Is Wimbledon still slower than FO?

It was funny reading a few gossips about how Wimbledon's grass in slower than the now fast RG(which no one is complaining about by the way). So any real time data and speed analysis to back this up? The grass to me looks fast and rewarding both an attacking and defensive game. Players and taking the initiative and getting to the net more. Nadal of all went to the net an amazingly 37 times yesterday winning 30 of those, he really is a great volleyer now. Del Potro made 54 visits to the net, playing good serve and volley on some points and if these players see the court playing slowly, why would they attempt it? The unpredictability of the matches alone where players are been rewarded for taking the initiative alone tells me Wimbledon has got the right balance of the grass. The matches are even more entertaining, winners and aces being hit all over the court.pt it? The unpredictability of the matches alone where players are been rewarded for taking the initiative alone tells me Wimbledon has got the right balance of the grass. The matches are even more entertaining, winners and aces being hit all over the court.

The FO now has much quicker balls than Wimbledon, which is one of the many things that has happened at the two venues to narrow the previously extreme differences between the two tournaments.

It's a Judgment - Wimbledon was dire towards the end of the 1990's and I prefer it now for sure - but I'd still like to see it more rewarding of an attacking S&V style game than it currently is.

Last year's Paris TMS was very interesting in presenting conditions that favoured playing styles that do not profit elsewhere on tour and frankly I'd like to see Wimbledon move a bit more in that direction.

Can I just register that I seriously object to the speeding up of Roland Garros? The sport is being turned into a one-surface one and in my opinion this is detracting from the great mountains that stood in the way of gerat players (sucha s the RG/Wimbledon double).

Now you can stop pretending that nobody complains about the speeding up of Roland Garros, because they do, and I've just proven it to you.

I wouldn't careless whether RG has been speed up as it gives a new challenge to the players and the champion Nadal is, he rose above it and won. You are the 1st to attempt objecting to the speed of the FO maybe because it didn't stop Nadal from winning so makes no difference but all I read going into the later stages of the FO is how great the fast balls are and how it has made the tournament wide open.

Let's face it...whatever they do to the surfaces, someone's gonna complain about it.

Can I just register that I seriously object to the speeding up of Roland Garros? The sport is being turned into a one-surface one and in my opinion this is detracting from the great mountains that stood in the way of gerat players (sucha s the RG/Wimbledon double).

------------------------------

I woudl have agreed with you but the change of the conds is actually generated by the change of other factors, technology, nutrition, fitness etc...

It's important a slam conds keeps evolving with those external factors.

Before the graphite racquets came to be used, there was no need to change grass and clay and one player could relatively frequently win on both surfaces.

Having Karlovic (who I like as a player) hammering aces on 1990 grass and win 7 GSs coudl have been boring. Likewise having Nadal standing 3m behind the baseline and waiting for his kamikase opponents to find the outside part of teh lines to score a point can send spectators away.

I think this year teh FO was actually very interesting with high quality matches...yet just proves how little was Nadal tested on slower conds.

Never stopped Nadal win the FO though did it?

Simple_Analyst wrote:I wouldn't careless whether RG has been speed up as it gives a new challenge to the players and the champion Nadal is, he rose above it and won. You are the 1st to attempt objecting to the speed of the FO maybe because it didn't stop Nadal from winning so makes no difference but all I read going into the later stages of the FO is how great the fast balls are and how it has made the tournament wide open.

So we can drop the pretence and just read your article as a Nadal-worship? You had no interest in anyones opinion unless it cements your heroes status and when you hear one that doesn't fit you simply re-cast it in another light to suit you. I have said repeatedly that I don't like the surfaces being brought together and will say again that the Roland Garros/Wimbledon double is now nothing like the achievement it was when Borg did it time and again. Those wins remain, for me, the greatest achievements in the history of Open tennis.

That's bad form. Very bad form.

I'm touched, 'Tennis fan' Bogbrush is concerned the FO is playing too fast.
Oh and any opinion suits me. Slow courts, I wouldn't have a problem and neither would I for faster court. Like I said, a great champion will get use to any condition and win, exactly what Nadal did.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Like I said, a great champion will get use to any condition and win, exactly what Nadal did.

No he did not adapt to fast conds. He can't even adapt to the time rule.

What about your other great champion Sampras who could never adapt to clay? Isn;t he great champion according to biased views?

If you look at the bigger picture: it wasn't Nadal who adapted to the new conditions, the new conditions picked him.

It's Darwin stuff, whose book, in this context ironically called "survival of the fittest"

Well I thought Federer went home with the 1st losers trophy at the newly fast FO condition against. The player who couldn't adapt won.

Lol and Federer adapted to fast 90s condition? Remind me again what he won on fast grass. We saw how great he was on the super fast Paris masters, losing to the career baseliner Monfils.

Oh dear, Simple_Minded_Analyst has embarked on a one-man thread to indulge his obsession with Federer and the oppoortunity to worship Nadal.

The latest pearl is that Federer never adapted to fast Wimbledon courts. Despite the obvious temporal difficulties he would have had with travelling backwards in time, it is worth noting that in 2001 he met the greatest fast grass court player of all time and beat him, albeit at the tail end of his career. He also did it playing great S&V tennis, not these so-called net points which largely consist of coming to the net to pound away a feeble groundstroke.
It would have been tricky for Federer to have achieved much in the seniors at Wimbledon before that.

Maybe this should be switched to the Rafalito forum?

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Like I said, a great champion will get use to any condition and win, exactly what Nadal did.

No he did not adapt to fast conds. He can't even adapt to the time rule.

What about your other great champion Sampras who could never adapt to clay? Isn;t he great champion according to biased views?

Yet again incorrect regarding time rule - see posts on three threads you have commented on

I assume the USO is not fast enough in your eyes and Nadal did not adapt to it either?

Are 1 slam SF and 2? QFs classed as a non- adaption?

bogbrush wrote:Oh dear, Simple_Minded_Analyst has embarked on a one-man thread to indulge his obsession with Federer and the oppoortunity to worship Nadal.

The latest pearl is that Federer never adapted to fast Wimbledon courts. Despite the obvious temporal difficulties he would have had with travelling backwards in time, it is worth noting that in 2001 he met the greatest fast grass court player of all time and beat him, albeit at the tail end of his career. He also did it playing great S&V tennis, not these so-called net points which largely consist of coming to the net to pound away a feeble groundstroke.
It would have been tricky for Federer to have achieved much in the seniors at Wimbledon before that.

Maybe this should be switched to the Rafalito forum?

2001 was not fast grass as shown by articles and players comments in a previous thread - you appear to be trotting out the same misleading stuff anytime a new thread gets made

He beat the greatest grass court players of all time but also lost to the grass court mogul, Kafelnikov, strange.
Would have been hard to achieve much or his game was awaiting a slower grass. 17 year old Becker never had a problem winning on fast grass did he now?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well I thought Federer went home with the 1st losers trophy at the newly fast FO condition against. The player who couldn't adapt won.

i knew lol that you lol couldn't see lol the bigger picture lol