People, maybe me included ;), must have badly digested the success of the king of clay over the king of grass ....on grass! and felt that it was now time the all englend club acted and reverted the tennis courts back to what they used to be. Fast with a good share of SVing. Having Clement, Shuettler in 1/4 final, Verdasco and other spaniards succeeding where the Armada failed centuries ago are signs that there must be something wrong with the conditions in SW19.

Here is maybe a way to help the change.

http://www.petitiononline.com/fastgras/petition.html

Done :ok: Thanks for the link :)

Have people forgotten how dull it was in the 90s??? Ace, Ace, Service Winner, Ace, Game.

Let's not go back to that...

I agree with this.

However, the court speeds should resemble more closely a hard court than a clay court.

I mean, how often is it that the majority of grass court tournaments in the short season are won by players that you'd generally regard more as clay courters?

Nadal - Wimbledon, Queens
Ferrer - Nottingham

So yes, definitely not a return to the dull serve-dominated 90s. But also not have the grass virtually being a green clay court .

Well done fah! Fingers crossed, it will have maybe a bit of impact.

It will never go back to the 90s because of the athletism of today's players as well as todays returning technics which have really improved. I think the USOpen has often provided the best matches because it used to be a good balance between fast and slow court. Unfortunately now they are the fastest!

Look I can totally appreciate your point of view but who says it is wrong that the courts have changed?
Is this just because Federer lost?

Had Federer won (which he could easily have done! :shrug: ) would you still be signing petitions for the court surface to be changed?

I doubt it... ;)

(And Nick, I am not attacking anyone here, I am not playing the victim, I am stating my point of view, respecting Tenez has the right to express his...Thank you! :) )

Might I add this is not a case of sour grapes at Federers loss, a few of us have been saying this about the grass for years now !

Absolutely.

It's notable that they changed the courts some time after 2001 and then instead of the likes of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter et al, the likes of Hewitt and Nalbandian reach the final in 2002.

Has been raised as an issue a few times since, and yes, even with the likes of Federer dominating.

Fair enough, but if the courts are so slow why are the Williams sisters still able to win at Wimbledon? They don't play so well on slow courts... :shrug: while thrive on fast courts, if this argument is correct we would see the women's game at Wimbledon being dominated by those good on clay and that's not the case in my opinion... :)

I dont follow the womens game much but as a guess maybe its to do with the required movement on clay not suiting the Williams as well as grass ? :shrug:

Indeed Al. :ok:

Tim Henman was saying ti years back, it affected him and that is when I started to feel something was wrong. Back to proper grass I say. :cheers: We have clay and hard already so other surface players stop being greedy and give me back my green green grass. :D

Ask dl - he will know! :D

But yeah they don't move so well on clay. I think they can win on grass more because let's face it where is their competition on that surface now? :shrug: There are few women out there whose game does suit grass, and few who are happy to play on it - Sharapova being th exception but she is just not as good as they are . I am no expert but a lot of the top players seem to favour clay and/or hard. They also have huge serves and so much power, and I expect clay takes some of that away. We'd expect to see them win more on hard as it is fastest, but I just think that is how they are - Venus never seems ready at the AO, Serena likes it but has had injuries, the USO is always a potential winnign place for them but Venus just seems to live for Wimby. I can honestly see her playign few tournies, keeping herself as fit as she can and winning Wimby once she si past 30 tbh. It's just her tournie really.

Yeah maybe the womens game is not a good example for this debate on speed of grass .Its much more obvious in the mens .

Signed :ok:

I also would highlight the need to sort out the pressure of the balls, also. Irrespective of who wins/loses on slower grass - I miss the faster play... :ok:

Signed.
I think one of the best arguments against the constant slowing of Wimbledon is that there seems little point in having Wimbledon and the French so close together and having almost the same kind of play-surely the arguement has to be for diversity of style!
I do agree with all those who don't want to go back to the serve fests of the early nineties though-but Wimbledon is just turning into Roland Garros with grass!

A lot of us were already saying the grass was too slow last year even though Federer won it. It's not because Rafa won Wmbledon that some see the need for a petition, but more because maybe Rafa's or Hewitt's game can win Wimbledon. Not quite the same. It s important to maintain a balance of style in tennis and I would not like the FO to change its surface or to find tricks to speed it up so that Roger can win it. Wimbledon did try to change the pace of its courts because when the big graphite frames came up, they really made a big difference between grass and the other surfaces. Now it's time the speed things up again and it's also but better for the athetes' health.

well fair enough... :ok:

But Hewitt has never faired well on clay so not sure that leads weight to your argument...

Surely Hewitt won Wimbledon when he did because at that time he was one of the best players on the tour just as Nadal is, arguably, one of the best players at the present time and Roger was the best when he was winning all his Wimbledon titles...

In 1992, Agassi won Wimbledon and he certainly didn't or never had a typical grasscourt game...

I dont think the grass has slowed down that excessively, at times i feel the changing in game-style's has created this allusion somewhat that the grass has turned into a hardcourt :lol:

Like choka said, Venus is still able to play Wimby and she was talking this year how fast the grass still was, especially on Center Court. It's still suiting the attacking player's as well IMO on both sides, i mean look at the QF's in both men's and women's event:

Fed
Nadal
Lopez
Safin
Anicic
Schuetler
Clement

Venus
Serena
Radwanska
Petrova
Dementieva
Tanasugarn
Zheng
Vaidisova

Apart from the exceptions of perhaps Schuettler and Radwanska, the grass was a huge benefit to the attacking players on the tour, whilst players like Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Djokovic who prefer slower surfaces all flopped before the QF. Coincidence?

If anything the balls have got heavier, and that's been documented on all surfaces, not just Wimby.

Agreed, and I think theres a bit of myth regarding the slowing down of the courts. Maybe circa early 2000 when they had new seed, but it would be the same grass since 2001 anyway. The men playing with more spin (these days)...?

Spot on dl... :)

I think thats the bottom line here, it's the style of tennis that has changed and that goes for any surface... :ok:

Might be to spice a little bit the discussion up we need some pictures (they were presented during the final, at least I saw here in Switzerland):






So, might be more than pace, speed, it is more a question of "too high" bouncing ..If I remember well: Wimbledon changed around 2001/2 :unsure: (not sure) the type of grass..Might this has created this sort of bouncing :unsure: .IMO.: Despite the record of FED and now Rafa (impressive both: All Time Great champions :bow: :bow: ), I really hope there will be some changes on the Wimbledon surface: We need a little bit more of variety out there so that all sort of style would have a chance (i.e. with a faster, low bouncing grass we would guarantee a playground for the offensive players and a GREAT -BIG challenge for the baseliners)..

2 cents opinion.. :rolleyes:

yeah but as dl said, is this not down to the heavier balls rather than the surfaces? :shrug:

Yes, I think it is - I think the balls being de-pressurised is the main issue, followed by the surface. When I signed the petition, I appealed for the balls to be changed, too.

well personally speaking, whether it's heavier balls, slower surfaces or changes in styles of play, if it means we are going to have the type of tennis we saw at this years Wimbledon final, then I am all for it... :bow: :clap:

Watching people bang down four 130mph plus serves to win a game doesn't do it for me... :sleep:

But that's just me, I can appreciate everyone is different... :)

I think it's all a load of balls (heavier ones that is) ;)

:lol:

Perfectly summed up Gav ;)

I second the motion! :lol:

On that we agree Choka..

Watching people bang down four 130mph plus serves to win a game Is far from being my definition of Tennis..So, I was more than happy they changed on the "slow" side..

But might be it is time to go "a little" bit in the other direction to avoid too much similarities across surfaces..

Or simply get a more "nervous" ball..I do not know..Just something that will help the "attacking" style a bit and "trouble" the baseliners a bit .

NB: On my classification FED & Rafa are basically both baseliners. :D

Extract from an article written in 2006:

At Wimbledon, erosion provides ample evidence that, if not speed, the style of the game has changed. Where once sandy brown patches would develop around the service "T," now the bulk of the worn turf is on the baseline.

Tour officials say there has been no conscious effort to dumb down surfaces, with the exception of indoors, where tournaments have adopted slower courts to increase rallies and avoid two-shot tennis.

"We try to avoid the extremes," says Andre Silva, vice president of player relations for the ATP tour.

Eddie Seaward, the head groundskeeper at the All England Club, says Wimbledon has not attempted to slow down the grass in his 17 years overseeing the club's 19 playing and 22 practice courts.

"I'm not saying (claims of slower grass) are bunk, but we have done nothing intentionally to make them slower," says Seaward, 62.

However, the composition of the grass has changed in recent years. In 2001, Seaward and his staff switched to 100% ryegrass from a blend using 60% ryegrass, which is thicker and sturdier and therefore more durable.

The bigger change, as far as Seaward is concerned, is the soil. The club went to a denser, harder dirt that lets in more air and dries quicker, meaning bounces are truer and higher, especially in arid, hot weather — which was the case at Wimbledon this year.

"The only thing I can think of is that the ball bounces higher because the courts are harder than 10 years ago," Seaward says.

That's certainly Andre Agassi's impression. The 36-year-old Las Vegan, who announced at the start of Wimbledon that he will retire at the U.S. Open, says the surface has become so hard and true that the ball "almost ... bounces like a hardcourt."

I think PetalP got it right - it's not the pace that's the problem, it's the bounce. The balls are bouncing to high for real grass which means that it's not in the best interest to serve-volley but to stay at the baseline and play it like a mixed hardcourt/clay.
If the balls hit, skidded and stayed low like in the past, players would have to move up to make their plays

The bounce of the Wimbledon courts does actually change between the start of week one and week two. In week one, the bounce is lower, skiddy off the smoother, lusher surface. This hands week-one advantage to the serve specialists, and the serve-volleyers or those who risk it here. They're able to capitalise on the trickier returns of serve they force, by coming in.

In week two, as the ground effectively becomes a harder court, the bounce is higher, and service return can offer more opportunity to the receiver (relatively). And as the ball begins to sit up higher in general, there's greater opportunity to hit deeper and longer, hitting behind your opponent. That changes the nature of rallies, and the baseliners get more comfortable.

Harden the surface, as happened in 2001-2, then this compounds the issue.

Check out the Federer and Nadal second serves in the final. Look at how often the kick serve was used, and how effective it was, esp Nadal's kick serve to Federer's backhand. It was arriving at shoulder height for him!

Yes, racquets can generate more spin, but the wide consensus of the players is the the courts are slower and bouncier. So I think that their opinions might count for something here..

It's a number of things, but the speed has change off the ground Tennisveritas' illustration shows that-THE SPEED HAS CHANGED
i've seen illustrations of that throughout Wimbledon.-by the second week things are very slow.
It's a combination of balls and grass, not sure exactly how the combo works.

yeah but if Agassi is saying it bounces like a hardcourt then how could this be slowing the game down... :shrug:

I think there is a alot of inconsistency here... :unsure:

But di,
you are at least conceding that the grass has slowed down, hence you use the phrase 'I dont think the grass has slowed down that excessively', so even you, who is i presume a defender of the status quo, agrees that grass has slowed down but not 'excessively' .
I'ld certainly see Djokovic as preferring medium to fast surfaces rather than slow, he reached the semis of the French yes, but by the same token-Ancic reached the quarters of the French and although often categorised as a fast court players is no pushover on slow either.
I would have thought of Dementieva as preferring a slower pace too-having said that given her missile like serve perhaps she does suit faster surfaces. :rolleyes:

Dementieva is an all court player, in 2004 she reached the final of the US Open and the French open... :ok:

Although I'm a fan, I think she got lucky with the draw this year... :shrug:

And as dl said, Venus (a 5 time champion of Wimbledon) thinks the grass is fast... :unsure:

I posted a fair amount of fact about the court and you pick up on an opinion of one player that has scope for ambiguity..

So a little tenuous. how about acknowledging some of the facts for once rather than seizing on any small aspect that might say otherwise?

The grass courts used to have a lower, more inconsistent bounce than hardcourts. Now they have a higher bounce and are more consistent. So perhaps you could say that they are still more like a hardcourt than they used to be. But a slower version of a hardcourt, and especially so in the second week. And as far as I know Agassi didn't get through to the second week very often, post-2002 either. Personally though, I think that he is referring to the consistency of the bounce more than anything else here. :shrug:

I would actually argue the opposite here. I think the pace more than the bounce height has slowed Wimbledon and allowed for more rallies and the “Spanish style” success (or the death of SVing). The loss of pace is essentially due to balls than the court itself even though TV's graphics suggest otherwise. I am not sure where they got these pictures from HE as I don’t think there was HE in 2003 but admitting they had, here are my observations:

1 - What really favours “typical” baseliners is the time they get to whack the ball with tremendous spin and power, making their shots risk free and engage in more rallies. Should the pace be faster at the impact of the ball with the racket, there would be less time to inject the spin on the ball and the big swing would be a riskier shot. (are you following me? ;)). This means the ball would come back with less spin and would therefore be even easier to hit for the “attacking” tennis player. Hitting winners would be a much more worthy risk.

2 – TV’s graphs show the difference of pace on a serve. It’s already substantial but on a basic ground shot (80mph), hit at lower speed, the dragging effect of the bigger ball is even amplified. It’s like hitting a shuttlecock in badminton, the harder you hit (like in a serve), the further the dragging effect really starts. This is why nowadays a good shot is no more a winner, even on grass, like it used to be a few years ago. I remember that players then, though certainly not as athletic, were not even trying to retrieve a well hit pacy shot. Now we have seen on grass how a great angled FH can be retrieved. Nadal has time to run everything down and even thump a winner without being pushed in making a mistake.


3rd – but not least, those graphs show a flat picture but imagine a cross court (angled) shot and then we can see how the speed of the ball would be much more problematic for the baseliner as he would have to cover much more ground in much less time. This in turn provides the shot maker with a more comfortable hitting zone, without forcing them to take excessive risks, affecting in turn their confidence.

So to sum it up, the bigger balls make the bigger difference. The USO is now fastest despite having probably a higher bounce than Wimbledon.

While I agree that something (ball size/weight, surface difference) has slowed the play down at Wimbledon in the last 6-7 years I can't see anything being done about it. In a lot of people's eyes the final played this year was one of the greatest ever, and the organisers would probably think it mad to change anything too much.

So while I'd like to see things change a little so players such as Ancic have a greater chance, I don't see anything happening anytime soon.

ok Petalp, don't get so defensive I was only giving an opinion on one aspect, I wasn't saying what else you were saying wasn't valid.... :ok:

I do agree the game has slowed a bit but as has been mentioned alot of this seems to be due to the balls rather than a concerted effort to slow down the grass... :shrug:

But look at the French open. Not a great Final and all Nadal's matches were extremely one sided. I really prefer the "boring" SVing of the 90s and the bit of excitement in the tie break than 3 very one sided sets as we had in all Nadal's matches at the FO. Maybe something in middle can/should be achieved.

In my view it was a great final cause Federer fought like a lion and played great shots one after the other. On any faster surface, he woudl have won in my view. Hadn't Federer played like a genius, it would have been another one sided 3 setter. So something needs to change cause the physical game has now too much of an advantage. Without Federer, you would not have had a great match. You may argue the same about Nadal but I disagree, we have had in the past a few standing ovations when Federer plays a 3 one-sided on grass, I am yet to see a standing ovation for Nadal anhilating Verdasco, Almagro and other opponents on clay.