Wimbledon has become to a 2nd Roland Garros - thoughts?

[djarvik]

but also wimby and RG used to be so different that we would not see a RG winner win wilmbledon in the same year.

now its happened 3 years in a row. (I know the players have something to do with that though)

It's important to note that it happened 3 times in a raw, with same players.

Its not like all clay courters do great at Wimby now, in fact, most of them did very badly this year.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

Back in the day Borg did the Wimby RG double 3 years in a row and came very close in making it 4 years back to back.

[Moralspain]

but also wimby and RG used to be so different that we would not see a RG winner win wilmbledon in the same year.

now its happened 3 years in a row. (I know the players have something to do with that though)

It's important to note that it happened 3 times in a raw, with same players.

Its not like all clay courters do great at Wimby now, in fact, most of them did very badly this year.

Clay courters suck on grass, the point here is that Nadal is not only a clay courter, i know it sounds strange, but that's the way it is.

BTW in my opinion RG should be slower, they tried to make it faster, i know the management changed to a fastest balls a few years ago too, but all that didn't work with Nadal as they expected, and i don't like watching Federer having 50 aces ( i think, correct me if i'm wrong ) in his final against Soderling in 2009, that's not clay ,not kidding

[DRII]

I much prefer the grass of the 2000's than the grass of the 90's. Besides a few Agassi classics I thought Wimbledon play could be very boring back then! Some federer fans seem to want to find an excuse for his loss in the quarters this year. It wasn't the speed of the grass, but his bad back same goes for Venus.

[djarvik]

but also wimby and RG used to be so different that we would not see a RG winner win wilmbledon in the same year.

now its happened 3 years in a row. (I know the players have something to do with that though)

It's important to note that it happened 3 times in a raw, with same players.

Its not like all clay courters do great at Wimby now, in fact, most of them did very badly this year.

Clay courters suck on grass, the point here is that Nadal is not only a clay courter, i know it sounds strange, but that's the way it is.

BTW in my opinion RG should be slower, they tried to make it faster, i know the management changed to a fastest balls a few years ago too, but all that didn't work with Nadal as they expected, and i don't like watching Federer having 50 aces ( i think, correct me if i'm wrong ) in his final against Soderling in 2009, that's not clay ,not kidding

That is exactly what I was saying. While the grass courts did get slower, the shift is not dramatic. What is dramatic, is the overall shift towards power baseline tennis. The tennis is being taught the way you see it now. Volley didn't stop to be effective, far from it.

I don't think it is bad thou. We just need to find a bit of balance. We went from almost SV only tennis to Baseline only tennis. And the new wave of Big Baseliners is coming......which is a good thing for future of net play, I think. With players being so big and so athletic, covering the court so good, finishing points at net should be priority when teaching juniors and young kids now. After all, the quickest way to end the point and interrupt a rhythm of a good basleiner is to come to net.

[Saarbrigga]

I much prefer the grass of the 2000's than the grass of the 90's.

All 4 majors should have a different surface with different conditions.

If you like groundstroke ralleys, just watch AUS and French Open, and many matches of the US Open.

But Wimbledon should be for Serve and Volley and offensive players.

Some federer fans seem to want to find an excuse for his loss in the quarters this year. It wasn't the speed of the grass, but his bad back same goes for Venus.

Definately not, it s not an excuse. He lost this year because he was not at his best.
But so or so, Wimbledon was the fastest surface on the planet, the main reason why Sampras was the best there, because he was arguably the best fast court player ever with the best service (1st and 2nd as package). Here he was untouchable and just Krajicek was able to beat him in 8 years.

Nadal still has his home in Paris, where no one can beat him if he s at 100%, no one! As slower it is, as more matches he s gonna win, don t matter who s the opponent.
For Federer in h2h vs. Nadal it s vica verca. As faster it is, as more he will beat him.

Just take a look on this, Federer vs. Phillippoussis in Wimby 2003 Final:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LdjiF9TKO0

This is grasscourt tennis, and shows how good Federer can play if it s very fast. His S&V is not as great as Sampras, Edberg, Becker and thos guys, but not far behind.

In today s generation of players, i see no one who could beat him under this conditions.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

I agree with what you say except for the part where you mention the 'faster' grass court at Wimby in '03 with Fed and the Scud.
As I have mentioned previously, the new lawns were laid in 2001 already. By all available information on this subject (except for the varying opinion of some players) the surface court speed has not been significantly slowed down since then.

What you also have to look more into in explaining the situation is the way players have been taught to play the game, the advancement of racquet technology that has in my opinion more an effect than just the court speed, and the type of strings which the modern players now use.
Just as an example- Nadal this year started using the new Babolat RPM blast strings. And in his opinion he is now able to impart even more spin and pace to his shots.
Tough to S&V as effectively and as often as previous years when the top pro's are blasting the ball back at a million miles an hour.

Look, there's no doubt that a degree of homogenization and a degree of slowing down of the surfaces has taken place. But that's is definately not the only reason that players in recent years are feeling more comfortable playing from the baseline.

[djarvik]

What you also have to look more into in explaining the situation is the way players have been taught to play the game, the advancement of racquet technology that has in my opinion more an effect than just the court speed, and the type of strings which the modern players now use.
Just as an example- Nadal this year started using the new Babolat RPM blast strings. And in his opinion he is now able to impart even more spin and pace to his shots.

That is very true, but I am still convinced, the new way of teaching, the "modern tennis" so to speak is to blame for lack of SV, much more so then equipment. Equipment is an accessory that allowed modern tennis and modern way of teaching tennis to develop.

If you know the main difference between a simple forehand that was tough 30 years ago and now, you simply can't disagree, it's very clear.

[emate007]

Nadal this year started using the new Babolat RPM blast strings. And in his opinion he is now able to impart even more spin and pace to his shots.

Because he was paid to say so... Strings are strings. Polyester can only be so elastic, and they reached the limit years ago.

[jayl0ve]

I think Nadal should try Luxilon...he might reach a point with those, though, where the ball might actually just explode from spinning too fast.

Or you know he might just start dropping too many balls short.

I prefer things where balls are exploding.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

@ Djarvik,
You're referring to the fact that back in the 70s it was considered incorrect FH form to have an open stance, an across the body follow through, and forearm pronation? And that now it is standard fare across the game, because the game has evolved and we've learned how to use all those elements to produce an efficient stroke?
If so, yeah good points. I can understand that type of explanation a bit better rather than just pointing to the slowing down of court speed.

[jayl0ve]

As technique and equipment evolves, certain strategies become obsolete or significantly less important...it happens in basically every sport.

edit: every sport except soccer Apparently they've been having 1-0 snoozefests for over a hundred years so I can't imagine much has changed

[djarvik]

@ Djarvik,
You're referring to the fact that back in the 70s it was considered incorrect FH form to have an open stance, an across the body follow through, and forearm pronation? And that now it is standard fare across the game, because the game has evolved and we've learned how to use all those elements to produce an efficient stroke?
If so, yeah good points. I can understand that type of explanation a bit better rather than just pointing to the slowing down of court speed.

Exactly. And this is just forehand. But not only that, also the fact that now we are teaching to NOT take the ball on the rise or in its peak, rather follow the ball till the ball starts going down and is entering your hitting zone going down. Now add to that the fact that you now hit cross the body and have little to none forward momentum.

[DRII]

As technique and equipment evolves, certain strategies become obsolete or significantly less important...it happens in basically every sport.

I agree completely. Technology and Equipment affects strategy more so than vice versa.

It will be interesting to see the next evolution of serve and volleyer that will effectively adapt to the newer physical tools and materials and take the sv strategy to the next level and perhaps dominate baseliners...

We shall see.