull's draw generator...

 

[DarthFed]

to be fair to my Fedfan compatriots I think you're taking them too literally. When they say that Roger hasn't benefited from slower courts they mean it in a relative sense. You surely know this anyway

Btw... the one question I was actually able to ask Roger when I met him in 2012 was about slowing down surfaces. And he immediately said that he was the primary beneficiary. I think two things can be true... slower courts have indeed benefitted Roger in an absolute sense..... and faster courts would have benefitted him relatively more

I'd say they all benefited from everyone playing the same style. That part of it is underrated. Now how much of that is homogenization of courts and how much is string technology? But please, maybe he was being diplomatic but if there were more fast courts he would have been a lot more successful.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around someone arguing that Federer is better on slower, high bouncing grass than the old style. Just because he dominated Wimbledon in his prime doesn't mean he wouldn't have done so if Wimbledon played like Halle. Because he has done so poorly at Halle over the years. In fact, if we are saying Roger's prime is 2004-2010 than he only won 5 of 7 at Wimbledon in the timeframe. I guess the argument is he could have lost to Roddick, Karlovic, Isner, etc. well that is a small % of the tour, and much lesser threats overall compared to good baseliners who clearly benefited against him. Yes, even in his prime I'd say there were more that benefited against him at Wimbledon than there were those he benefited against. After all, he did play Nadal from 06-08. And I'm sorry but it's tough picturing Roger struggle to outplay Roddick from the baseline in 2009 if the conditions were faster and lower.

Roger does prefer a lower ball, on return, from the baseline, etc. Fed has often done a horrible job against Nadal and Djokovic 2nd serve on EVERY surface just because they can kick it high to his backhand. Roger often returns serve way better at tournaments like Cincy, Halle, Dubai, etc than he does at Miami and other slow high bouncing events.

Bottom line is no way he is at a measly 8 at Wimbledon under better circumstances. That is what this is about anyways.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

My "suggestion" is not at all a suggestion. I got it from actually reading and researching the topics I discuss.

.

For your information, the following line is from the link you posted which I hope you read completely.

"The amount a ball bounces is largely determined by the soil, not the grass"

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Read the following article from from BBC Sports written in 2005 or so.

Specificially, let me point to this paragraph.

"But I don't think it's a sinister reason. Wimbledon just changed the texture of the grass to make the courts more durable and that makes them slower because the grass is spongier."

Even if their motivation is only to promote durability of the grass, a very clear effect of it is that the change of grass made it slower.

The quote from your article says (with which I agree and almost all of us agree) the following.

"Perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time, as well as the weather before and during the event"

But, we should realize that weather conditions etc will have only minor effect in comparison to the basic speed as determined by the surface (in this case the grass used).

 

[Moxie]

I don't think anyone is debating that the courts were made slower by the change in grass, right? Point was that it wasn't the only motivation...or even the main one. And that it happened in 2001, so it wasn't to help Novak and Rafa or hurt Roger. Maybe you guys can get up a petition for Wimbledon and complain they should speed it up a bit, but otherwise...are we done talking about the quality of the grass now? #hopefully #notcountingonit B-)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is this notion of general bounce (independent of whether it is low or high) and it is determined primarily by the soil.

There is this uneven bounce which many players hate. This is about the ball bouncing in different ways in different parts
of the court (primarily the huge difference between chewed up areas of the court and other areas). Looks like apparently,
the primary motivation in changing the grass is to prevent this uneven bounces by improving the durability. However, in
that process the basic surface speed has drastically changed. Further, this change in court speed has been exacerbated
by the improvement in racquet technology since 2001 which makes it easy to run and general base line play.

Of course all of these changes happened before Fedalovic were in the picture.

However, it is my contention that the old grass courts would have favored Federer considerably heavily in comparison
to the newer and slower courts.