Steve Tignor on the Wimbledon Surface

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/06/you-know-its-grass-season-when.html

"The lament arises: The “new” grass at Wimbledon is too slow
When will we stop thinking of Wimbledon’s current grass, which has been in use since 2001, as new? As I wrote at Wimbledon last year, it’s past time. The current rye turf is better—less bumpy, less easily shredded—than what they used to use. It’s true that the tennis played on it doesn’t involve much old-fashioned serving-and-volleying, and doesn’t differ radically from what you see the rest of the year. But it does reward big serves, as well as variety. Grass keeps a slice low, and forces players to move well.

Has it had a hand, as so many former players believe, in the decline of serve and volley tennis? On the one hand, when Pete Sampras was young, he and his coach changed his two-hander to a one-hander and made him a net-rusher with the specific idea that that’s what it took to win Wimbledon. A young player who dreams of winning Wimbledon today (as every young player does) doesn’t have to make that change. On the other hand, Nadal, Djokovic, and most of the rest of the Top 20 wouldn’t serve and volley even if Wimbledon were played on glass rather than grass. Blame two-handed backhands, Western grips, and bigger racquets for the shift before you blame the “new” surface at one tournament."

Interesting article which mirrors my thoughts on the Wimbledon surface. Always found the repeated slating of the surface somewhat tedious and sometimes, I wish we could go back to the pre-2001 surface if only to eradicate the constant conjecturing about whether Nadal or Djokovic would have succeeded on such surfaces and appreciate the winners more while recognizing the peculiarity of conditions in every era. But on its own merits, I've never had a problem with how the surface plays. I still believe it rewards good serving, power and aggression as can be seen by the success of Roddick on the surface. Always found the tag of "green clay" to be somewhat groundless and likely to come from a Federer fan who can't deal with Nadal's success on the surface.

People had best get used to it cos I really don't see the surface ever reverting to its 90's variant.

Great article

We have had some delightful Wimbledon finals over the last few years:
Wimby 2007, 2008 and 2009 stand out I suppose. Some great and historic matches too (Isner-Mahut).

IMO far more entertaining the snooze ace fests we had earlier.

It Must Be Love wrote:Great article

We have had some delightful Wimbledon finals over the last few years:
Wimby 2007, 2008 and 2009 stand out I suppose. Some great and historic matches too (Isner-Mahut).

IMO far more entertaining the snooze ace fests we had earlier.

I've never found it boring or slow in any way. Always entertaining, except probably the Nadal-Berdych final in 2010.

Nadal-Berdych match wasn't bad quality- it just had a sense of inevitability about it which meant it wasnt exciting.

Agree wholeheartedly with mthierry and with Tignor on this one. There was a reason they changed the turf composition at wimbeldon. I mean the amount of bad bounces and the endless tedium of one and two shot rallies actually was hurting the popularity of the event in my mind and the sport as whole. Since they slowed down the wimbeldon surface we have seen more great matches at wimbeldon than we have ever had, especially in the final. The finals of 07,08, and 09 where all of the highest quality only matched by wimby 1980. That is because the whole tour now has a fair chance of winning wimbeldon. There is nothing wrong with that. The specialists are by there very nature one trick poneys who can only play on grass or on clay, I don't want that rewarded I don't believe it is good for the tour to have some hawaiian grippers dominate the tour for 2 months in the spring and dissappear for the rest of the year.

This is a match with 1-2 shot rallies as well as longer ones. Players adjusted to surfaces, unlike today. This is played on pre-2001 grass and is considered one of the greatest matches played.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Kb19SABFo&feature=related

Here is the same player playing base-line on clay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIGHlkXfcnE

This is the variety currently missing.

I just wish they would lay some artificial grass in the 2nd week, it turns into a mud swamp 3 or 4 rounds which is more associated with the clay.

Monsieur Thierry vous spesh de petite microbe - I challenge you with thees artique:

"Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I just wish they would lay some artificial grass in the 2nd week, it turns into a mud swamp 3 or 4 rounds which is more associated with the clay.

What surprises me even now, and has always over the years, is the fact that the same grass can be laid out in two extra non-playing covered areas and transplanted to the courts which get the most wear to keep it grass rather letting it behave like clay. A question for some W grounds-person, perhaps, or other surface experts?

Halle also turned into mud towards the end. Queens held up a bit better, but W switched from the 'Queens' grass to different stuff.

The current rye turf is better—less bumpy, less easily shredded—than what they used to use.

The question for Mr. Tignor would be to explain why it is mud pot in the second week?

mthierry wrote: Always found the tag of "green clay" to be somewhat groundless and likely to come from a Federer fan who can't deal with Nadal's success on the surface.

Was the discussion meant to be about the 'grass' surface or did you want this turned into a Fedal debate with the above line?

Perhaps W should be turned into a WTF indoor like O2, what do you say?

Don't forget they enlarged the balls as well/

Henman has it right.

laverfan wrote:

mthierry wrote: Always found the tag of "green clay" to be somewhat groundless and likely to come from a Federer fan who can't deal with Nadal's success on the surface.

Was the discussion meant to be about the 'grass' surface or did you want this turned into a Fedal debate with the above line?

Perhaps W should be turned into a WTF indoor like O2, what do you say?

That may be a bit of a risible comment from me but it's a justifiable observation. Maybe the WTF should be rotated across surfaces to make it fairer. Maybe the ratio of the top tournaments and Gs should be balanced in a 1:1:1 ratio across the 3 surfaces. My point was every period and era has its peculiarities with the conditions, courts, racquet technology and a lot of other variables and its pointless wasting time conjecturing about what could be if conditions were different. The Wimby surface isn't like the 90's court but it still plays nothing like "green clay" from my own observation. It still rewards the likes of Roddick who has reached 3 finals on the surface. This is a surface that took Federer until late in the 5th set to break Roddick in 2009. This is a surface that often averages the least breaks of serve, most aces and least amount of time averaged per game.

Nore Staat wrote:Monsieur Thierry vous spesh de petite microbe - I challenge you with thees artique:

"Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

Gross exaggeration by Henman. Federer would probably disagrre with him. What I find galling is we heard little about Wimbledon being slow until Nadal started winning on it and many jumped on the "green clay bandwagon".

Roger Federer is a baseline player and probably took advantage of the associated slow down of the grass. I think the grass surface conditions changed across the 2001-2003 period. Some anti-Nadal campaigners make the claim that the slow down occurred in the 2006-2008 period but there is no evidence for that.

It is true that Nadal, as well as many other post-Federer players, take more time between points than Federer but that is a separate issue.

mthierry wrote:Maybe the WTF should be rotated across surfaces to make it fairer.

Why should it be rotated? All GSs have traditionally played on a fixed surface over the years. Why should WTF be rotated then?

mthierry wrote:The Wimby surface isn't like the 90's court but it still plays nothing like "green clay" from my own observation.

2001 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2sOrtfdAMI
2008 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aem72ucNPZo

Surface is one of a myriad factors to consider here.

mthierry wrote:It still rewards the likes of Roddick who has reached 3 finals on the surface. This is a surface that took Federer until late in the 5th set to break Roddick in 2009.

Roddick 2004,2005,2009. Contrast this to Nadal 2006,2007,2008,2010,2011. Does it mean Roddick needs to play like Nadal?

mthierry wrote:This is a surface that often averages the least breaks of serve, most aces and least amount of time averaged per game.

W Federer v Roddick (Finals only)

2009: Aces 50/27, Games 75 (Avg 1 Aces/Game), BPs Converted 1/7, 2/5, 256 minutes (3.4 minutes)
2005: Aces 12/7, Games 30 (Avg 0.6 Aces/Game), BPs Converted 4/9, 1/2, 101 minutes (3.4 minutes)
2004: Aces 12/11, Games 44 (Avg 0.52 Aces/Game), BPs converted 5/10, 4/14, 151 minutes (3.4 minutes)

W Federer v Nadal

2008: Aces 25/6, Games 60, (Avg 0.5 Aces/Game), BPs converted 1/13, 4/13, 288 minutes (4.8 minutes)

Very player dependent, so averaging just hides differences of individual playing styles.

Contrast this with FO Djokovic v Nadal (2011) Aces 3/4, Games 39, (Avg 0.18 Aces/Game), BPs converted 7/10, 9/17, 229 minutes (5.87 minutes)

Notice the BPs in the 2011 FO. Again, averages and generalizations hide some important player-specific facts.

mthierry wrote:Maybe the ratio of the top tournaments and Gs should be balanced in a 1:1:1 ratio across the 3 surfaces.

Slams - AO - HC, FO - Clay, W - Grass, USO - HC

Masters
HC - IW, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris
Clay - MC, Rome, Madrid
Grass - ?

PS:

2 HC slams, 2 x 3 MS on HC
1 Clay Slam, 1 x 3 MS on HC
1 Grass Slam, 0 x 3 MS on Grass ()

There is an obvious reason for the absence of a grass Masters 1000. There is no venue anywhere in the world capable of staging such an event, other than Wimbledon.

Queens could...its got around 12 courts...more than enough.

laverfan wrote:

mthierry wrote:Maybe the ratio of the top tournaments and Gs should be balanced in a 1:1:1 ratio across the 3 surfaces.

Slams - AO - HC, FO - Clay, W - Grass, USO - HC

Masters
HC - IW, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris
Clay - MC, Rome, Madrid
Grass - ?

PS:

2 HC slams, 2 x 3 MS on HC
1 Clay Slam, 1 x 3 MS on HC
1 Grass Slam, 0 x 3 MS on Grass ()

I can't make out whether you're agreeing with me or making a contrary point.

laverfan wrote:

mthierry wrote:Maybe the WTF should be rotated across surfaces to make it fairer.

Why should it be rotated? All GSs have traditionally played on a fixed surface over the years. Why should WTF be rotated then?

mthierry wrote:The Wimby surface isn't like the 90's court but it still plays nothing like "green clay" from my own observation.

2001 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2sOrtfdAMI
2008 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aem72ucNPZo

Surface is one of a myriad factors to consider here.

mthierry wrote:It still rewards the likes of Roddick who has reached 3 finals on the surface. This is a surface that took Federer until late in the 5th set to break Roddick in 2009.

Roddick 2004,2005,2009. Contrast this to Nadal 2006,2007,2008,2010,2011. Does it mean Roddick needs to play like Nadal?

mthierry wrote:This is a surface that often averages the least breaks of serve, most aces and least amount of time averaged per game.

W Federer v Roddick (Finals only)

2009: Aces 50/27, Games 75 (Avg 1 Aces/Game), BPs Converted 1/7, 2/5, 256 minutes (3.4 minutes)
2005: Aces 12/7, Games 30 (Avg 0.6 Aces/Game), BPs Converted 4/9, 1/2, 101 minutes (3.4 minutes)
2004: Aces 12/11, Games 44 (Avg 0.52 Aces/Game), BPs converted 5/10, 4/14, 151 minutes (3.4 minutes)

W Federer v Nadal

2008: Aces 25/6, Games 60, (Avg 0.5 Aces/Game), BPs converted 1/13, 4/13, 288 minutes (4.8 minutes)

Very player dependent, so averaging just hides differences of individual playing styles.

Contrast this with FO Djokovic v Nadal (2011) Aces 3/4, Games 39, (Avg 0.18 Aces/Game), BPs converted 7/10, 9/17, 229 minutes (5.87 minutes)

Notice the BPs in the 2011 FO. Again, averages and generalizations hide some important player-specific facts.

I don't see what point your Youtube clips are meant to prove. For one, borrowing from yout argument about player-specific facts, the comparison would be irrelevant considering Nadal and Djokovic would still play the same way even if they played on ice. Secondly, I was never arguing the current courts are like the 90's court. I'm arguing against the "green clay" hyperbole that conveniently surfaced when Nadal started winning on the surface. We didn't hear much about this "green clay" when Federer won on it.

I also can't quite make out what your stats are meant to portray contrary to my views. You're articulate but your points were a bit lost on me.

mthierry wrote:

laverfan wrote:

mthierry wrote:Maybe the ratio of the top tournaments and Gs should be balanced in a 1:1:1 ratio across the 3 surfaces.

Slams - AO - HC, FO - Clay, W - Grass, USO - HC

Masters
HC - IW, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris
Clay - MC, Rome, Madrid
Grass - ?

PS:

2 HC slams, 2 x 3 MS on HC
1 Clay Slam, 1 x 3 MS on HC
1 Grass Slam, 0 x 3 MS on Grass ()

I can't make out whether you're agreeing with me or making a contrary point.

The ratio is 1:1:0 (HC:Clay:Grass). A Grass Masters would satisfy your 1:1:1 requirement.

laverfan wrote:

mthierry wrote:Maybe the WTF should be rotated across surfaces to make it fairer.

Why should it be rotated? All GSs have traditionally played on a fixed surface over the years. Why should WTF be rotated then?

But 3 of the GS were once played on clay. If we're talking about traditions, maybe we should revert back to that as well. Mind you, the WTF is okay the way it is. I was only introducing questions about changes that may suit other players better since a fairly loud group love to moan about how the current conditions suit certain players over others.

laverfan wrote:
PS:

2 HC slams, 2 x 3 MS on HC
1 Clay Slam, 1 x 3 MS on HC
1 Grass Slam, 0 x 3 MS on Grass ()

I can't make out whether you're agreeing with me or making a contrary point.[/quote]

The ratio is 1:1:0 (HC:Clay:Grass). A Grass Masters would satisfy your 1:1:1 requirement. [/quote]

It wouldn't satissfy it. It would only be perfectly fair when there are 3 each of Hardcourt, clay and grass masters, a rotation among the 3 surfaces for the end of year WTF and just 3 slams on the 3 surfaces each.

mthierry wrote:
I don't see what point your Youtube clips are meant to prove. For one, borrowing from yout argument about player-specific facts, the comparison would be irrelevant considering Nadal and Djokovic would still play the same way even if they played on ice. Secondly, I was never arguing the current courts are like the 90's court. I'm arguing against the "green clay" hyperbole that conveniently surfaced when Nadal started winning on the surface. We didn't hear much about this "green clay" when Federer won on it.

I also can't quite make out what your stats are meant to portray contrary to my views. You're articulate but your points were a bit lost on me.

1. The UTube clips are meant to show differences in style, irrespective of the surfaces. If W surface was manipulated prior to 2001, the new surface supported both S&V (2001) and base-line (2008). Playing styles and technologies played their respective roles. Notice that Federer did play quite a bit of S&V on Clay as recently as 2011.

2. Agree regarding Nadal v Djokovic on Ice.

3. I provided an example of Federer winning in 2006/2007 against Nadal @W playing baseline. 2003 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Kd-eAl_MY (not much S&V here either) compared to the 2001 clip. Same point as 1. The surface between 2001 and 2003 is the same. Also, notice the patterns of worn-out grass in 2001 v 2003 v 2008.

4. Aces can be served on either surface. Quite a bit of it depends on the returner's foot speed. BPs are not a good measure, as the FO 2011 v W matches show.

5. Length of the games is directly proportional to the two players on either side of the net. Recall the Federer v Monaco USO match vs Nadal v Djokovic match on the same court.

mthierry wrote:But 3 of the GS were once played on clay.

... as they were on Grass (AO, W, USO).

mthierry wrote:
..............................................................................................................................
But 3 of the GS were once played on clay..............................................

I'm perplexed. Which GS would they be ? I can only assume you meant to say grass.

The USO and AO were actually played on grass for far longer than their current hard. And I can remember the USO having a (very, very brief) flirtation with clay.

But I don't believe the red stuff has ever been seen at AO, not to mention (heaven forbid ) Wimbledon

From WiKi..

Australian Open...

Surface Grass (1905–87)
Rebound Ace (1988–2007)
Plexicushion (2008–present)

French Open...

Sand – Île de Puteaux
Clay – All other venues (Outdoors)

W...

Grass / Outdoor (Except Centre Court during rain and consequently bad light when roof is already in play)

USO...

Grass - outdoors (1881–1974)
Clay - outdoors (1975–1977)
DecoTurf - outdoors (1978–present)

I meant to say grass rather than clay. Apologies for the confusion but my point stands anyway.

Tim Henman wrote:Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year."

versus

Novak Djokovic wrote: "It takes a little bit of time to adjust because clay is the slowest surface in tennis, whereas grass is the fastest.

"It's different types of movement, but I have a couple more days to get ready.

"I got a very good match today, I've had a lot of practice since Saturday and I'll try to play as many points as I can in the next couple of days before starting at Wimbledon."

It just shows how the game of tennis has changed - it is now a double backhand baseline game, with between the points double towel downs.

lydian wrote:Queens could...its got around 12 courts...more than enough.

But no stadium or capacity to stage a WTA event simultaneously, both of which are a prerequisite for 1000 status these days.

michael_o wrote:

lydian wrote:Queens could...its got around 12 courts...more than enough.

But no stadium or capacity to stage a WTA event simultaneously, both of which are a prerequisite for 1000 status these days.

One suggestion would be to combine Eastbourne and Queens and make it a Joint Masters on Grass and interleave matches. Do not know how the travel back-and-forth would work though?

They should speed the grass up so its inbetween the speed of the 90's and the speed of today, and use the technology used at Wembley, the desso turf.

http://www.wembleystadium.com/Press/Press-Releases/2011/4/Desso-pitch-installed-at-Wembley.aspx

http://www.dessosports.com/en/desso-grassmaster/

Long live serve and volley

Actually I like the thought of an artificial grass event, not sure about Wimby though. These types of courts are used a lot throughout European clubs and you can control the speed of the ball well...they reward all styles of play and are easy on the body.