Grand Slam Surfaces

Hi all,

I'm doing a project on the history of tennis and was wondering if anybody has any knowledge of what surfaces have been used at all four grand slam tournaments historically.

Any info would be appreciated. Finding it hard to find any straightforward info using Google.

Hi,

according to Wikipedia (hopefully should be genuine), the US Open was contested on Grass from 1881-1974, then Clay from 1975-1977 and since then it's been on Hardcourt.

As far as I'm aware The French Open has always been on Clay, and Wimbledon has always been on Grass. The Australian Open was Grass from 1905-1988, and since then has been on hardcourts.

"Finding it hard to find any straightforward info using Google"

You're 'avin a laugh ain't ya ?

Well, I managed to "Google" - History of Tennis grand slams - and got a surprisingly long history lesson about Grand Slams on Wiki. Scroll down to the external links to go to each individual events website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29

then Googled - Tennis - and again managed to elicit an amazing amount of info on the Wiki site. Just scroll to Grand slam tournaments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis

Try clicking on each link to a grand slam to further your education on the history of their individual surfaces.


If you want a quick history of all the slams, particularly the FO, then.... (shameful plug from Moi!)

https://www.606v2.com/t1014-roland-garros-4th-slam

Actually Australia if I remember correctly, was played a couple of times on clay in the late 80s.

Jubbahey wrote:"Finding it hard to find any straightforward info using Google"

You're 'avin a laugh ain't ya ?

Wikipedia won't be accepted as a reputable source for the project so I was looking elsewhere.

Thanks everyone for the info! :bowler:

"Wikipedia won't be accepted as a reputable source "

Wish you said that earlier !

Sounds like your teacher is a sadist. Yes it is difficult, but you could use wiki as a base and check each venues website to verify the info, email them for stuff too, they like nothing more than to brag about their event.

And then they changed the grass surface at Wimbledon in 2001 and onwards to make it slower...different rye grass mix and rolled much harder with heavier weights. I think its also cut slightly shorter now too. There is an article about it somewhere.

lydian wrote:And then they changed the grass surface at Wimbledon in 2001 and onwards to make it slower...

It is said that they changed the grass to make it more durable and resistant to the increasingly heavier and more athletic tennis players of the age. The slower courts was a side effect of this change which kicked in around 2002 once the undersoil had dried out:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4121364.stm
http://www.wimbledon.com/news/media-centre/grass-courts
http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/

Those are very interesting links Nore, thanks for them.

It does make sense of the misconception that speed/timing is what players are talking about when they say a court has "slowed" down.

Its more the bounce and check of the ball, that gives the players more time to hit the return. The skid through of the ball for the S&V'yers has all but disappeared and has encouraged baseline play on grass, which is almost a blasphemy really.

But if any event really wanted to slow the game down considerably, then look no further than the design of the ball. IMO of course.

Service speeds have not slowed at Wimbledon, nor has the return of serve speed, but the ability to get the racquet on the ball.......well, that could be down to a number of factors, agility, accuracy or ball speed etc.

Thanks guys. My belief is that whilst AELTC stated they changed the courts to make them harder wearing they were aware that the average Wimbledon viewer was not enjoying the matches as much after watching Sampras vs Ivanisevic finals where the ball was in play 4 minutes out of a 3 hour match. Infact I believe it is said their grand slam status might be in jeopardy if they didnt slow the courts down but I dont have a link to that. Therefore, I think they wanted to slow the courts down (after all, they really have slowed down noticeably). They could have made them more hardwearing but just as fast if they wanted to so I pick this as a decision to slow the courts down.

My other understanding is that the courts were changed for the 2001 championships. A number of links point to this including wiki links for SW19 and grass courts - and here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html
http://www.wimbledon.com/news/media-centre/grass-courts
http://www.landscapejuice.com/2009/06/preparing-the-grass-courts-for-the-wimbledon-fortnight.html

Some observations, including that comment from Henman in 2002, make people feel the courts were changed in 2002 but if you remember the 2001 championships were particularly wet (remember the Henman vs Ivanisevic semi played over 3 days?) and hence Goran and Pat were able to power their way to the final using their grass court games due to the surface still being quick due to excessive moisture. The TIME link above discusses that, and is a good general read about the changes too. The drier championships in 2002 saw the changes have a much more drastic effect on the speed.

Agree the service speeds havent slowed down, nor return speed but you wouldnt expect that to be so affected - and other factors such as racquets and strings can also improve other the years.

Hi Lydian ... glad you've made your way to this forum.

I remember the Wimbledons of "serve" tennis and it was dire, and something had to happen because watching the women's game became distinctly more preferable.

So the Wimbledon courts have been changed for roughly 10 years now. The thing is (and I accept I bring my Rafa bias here), but never have I heard so much talk about "slow courts" since one noted clay specialist started winning big off it. But ask yourself; why is he the only one that seems to have been able to do it.? If the status quo had remained the same and noted hardcourters been the ones that prevailed on grass, would this interminable subject keep on coming up? Just a thought.

Yes Wooffie, as you say, why hasn't Del Boy or Ferrer etc done as well as Rafa on grass ?

There's some food for thought ......

I suppose with JMDP, Jubba, that he was still breaking through to some extent in 2009 at Wimbledon and learning. I mean ... it took Rafa 11 matches or something to get to his first Wimbledon final The higher bounce shouldn't affect him quite the same because he has the height although it will be a bit higher than his natural hitting zone. His injury in 2010 deprived him of further progression and us of another challenger. But I see with today's win, he's up to number 30 now in the rankings.

But Ferrer has never made any impact at Wimbledon, and if I remember correctly, its actually Feli Lopez of the Spaniards who has the best record with a quarter-final appearance (although he is not a typical Spanish player and clay isn't his best surface).

Maybe it does need some skill to win off grass after all.

11 matches, but only his 3rd attempt and he was in a final

Del Potro got to the 2nd round 2007, 2008 and 2009 at Wimbledon, so he hasn't made the same transition as Nadal.

Ferrer has never got beyond the 4th round at SW19, for 8 yrs.

This is typical for high grade clay court players. most never even bothered turning up for grass events. Same thing with Grass or Hard court specialists, they were creamed by the clay players when competing on the red stuff. I fact most clay guys only ever went for those kinds of tournaments. I'm talking about a timescale up to the late 80's here, before that specialist meant specialist.

Its only in the last decade or two that any player has been able to make any kind of significant impact on all 3 surfaces, title wise.....does that mirror the homogenising habits of tournament organisers recently ?

Hi Wooffie
Agree that no other 'clay' courter has made the transition to grass that Nadal has done. But he's no ordinary claycourter, and infact he's not just a claycourter. He has the talent to excel on any surface - as he title at Queen's and Paris Indoors has also shown.
But Rafa aside, the homogenising of courts for me isnt a great thing, a player can now dominate all slam surfaces without having to change their base game much - this is where you have to admire a guy like Agassi who won all slams across the surfaces as they 'were'. The flipside to this is that a guy like Nadal has to beat a much broader field at each slam now as the homogeniety allows the whole tour to have a reasonable 'bash' at each slam.

But when it comes to guys like Nadal, Fed, Djok, etc....talent is talent and they find ways to win come what may.

Do you know Lydian ... I love that expression you've just used ... "talent is talent".

Players have to play on the surfaces that are laid before them, for the most part, before they ever became prevolent within the game. They have the racquet/string technology of today, so they use it ... the balls that are laid before them.

And shouldn't we just enjoy it?? It does bother me when someone says that say the 1978 FO/Wimbledon double has more worth than the 2010 one. Players play in their own era, on the surfaces they have with what they use at their disposal ... and any FO/Wimbledon double is great. Noh?