Eyeing up some of the recent results, it has come to my attention that a few players, whose main weapon is generally regarded as their serve, have been having a fair amount of success on clay.

Karlovic, a one-shot-wonder if ever there was one, winning Houston is obviously the most startling example, but a few results at Monte Carlo have surprised me as well. Soderling beating No Weapons on clay surely should never happen? And he'll now play Mirnyi in the next round :blink: Vliegen's primary weapon is also his serve (although he was playing Safin, so not so much of a shock). Even going back to last year's RG quarter finals, there were a few hefty servers there.

In principle, if you can find the key to hitting unreturnable serves on clay, you're in business, since you'll get a fair shout at breaking your opponent's serve as well. But I don't ever remember a set of results like this before; Verkerk reaching the final of RG in 2003 seemed to be a complete blip. Is this the sign of something new, or is it just an anomaly? Is the serve becoming a real weapon on clay? If so, why?

Personally I believe it's a weak era for clay courters (didn't think I was gonna get by without slipping that in did you?!), but that still doesn't really explain it. I shall be paying close attention to some of these big servers over the next month. Apart from Ljubicic.

I mentioned the same thing about the servers doing well on clay on the Karlovic thread. Last year the FO 1/4 finals were full of good servers.

But unlike Wise, I think this is due to a better, fitter era than in the past.

Why? Simply because it is a combination of the serve being more powerful (faster balls as well) and the fitness of the returners which despite being better than in the past, can't be fully exploited on clay as the surface is slippery. This makes returning difficult, almost like it was once on grass and a good 1st serve is often returned softly and is an easy put away for the server.

Personally, I think clay has always been a surface for upsets...it's a specialist surface. Looking at the Sampras era, Agassi only won RG once (and he was lucky!!) Sampras never won....we always had Kuerten, Bruguera...clay court specialists, but nothing on any other surface.

Andreev was the last person to be Nadal on clay...but really, who is Andreev in the grand scheme of tennis?

Who are these players outside a clay court??

It's a very, very specialised surface...being ranked 100 in the world doesn't make a difference if you are a strong clay courter.

I really don't think serve makes a big difference: Sampras, Roddick, Goran. No big server has ever won.

You've got to slog to win RG.

Davydenko hits too flat for clay - he needs to adjust and hit with some topspin...beyond him :D

I think Agassi's RG was well deserved though, he had a couple of disappointing losses in the finals in the early nineties so I was pleased when he won it in 1999 and completed the career slam :D

Plus even though he wasn't a clay court specialist he was a natural clay courter whose game was very suited to it!

Some won't like that but I agree with you. The crowd and Medvedev helped him a lot.

Yes but it looks like this is about to change and big serves are helping more than in the past.

This is true too but a good serve would make Davdenko a deadly player on this surface.

Yes apparently it is. They were saying last year how the clay was speeding up.....

I do think Agassi was lucky, but I was really pleased he won RG...I was disappointed Sampras never did, and will be hoping Federer can! :D

Clay is just such an odd surface - aside from having every confidence in Rafa - I find it hard to make any accurate predictions at all! Though, I am still predicting that I don't think a big server will win RG this year....(now watch me jinx that!!)

Yes but speeding it advantages the servers as well as guys like Nadal.

What they do is simply have a thinner layer of clay, so players have more grip (important for retrievers) but the bounce is still awfully fast and vertical making it difficult for shot makers like Federer/Djoko.

I still think the most suitable clay courts for attacking players are in hamburg with a thicker layer and humidity enabling them to hit harder shots and better angles while making the surface more slippery for retrievers.

Yeah that's what I was saying :lol: The speeding it up will help people with big serves. And Fed doesn't have such a small serve himself ;)

I think though the best players can bring their game to the tennis court regardless of the surface. Someone like Federer is capabable of imposing his will on a clay court and playing his attacking game on it. We saw this in the first set of the French last year. I think Federer needs to work on this as well as the more obvious technical advantages clay gives to his opponents.

Unless the clay is really horrible giving bad bounces and it's extreemely windy, I see no reason why a shot maker of Federer's calibre shouldn't be able to bring his game to a clay regardless of the conditions.

Tenez, I'm not sure if this is a weak/strong era issue, for once ;) However, let's say for a minute (and not a second more) that this is a stronger era. You yourself have said how serve volley is a fading tactic because the standard of returning has gone up. Now I don't believe the standard of either serving or returning has gone up, but we take all the factors into account, if things were improving, returning would improve every bit as much as serving. Therefore the two would negate eachother and we still wouldn't see this recent phenomenon, especially on clay.

I do agree with you about Agassi though, Medvedev was dominating that final until he missed the break point at 4-4 in the third set, and then the crowd got into it and he folded.

Sara, that's my point. How many 'clay court specialists' have big serves? I can't think of any. Traditionally, the grinders do well on clay while the big hitters excel on hard and grass courts, but all of a sudden we've got a few big servers making a name for themselves, which was previously unheard of. Like you, I don't think for one minute that Roddick or Karlovic will win RG, but it seems that players in that mould are having more joy than usual. Who knows what we might have in a decade or so?

If it's true about the clay speeding up, that's irritating. Given what's happened to grass recently, it's as if there's a big magnet on the hard courts, slowly pulling other surfaces towards it until we've got no variety left whatsoever.

How did Roscoe Tanner do on clay? He had a big serve.

Maybe I wasn't very clear Wise, but though returners return better on hard and grass, sliding clay takes away this blocking start help they get on the other surfaces. This is why we have very few winning return of serves on clay even though we should have more of them than in other surfaces if servers were at a disadvantage.

My point is that all the anticipation skills of a returners are neutralised on clay by their inhabilty to grip on the surface and move early in the right direction. Note that I am emphasising the problem to make it clearer (hopefully) but it does look like the servers are more at ease than ever now on this surface.

Regarding the fact that big servers (or S&Vers) never won at the French. It is true ...since Yanick Noah anyway....

But even though, McEnroe, Edberg and Medvedev (cause Med was actually the attacker that day and a beautiful one btw) were really close and only failed for the same reasons that Federer failed in Rome last year! They thought they had won before having closed the last point. The psychology behind this trend is easy to understand. They now that if they lose their edge, they are up with a sluggish fight on clay and therefore when they get close to cross the line they simply get overexcited and lose a bit of their lucidity. Once they lose that bit of lucidity, their edge goes as well and usually they are easily defeated in the 5th.

Noah was the only one that could go over the line, once again with the help of the crowd. Had he lost that 3rd set tie break. Wilander would have easily won in 5 I feel.

Well I guess we need a player who can serve AND return then :rolleyes: :lol:

Just as a matter of interest, if we look back at the late 80s/early 90s:

Becker - French Open Semi-Finalist 3 Times
Edberg - French Open Finalist, Hamburg Champion
Krajicek - French Open Semi-Finalist
Sampras - French Open Semi-Finalist, Rome Champion
Stich - French Open Finalist and Semi-Finalist, Hamburg Champion

Of course it must said that these players did have good all-court games and were pretty strong from the baseline, but still players with big serves (or serve and volleyers) having some sort of success is not a new thing by any means. Although this was a good decade ago which is probably the reason why we are surprised at recent events.
It is also interesting to note that big servers and attacking players have traditionally done far better at Rome (some people say that the courts there play faster than the laykold hardcourts used at Miami) and Hamburg (where the conditions are damp and slippery), than Monte-Carlo where they have struggled more.

Big servers can do well on clay, just as baseliners can do well on fast surfaces (nadal as wimbledon last year) its just there less likely to do well on the surface that doesn't suit there game, and statistically they don't. Probability theory suggest that occasionally players buck their own trend. I don't think there's anything exceptional in big servers doing well on clay, in fact what would be extraordinary is if they never did.

I will also be disappointed if the surfaces start to mould into one "Super Surface" (idea, de Villiers?! :D )



Well, Ljubicic and his big serve will "grace" the screens today...against the potential of Gasquet. Let's hope your theory does not progress on this occasion!!

Shortly...there is no rule..serve is a big weapons on clay too (Think about Rafa not being lefty-he is not a natural lefty BTW- and what will be his results with a "normal" serve that it is not always landing in the BH of his right hand opponent :whistle: ).

So, big serve or good place serve can allow you to capture plenty of easy points on clay too...There is no rule as there is no weak era...Just great players facing medium/good ones (BTW: Among the shame of this era it is always pointed out Lubo..But Lubo at least he is a professional guy he prepare himself, he is not very talented but still he fight he tries..what about FAT Nalbi: This guy has all the weapons he wants he has the game..Anyway, what a waste of timeNalbi is) :rolleyes:

I actually think Lubo is very talented in fact. He has a great sense of anticipation, a great timing and good BH. His problem is stamina, he gets tired or depressed or both in best of 5s. But besides that he is a very good player. It is obvious and feel sorry for those who can't see that or can't see talent without a charisma figure. His haircut, like Davydenko's is not the sexiest but just consider their tennis enjoy....cause they are simply excellent!

You are really asking for trouble with that remark!Agassi was due his French Open after having failed twice early in his career in 2 finals.He had the game no doubt and he also took out Moya in the Quarters who was the defending champ.However there was an element of luck in his win,I think it rained,he regrouped and turned it around.But also if you look at that same year he won the US Open against Todd Martin and he was 2 sets down I think at one stage and turned it around and won.But his French Open win was by no means a lucky win!

I am a big Agassi fan - I didn't mean he was lucky in a "phh, as if he deserved it" kind of way...more in that as has been mentioned above, he got the crowd behind him, and as you say

there was an element of luck in his win,I think it rained,he regrouped and turned it around


I meant he had luck on his side, rather than being "lucky". He was a great player who deserved his success.

Probably didn't articulate myself too well :rolleyes:

I don't remember the rain in the final. Are you sure? I do remember that Medvedev was smply injecting too much power for agassi to control. Unfortunately being in the zone like Med was is something very difficult to sustain for 3 long sets on clay, especially when getting close to the finishing line.

Anyway I agree he shoudl have won the FO Final against Courier. But this time it was him that "choked".