There seems to be an inconsistency in the speed of the first serve versus the speed of ground strokes. First serve stats for Wimbledon is actually pretty high (something like 21% 1st serves points lost from what i recall), which is second only to the stats in the US Open. But this belies the speed of the ball during rallies for some reason, and this is evident by the average rally length as well as the defensive gets that would/should not have been possible in a court with these stats.
not just the speed...u have to look at the height of the ball...balls been bouncing higher now at the grass and this doesnt go well with the 1 handed backhanders...roger has trouble with his backhand more so now than before,and this is due to the fact that his shot penetrate less through the court which make it more like a clay court...
I think one can say wimbledon's grass is playing a little bit like clay in terms of inconsistent ball bouncing. Also i think it is, actually, clearly slower than a few years back, but obviously it is not comparable to clay, speed wise.
On the other hand I think it is, now, slower than, for instance, the US open's hardcourt. I think that the number of aces is greater in wimbledon (compared to the US open) because of the inconsistent ball bouncing.
Federer has no brains, thats his problem. He plays the 2-shot wonder Spaniard almost exclusively to his strengths and is afraid to close him off - even after both him and Murray showed it was possible even at the French. Even so, both back off.
Yes, the bounce is a piece of shit and it favours crap tennis. But the IQ level at the top (or maybe the courage - not sure which) is dismal.
I put a peak level Sampras ahead of any of these guys on anything other than clay.
@alin1975 haha Federer a stupid tennis player? and for the record Rafael Nadal is a damn good tennis player, and with the exception of the 2008 French Open he has beaten Federer, not let Federer beat himself. Its a matchup issue more than anything. Lefty spin high bounce forehand to a one handed backhand is a hard shot, and when its against the player who generates the most spin on the tour its near impossible to be offensive against.
Its a question of not taking the chances that present themselves and insisting on playing Nadal at his own game.
As I mentioned, in the last French Open you can look at both Federer's and Murray's games and see the success they had when they closed off points at the net (once they had Nadal out wide mind you) as compared to the times when they let him get back into the game.
As several former champions have noted, it is an opportunity modern players let slip too often.
Oh, and just a bit of simple logic to boot... if you are an arsenal of tennis shots (like Fed) and you are playing a one trick pony like Nadal and losing, would it not make sense to try to mix it up a bit? Seriously, even taking aside what I said below, just this alone should push him to get out of his comfort zone a bit.
This explains truthfully why rafa is winning Wimbledon. If the surface wasn't as slow as it is now Rafa would get ripped to shreds by not just Fed but by Djoko and Murray.
hey morons... this is not about the surface... its about the serve. It shows how much Federer's serve has changed due to age and the fact that he is not Prime Federer anymore.. geez. silly gooses. all ready to jump the Wimbledon is now clay and its shit bandwagon. People. they made a conscious decision to slow the court down to encourage more baseline play.
@fierte they compared the same federer speed of serve. So prime or not dosen't matter. 2 samples of 126mph and he always hit flat on this speed. Speed and bounce's factor changed significantly. Cannot be due to weather, so must be grass and type of balls. Not surprising they kept changing the grass to lower costs or whatever baseline play. Nadal couldn't have won 2 on slightly earlier surfaces because he is poor at receiving low bouncing balls(one of his weakness). 05,06 SW19 bounced lower.
@randykarmakum and yet in 2006 he made it to the finals? he used to be a clay courter then! he was learning to adapt to grass.. and he would have adapted. and won. everything is supposition. i could say that Federer couldn't have won prior to 2001. If speed and bounce were so important to every Nadal victory, then was the USO 2010 a trick? i miss the old grass badly. i am a hardcore Sampras fan. and i can't tolerate having anyone but Pete as the king of grass because he conquered the real grass.
@fiert he made the 06 finals because everyone in his draw play on the baseline. Federer lost 70% of the rallies in 06 final but made many unreturned serves & aces. 07,08 both played the same way with federer losing 70% of rallies but nadal is getting easier to return, many games go to 30 and deuce in 2008. I think his better return has got to do with the higher bounce, roddick can't advance with his serve after 05. USO hc is speedy but it bounces high so nadal always have chance.
@randykarmakum the way i see it, others didn't adapt. its not some conspiracy to make him win everything. the rate everyone is coming out of the woodworks, its as though everyone in the tennis world has conspired to make him win. which is not quite the story. blame the TF for changing the grass rather than take the credit away from the guy who won. Roddick made 2009 finals. Feliciano made the QF this year. so did Mardy. hardly baseliners. Nadal struggled at this years FO. bounce was high.
@fierte roddick shifted to baseline to make 2009 final although u can argue federer can't return his serve but thats one-off, not like their usual matches where he returned easy. May be nervous due to special occasion. Mardy is baseliner and lopez is sort of in between. Not taking credit away from nadal but he is lucky for the surface to change to his favour. The FO signals about his decline in movement than anything. Like fed, sampras is not beating nadal w/o the low bounce on flat serve.
And imagine the serve speed in the late 80s or beginning of the 90s. Impossible to return that well like today. And forget long topspin rallies as well.
Saying that Nadal won because of a slow surface is just the same as saying that last year Fed won because they´ve somehow, made clay faster... They both won because they were the best players at the event, for no other reason.
I´m a Fed fan, but smart enough to admit that Nadal is also a great player, and that he can win tournaments by his own means, not with the help of surfaces being changed.
that may just be an optical depth effect. Even if its not, that only helps the argument even more. The blue 2008 ball has to travel further, with the same starting speed, and still manages to travel the court faster.
@jacksonvile12345678 It's true. Fed had a higher toss back then. Go watch the tape. To hit with more spin he lowered his toss. It helps the percentages on slower courts.
They basically slowed down every tournament including us open as of 2010. If you want to argue compare lopez vs federer 2007 US open against any of the matches of the 2010 US open. The ball has slowed down dramatically. I'm not hating on any players, but lets face the facts.
@Utopia569 Ha Ha, it is a comedy show that how Nadal haters come up every time with some absolutely irrational reasons for Nadal`s win.I WONDER WHY LAST YEARS WIMBLEDON WAS NOT WON BY Chela,Montanes,Monaco,Ferrer,Almagro ect.It is only Nadal among good clay court players is reaching and winning on every surface.Reason is obvious that Nadal is talented enough to adapt to any surface.But when minds are clouded by hate,it is not visible for some people who keeps on repeating the same rubbish.
there is no question that the grass at wimbledon is slower. Its still not AS slow as the French or Australian and the ball doesnt bounce as high, but its still slower than it used to be. Nadal is a much better all around surface player than those other guys u mentioned.
And also, this video doesn't realistically prove that 2003 was faster because it doesn't take spin as an important factor. You can hit a hard serve with more or less spin at same velocity on impact and that will be the difference after it bounces.
Watch, Ignorant Federer fans will start to say that the US OPEN is slow now because Nadal just won it. GEt the fuck out of fantasy land and accept that Nadal is becoming a great all court player.
@Scrubsobsession Wimbledon had this year,2010 ,a match between Isner and Mahut were each served about 100 aces each.Believe 200 aces in one match.Does tennis consists of serve only?.Then rename tennis as service.This match occured in a tournament were some Nadal haters claim that has become slower than french open!.In 2010 most no of aces were served in Wimbledon.Check the statistics.So the so called faster US open surface had much less aces than Wimledon in 2010.So much for slower surface.
@Drago110482 This years wimbledon had more aces than any other grandslams this year.French open had least aces this year.So called slow wimbledon had more aces than so called fast US open surface.In isner-mahut match they served more than 200 aces.It is in one match .What will be the popularity of tennis if every match consists of serve only.There will be no forehand,backhand,volley.return of serve,passing shots.Tennis rackets have made serves much harder and faster compared to 15 years back.
Yes that s true about the rackets. But it isn t just the speed, it s also the bouncing. Today s Wimbledon courts have a much higher bouncing as pre 2004, which plays in the cards of Nadal.
Who do you think would win Federer - Nadal under the conditions of 1999 for example, both in their prime, 04-06 Federer vs. 08/10 Nadal?
I guess it would be like on clay, just vica verca. Federer would win in 3 or 4 sets.
@Drago110482 If tennis consists of aces only,then it is better to watch darts.In the 90`s Sampras and Ivanosevic served ace after ace because of the new technology rackets which made serve faster than ever.Popularity of the tennis plummeted so hard.Yes i agree that they are using high bouncing balls.Authorities were forced to bring some change due to lack of interest on the part of casual sports fans.Otherwise tennis would be trying hard to keep up with Darts .Change occurred in 2001 not 2004.
@Drago110482 Wimbledon still records highest no aces served among grand slams.In the Isner-Mahut match each of them serves more than 100 aces.200 aces in one match.Is it tennis?.Grass is still grass,if only a player have exceptional foot work on grass,then only he has a chance to win wimbledon.Nadal is able to adjust his footwork,his shots,his positioning on court ect when he is on grass.He has incredible forward movement speed as well as lateral movement .His timing of shots are good on grass.
@Drago110482 If wimbledon surface is similar to a clay surface,how can on explain Andy Roddick`s reaching 3 wimbledon finals,2004,2005,2009.Andy relies on serves mainly,which gets rewarded on wimbledon grass.If wimbledon=clay,then Roddick should have reached at least one French open quarters in his career which he did not. Clay blunts Roddick`s serve where as so called slow wimbledon helps his serve immensely.Federer served more than 50 aces in Wimb 2009 final!.Slow surface!!! it is not.
LOL who says its as slow as clay??? Its still faster than the Australian Open, so its obviously gona be faster than clay....but its a proven fact that Wimbledon plays slower than it used to. In 2001, they switched from a 70-30 mix, to a 100% perrenial-rye that grows thicker and starting using a denser and more firm soil. Both changes to the grass make the ball travel slower and bounce higher. It is scientifically tested and documented. There are videos that show the exact affects
if the courts at wimbledon are that fast, why do we see only ball bashers in the quarters, why do we see a Hewitt-Nalbandian final, a defensive (!) baseliner in Nadal winning it twice, no serve-and-volleyers going deep in the tournament?
Federer could serve-and-volley very well in his prime yet you didn't see him attack the net too often. It just doesn't pay nowadays to approach the net after every shot with the tendency of slowing many courts down, including grass at Wimbledon. Sampras playing the way he played wouldn't win half the Slams he won in the 90's.
@menakandy I agree. It is noticeably slower than previous years, but it is by no means slow. You could make a fair argument though that the serves are still fast, whereas the baseline tennis is slower due to the wear on the court late in the second week. Still, if the grass was at its former length, I believe there would have been more of a Federer-Roddick rivalry on grass than a Federer-Nadal rivalry.
@AnalogVenture the speed dont matter but its the height of bounce that matters. Clay courters have western grip and slower stroke as they play top spin. If the bounce is like knee level they hardly touch the ball to offensive players with flat strokes. Now it bounces to chest or shoulder its easy to return serve and rally for them, giving them time. Fast reaction and attacking game don't pay off in wimbledon right now. So does 1 handed bakchand which has better reaction speed.
@menakandy why u compare roddick in 2009 to 2004? Roddick was always bad returner to fed's serve no matter where. Roddick actually get far because his rallies and defence improved in 2009, not like his old aces game. Your opinion is not related to this video. Also it shows 2004,2005 was faster because roddick could use his old game to enter finals. 07-11 bounced higher than 01-06 if u look at the videos. Topspin don't work on earlier surfaces.
the crowd loves it ,some player like taylor dent might not feel the same way, but so what, sport won't live without people watching, then that's the deal. And A.Roddick still rocks here in wimbledon right?~ it's good for the future
lol WTF, those 2 serves.... even tho it was served at the same speed, different impact angle affects the speed it takes off >.> not to mention the spin, this is a no brainer
@chonobe that is exactly what the actual video was showing. on the DVD of this, the commentators are referring to how federer's serve has changed and how that was enabling nadal to take advantage of the difference. it had nothing to do with the surface.
I love it how people entirely misunderstood this video.Although they have the same speed,thos are 2 completely different serves altogether: Different contact point,different spin and that leads to different contact point at the ground,different bounce and speed after ground contact.
Grass has been slowed down in 2001,but concluding that it slowed down even more based on 2 different serves that only have their speed in common is stupid.
Who cares about that, it is still going to go through the court. What you're supposed to care about is the number they show after the balls bounce. As long as they were both flat serves, the direction won't matter at all.
This video doesn't really explain how the courts are slower in 2008 compared to 2003. It's true that the ball on the blue trajectory slows down less but its trajectory is also at a smaller angle relative to the ground, which means less energy loss on the rebound. While the grass at Wimbledon may well be slower in 2008 than in 2003, this video does not show it conclusively. Both the serve speed and trajectory need to be the same in order to isolate the surface contribution to the ball's slowdown.
Feds is a baseliner. it's a shame he never got truly tested on grass. even now, Feds and Sampras struggle to beat each other even though Sampras serve-volleys almost every point, and Sampras is so many years older (and didnt touch his rackets for 2 years before coming back!!). i'd bet my life Sampras would beat Federer on the old serve/volley courts at Wimbledon (1990's) every time. Every time. Courts are too slow these days - just to make tennis worth watching...
It looks like you didn't do your homework. Sampras and Federer only played once against each other (in 2001, 2 years before Federer had won a Grand Slam), and then Federer already beat him. Besides, on the fast courts Federer's aggressive topspin strokes would give him lots of points. Sampras' serve wouldn't be a real problem, Federer has already proved he can withstand big servers with ease.
i think you misunderstood what i was saying. Sampras came on the scene in 1988, 13 years before Federer was around, thats a long time. and in that time, Sampras was playing on FASTER courts at Wimbledon. the grass was much faster. just watch mac vs borg, even they struggle with ball speed at times. Wimbledon has practically become a hard court, does not test the true serve-volleyer because it is impossible now. it's become a battle of the hardest hitter.
I merely made a point because you implied that Sampras and Federer faced each other multiple times. I agree about the courts, even roland garros is becoming a tournament in which power is the most important facette of the game. I don't think that it would benefit Sampras though, Federer is too allround for that.
Sampras and Federer have played quite a few times since 2001. the last 3 meetings were in Aisa, exhibition matches, and Sampras beat Federer 1 out of 3 matches, but was 5-3 up in final set in 1 match - sevring, and lost. faster courts would definitely suit Sampras as you can serve and volley, which Sampras is a natural at. Federer is not. even in those ex matches, Sampras was s&v most of the time. S&V gives you far less time to react, esp on fast grass.
exhibition matches.. come on. the point of an exhibition match is that you make sure that the crowd has a good time, and not to annihilate your opponent. If faster courts would suit s&v players, then why aren't there any of them in tennis nowadays? players like safin proved that on the fast courts they can outplay s&v players like Sampras. Players don't serve and volley anymore because nowadays every player can hit 200 km/h serves and hit ridiculous passings. the game has improved.
you obviously didnt watch the ex matches. there was no holding back, and they were out to destroy each other, no doubt about that. why is there no more serve and volley? because the courts and balls have been changed to provide more rallies, so that you get value for money, rather than a match with 2 shot rallies over in an hour. everyone knows this. and the ball doesnt actually travel that fast after bouncing anymore, just look at this video. like i said, watch borg vs mac, and you will see
i dont have to watch an exhibition match to have an opinion about it. it's a fact that in your mind something happens when there's a real prize at stake. no exhibition match can recreate that. you're right about the courts, but that was not why I reacted to your post.. it was because I disagreed about if Federer would be able to play on the old courts. He has proved to be an allrounder, so I'm sure he would.
we'll just have to agree to disagree. my original comment only stated that i would bet Sampras all the way against Federer on the faster courts as Feds cannot volley anywhere near as well as Sampras. and that was so important on the old wimbledon courts. Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Stich - all class volleyers. the slow court just doesn't help the volley at all.
and maybe you haven't ever played on grass, the way it used to be... the ball stays so low that every return of serve has to be hit up, making it a serve/volley arena, and topspin has very little positive effect. players made too many errors and were pushed to the limits at the baseline on fast grass. ask any pro why the s&v game no longer exists, and they all say that the courts and balls are too slow. watch some old-skool videos man. they used to hit the ball almost as hard even back then.
Federer won the first wimbledon with 80% of serve and volley, and then he won the last with 5%. Aside from the astonishing ability of the player in changing his style, this must say something about the speed of the grass in my view......
i hate that the slow the surfaces or make them faster it really should be like this from fastest to slowest:
-Wimbledon
-US Open
-Australia
-Roland Garros
Also I believe they should change the AO to a carpet because thats a great surface or just make it a more medium pace and also because there is no need for a 2 hard court slams
Interesting you raise this and I intend to agree with you. I also thought that we have too many hardcourt Masters Series. I always thought if we could have at least one grass on one of the Masters Series it would be great. We already have 5 Masters Series on hardcourt.
Indian Wells, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai.
3 on Clay, and 1 on carpet.
I mean we have 9 in the competition but not have a grass. The ATP should consider slotting one before Wimbledon.
This video proves nothing. The ball kicks with different angle, so the ball of 2003 has a smaller space to acomplish.
And realize tha the ball in 2003 goes from a higher place ang travels with a different angle, again. And you have to considerer the effects, as slice, spin, etc.
And to finish this, Federer himself told, in Wimbledon 2008 (you can see in interviews in the official website) that the court hasn´t changed since the past 5 years.
in pre -2003 nadal won't even get good chance to return Federer's serve or any other player with strong serve. It looked like both slams are played on clay. Traditional grass need extremely fast reaction and quick thinking. We need back the fast, medium and slow surfaces for the 4 slams.
Short rally's suck? What about the uber long ones today that are so friggin boring because each player just tries to push it back and wait for an error? Yeah man, those are so exciting.
Why not compare from the 70`s when they played with wooden rackets. Wimbledon had to slow it down as the game became way too fast especially in the Sampras era when the courts at Wimbledon were even faster and the balls were faster too.
@daigunder35 the surface has remained the same since 2002, before federer even won his first wimbledon crown. This video is a joke and doesnt even take into account the amount of spin.
@daigunder35 your argument is stupid, Nadal win because he can adapt his tennis for all of surfaces, he win us open 2010, and the surfaces is so fast, and the balls makes this sourface more fast, than european balls, why other clay specialist do nothing in wimbledon now? nadal win because is the best player, thats the principal argument.
The surface was changed back in 2001, get your facts straight. Also the serve still rules, look at Wim 2009 final with Roddick. At this point in Andy's career he is nothign but a serve and it almost won him the trophy.
Nobody gives excuses, Nadal was just better in that final in 2008, but not mentioning the fact that grass is not "grass" anymore is not right. It is slower.
I dont think they compared this right, they didnt take into account the spin generated from the serves. If he had hit a flat ball in 2003 and a more topspinny ball in 2008 then the way the ball bounces off the surface would be completely different.
gud pnt dude..taking the spins into account will make the analysis slightly different!!and at this year fed was asked.."how much has the grass changed?" he said" nuthing has chnaged since I won my first wimby in 03!!!!!!!!!!!...well this video xagerates the scenario a bt..bt no doubt the grass has slowed down..but at wimbledon mainly!! nto QUEENS!!!
well the serve speed was 126 mph, pretty fast for a spinny ball. whether the 2nd one is spinnier than the first will not make that 9 mph difference, imo. both balls came so fast we can only conclude both serves were flat.
look mate...all the surfaces cant be similar!grass shows amazkingly low bounce which no other court can show..the Us open hard courts by deco turf..man they are so quick rite now ..the quickest in the past decade...cant ppl see how nadal sticks to the baselineto finish off points earlier.cant ppl see rafa hitting serves all over the box against fed instead of pummeling his bh like he does at RG..cant u ppl see his willingness to appraoh the net and win pnts and silent critics.....*
**...eevryone has a different way of showing versatility..there is no need to go for that stupid serve and volley on every pnt just to show that u can play on quicker surfaces...i can bet no one can other great champ.take fed..can imiotate nadal's game at RG!!can he??no!!evryone has his own style..nadal has to win matches which he does so well..and have a luk at teh half grass half clay match..that grass ws so strange..so quick and bounces were so odd..rafa adjstd so wel & showed variety!
* beating novak and roddick in 2 sets!!the guy is showing great versatility.have a luk at his forecourt game in 05 and compare it with his current forecourt game..not splendid but atleast 10 times better..he now knows how to punch thru the volleys better...often hits xquisite drop volleys and the scariest thing for others is..THERE IS MASSIVE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN RAFA"S FORECOURT GAME ASWELL AS SERVE!!
Dude i fully understand ur point here..but the thing is..is the grass is slowing down and if the players whose games were better suited to traditional grass..if they cannot adjust to today's grass then it also means that they lack VERSATILITY!!!u have to learn to play on every surface if u r a versatile player...and considering nadal..yes wimby conditiosn are to his adv rite now but u know what..the conditions/grass at queens championships are faster!!luk what rafa did ths yr..beatign rod+novak!
why do ppl always say that its to nadal's advantage!?? ofcourse it is but if i say that federer and others lack teh versatility to adjust on a slightly changed surface !!! what is the ans then??how can u say so confidently that nadal cant play on fast grass!! ofcourse he can..he is taking his time and adjusting briliantly ..and it ws the grass of 2003 when nadal became the youngest player to reach wimby 3rd rnd..so instead of devaluing his achievements ppl shd appreciate his greatness...
no it is nadal's advantage. he is a defensive baseliner who likes to hit hard shots from several meters behind the baseline. a slower surface helps him by giving him more time to get to each ball. people who traditional dominate on grass are baseline huggers and volleyers because the slick surface of the grass keeps the ball low and it maintains more of its momentum after its bounce. slower grass means this advantage is taken away
yes i agree!! wimbledon used to be a tournament where pure brute won't get a player anywhere, while footwork, precision and flat shots thrived amongst others. sampras, mcenroe, laver, federer. i heard at us open 2008 the courts have been made faster than ever, i gathered from the commentators even faster than wimbledon now.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2008 wimbledon grass is a real grass court! sampras would never have a wimbledon in a real grass court! if the old grass was still around, nadal would be already a multiple wimbledon champ since he prefers the slick,low bouncing grass courts like at queens, it helps his serve better and his slice!this new grass really helps federer unleash his forehand!thank god the brits saw they needed to move into the 21st century,instead of that old boring fart serve and volley!god how ancient is that style!
That's why Nadal is so strong in Wimbledon since 2006.
The Federation Intenartionnal of tennis is helping him like they never helped another tennisman in the world. A real shame and a champion manufactured since the beginning.
There seems to be an inconsistency in the speed of the first serve versus the speed of ground strokes. First serve stats for Wimbledon is actually pretty high (something like 21% 1st serves points lost from what i recall), which is second only to the stats in the US Open. But this belies the speed of the ball during rallies for some reason, and this is evident by the average rally length as well as the defensive gets that would/should not have been possible in a court with these stats.
mousiehamster 1 month ago
not just the speed...u have to look at the height of the ball...balls been bouncing higher now at the grass and this doesnt go well with the 1 handed backhanders...roger has trouble with his backhand more so now than before,and this is due to the fact that his shot penetrate less through the court which make it more like a clay court...
mskiller49 5 months ago
the blue ball touches the ground before than the yellow... it's normal for the blue to fall before than the yellow one.... (sorry for my english) :)
obecrazy 6 months ago
I think one can say wimbledon's grass is playing a little bit like clay in terms of inconsistent ball bouncing. Also i think it is, actually, clearly slower than a few years back, but obviously it is not comparable to clay, speed wise.
On the other hand I think it is, now, slower than, for instance, the US open's hardcourt. I think that the number of aces is greater in wimbledon (compared to the US open) because of the inconsistent ball bouncing.
pininh0 8 months ago
wimby is definitely slower than 10 years ago its pretty clear... nowadays only baseliners are able to succes at sw19
absss1085 8 months ago
if anything is changed is changed fo all players
how come Andy Roddick is the only one who suks
I wonder
Milesims3 8 months ago
Federer has no brains, thats his problem. He plays the 2-shot wonder Spaniard almost exclusively to his strengths and is afraid to close him off - even after both him and Murray showed it was possible even at the French. Even so, both back off.
Yes, the bounce is a piece of shit and it favours crap tennis. But the IQ level at the top (or maybe the courage - not sure which) is dismal.
I put a peak level Sampras ahead of any of these guys on anything other than clay.
alin1975 8 months ago
@alin1975 haha Federer a stupid tennis player? and for the record Rafael Nadal is a damn good tennis player, and with the exception of the 2008 French Open he has beaten Federer, not let Federer beat himself. Its a matchup issue more than anything. Lefty spin high bounce forehand to a one handed backhand is a hard shot, and when its against the player who generates the most spin on the tour its near impossible to be offensive against.
AnalogVenture 8 months ago
@AnalogVenture
Its a question of not taking the chances that present themselves and insisting on playing Nadal at his own game.
As I mentioned, in the last French Open you can look at both Federer's and Murray's games and see the success they had when they closed off points at the net (once they had Nadal out wide mind you) as compared to the times when they let him get back into the game.
As several former champions have noted, it is an opportunity modern players let slip too often.
alin1975 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnalogVenture
Oh, and just a bit of simple logic to boot... if you are an arsenal of tennis shots (like Fed) and you are playing a one trick pony like Nadal and losing, would it not make sense to try to mix it up a bit? Seriously, even taking aside what I said below, just this alone should push him to get out of his comfort zone a bit.
alin1975 8 months ago
This explains truthfully why rafa is winning Wimbledon. If the surface wasn't as slow as it is now Rafa would get ripped to shreds by not just Fed but by Djoko and Murray.
kwl189 9 months ago
The speed didn t change that much, but the higher bouncing plays more in Rafa s cards, no doubt about it.
My opinion:
Before 2001:
Sampras and Federer > Nadal
Today:
Nadal > Sampras and Federer
(just in Wimbledon of course)
NDoraku 9 months ago
hey morons... this is not about the surface... its about the serve. It shows how much Federer's serve has changed due to age and the fact that he is not Prime Federer anymore.. geez. silly gooses. all ready to jump the Wimbledon is now clay and its shit bandwagon. People. they made a conscious decision to slow the court down to encourage more baseline play.
fierte 11 months ago
@fierte they compared the same federer speed of serve. So prime or not dosen't matter. 2 samples of 126mph and he always hit flat on this speed. Speed and bounce's factor changed significantly. Cannot be due to weather, so must be grass and type of balls. Not surprising they kept changing the grass to lower costs or whatever baseline play. Nadal couldn't have won 2 on slightly earlier surfaces because he is poor at receiving low bouncing balls(one of his weakness). 05,06 SW19 bounced lower.
randykarmakum 7 months ago
@randykarmakum and yet in 2006 he made it to the finals? he used to be a clay courter then! he was learning to adapt to grass.. and he would have adapted. and won. everything is supposition. i could say that Federer couldn't have won prior to 2001. If speed and bounce were so important to every Nadal victory, then was the USO 2010 a trick? i miss the old grass badly. i am a hardcore Sampras fan. and i can't tolerate having anyone but Pete as the king of grass because he conquered the real grass.
fierte 7 months ago
@fiert he made the 06 finals because everyone in his draw play on the baseline. Federer lost 70% of the rallies in 06 final but made many unreturned serves & aces. 07,08 both played the same way with federer losing 70% of rallies but nadal is getting easier to return, many games go to 30 and deuce in 2008. I think his better return has got to do with the higher bounce, roddick can't advance with his serve after 05. USO hc is speedy but it bounces high so nadal always have chance.
randykarmakum 7 months ago
@randykarmakum the way i see it, others didn't adapt. its not some conspiracy to make him win everything. the rate everyone is coming out of the woodworks, its as though everyone in the tennis world has conspired to make him win. which is not quite the story. blame the TF for changing the grass rather than take the credit away from the guy who won. Roddick made 2009 finals. Feliciano made the QF this year. so did Mardy. hardly baseliners. Nadal struggled at this years FO. bounce was high.
fierte 7 months ago
@fierte roddick shifted to baseline to make 2009 final although u can argue federer can't return his serve but thats one-off, not like their usual matches where he returned easy. May be nervous due to special occasion. Mardy is baseliner and lopez is sort of in between. Not taking credit away from nadal but he is lucky for the surface to change to his favour. The FO signals about his decline in movement than anything. Like fed, sampras is not beating nadal w/o the low bounce on flat serve.
randykarmakum 7 months ago
Now i know why Nadal could beat federer ....hmmm. Federer is the greatest
michaeljackson5able 11 months ago 4
And imagine the serve speed in the late 80s or beginning of the 90s. Impossible to return that well like today. And forget long topspin rallies as well.
cammpinno 1 year ago
Didn't they change it in 2001?
pocketsearch 1 year ago
Lo que es cierto es que entre mas desgastado este el cesped es mas lenta la superficie lo cual le beneficia eso a Nadal,
tennchiv05 1 year ago
they arent taking in account of the ball spin..
ironraptor56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Saying that Nadal won because of a slow surface is just the same as saying that last year Fed won because they´ve somehow, made clay faster... They both won because they were the best players at the event, for no other reason.
I´m a Fed fan, but smart enough to admit that Nadal is also a great player, and that he can win tournaments by his own means, not with the help of surfaces being changed.
jpelegante 1 year ago
Comment removed
jpelegante 1 year ago
What is up with the ball toss being lower for 2003 LOL, what a joke!
jacksonvile12345678 1 year ago
@jacksonvile12345678
that may just be an optical depth effect. Even if its not, that only helps the argument even more. The blue 2008 ball has to travel further, with the same starting speed, and still manages to travel the court faster.
splendid1000 1 year ago
@jacksonvile12345678 It's true. Fed had a higher toss back then. Go watch the tape. To hit with more spin he lowered his toss. It helps the percentages on slower courts.
bobbyb1978 1 year ago
but why? how can grass change? it makes no sense
peterpkr 1 year ago
wimbledon 2007 2008 2009 2010 = clay =/
guilhermep15 1 year ago
*we didnt start the flamewar*
bamibalboy 1 year ago
They basically slowed down every tournament including us open as of 2010. If you want to argue compare lopez vs federer 2007 US open against any of the matches of the 2010 US open. The ball has slowed down dramatically. I'm not hating on any players, but lets face the facts.
Utopia569 1 year ago
@Utopia569 Ha Ha, it is a comedy show that how Nadal haters come up every time with some absolutely irrational reasons for Nadal`s win.I WONDER WHY LAST YEARS WIMBLEDON WAS NOT WON BY Chela,Montanes,Monaco,Ferrer,Almagro ect.It is only Nadal among good clay court players is reaching and winning on every surface.Reason is obvious that Nadal is talented enough to adapt to any surface.But when minds are clouded by hate,it is not visible for some people who keeps on repeating the same rubbish.
menakandy 1 year ago 10
@menakandy
Because all those guys suck? LOL
there is no question that the grass at wimbledon is slower. Its still not AS slow as the French or Australian and the ball doesnt bounce as high, but its still slower than it used to be. Nadal is a much better all around surface player than those other guys u mentioned.
splendid1000 1 year ago
And also, this video doesn't realistically prove that 2003 was faster because it doesn't take spin as an important factor. You can hit a hard serve with more or less spin at same velocity on impact and that will be the difference after it bounces.
hieutiee 1 year ago
Watch, Ignorant Federer fans will start to say that the US OPEN is slow now because Nadal just won it. GEt the fuck out of fantasy land and accept that Nadal is becoming a great all court player.
hieutiee 1 year ago
errr... they came up with this conclusion through one serve of federer's? lol.
GyariSan 1 year ago
its just sad when the US Open is faster than the grass courts of wimbledon, which is what has happened
Scrubsobsession 1 year ago 3
@Scrubsobsession Wimbledon had this year,2010 ,a match between Isner and Mahut were each served about 100 aces each.Believe 200 aces in one match.Does tennis consists of serve only?.Then rename tennis as service.This match occured in a tournament were some Nadal haters claim that has become slower than french open!.In 2010 most no of aces were served in Wimbledon.Check the statistics.So the so called faster US open surface had much less aces than Wimledon in 2010.So much for slower surface.
menakandy 1 year ago 2
Wimbledon became a second Roland Garros! It s time to speed it up again! If not, any upcoming French Open champ has the game to rule in Wimbledon.
Drago110482 1 year ago 4
@Drago110482 This years wimbledon had more aces than any other grandslams this year.French open had least aces this year.So called slow wimbledon had more aces than so called fast US open surface.In isner-mahut match they served more than 200 aces.It is in one match .What will be the popularity of tennis if every match consists of serve only.There will be no forehand,backhand,volley.return of serve,passing shots.Tennis rackets have made serves much harder and faster compared to 15 years back.
menakandy 1 year ago 2
@menakandy
Yes that s true about the rackets. But it isn t just the speed, it s also the bouncing. Today s Wimbledon courts have a much higher bouncing as pre 2004, which plays in the cards of Nadal.
Who do you think would win Federer - Nadal under the conditions of 1999 for example, both in their prime, 04-06 Federer vs. 08/10 Nadal?
I guess it would be like on clay, just vica verca. Federer would win in 3 or 4 sets.
Drago110482 1 year ago
@Drago110482 If tennis consists of aces only,then it is better to watch darts.In the 90`s Sampras and Ivanosevic served ace after ace because of the new technology rackets which made serve faster than ever.Popularity of the tennis plummeted so hard.Yes i agree that they are using high bouncing balls.Authorities were forced to bring some change due to lack of interest on the part of casual sports fans.Otherwise tennis would be trying hard to keep up with Darts .Change occurred in 2001 not 2004.
menakandy 1 year ago 8
@Drago110482 Wimbledon still records highest no aces served among grand slams.In the Isner-Mahut match each of them serves more than 100 aces.200 aces in one match.Is it tennis?.Grass is still grass,if only a player have exceptional foot work on grass,then only he has a chance to win wimbledon.Nadal is able to adjust his footwork,his shots,his positioning on court ect when he is on grass.He has incredible forward movement speed as well as lateral movement .His timing of shots are good on grass.
menakandy 1 year ago 20
Example:
Sampras vs. Nadal in 1999 -> Sampras in 3
Sampras vs. Nadal in 2010 -> Nadal in 3 or 4
Reason: Surface change (especially because of the low/high bouncing)
Drago110482 1 year ago
@Drago110482 If wimbledon surface is similar to a clay surface,how can on explain Andy Roddick`s reaching 3 wimbledon finals,2004,2005,2009.Andy relies on serves mainly,which gets rewarded on wimbledon grass.If wimbledon=clay,then Roddick should have reached at least one French open quarters in his career which he did not. Clay blunts Roddick`s serve where as so called slow wimbledon helps his serve immensely.Federer served more than 50 aces in Wimb 2009 final!.Slow surface!!! it is not.
menakandy 1 year ago 28
LOL who says its as slow as clay??? Its still faster than the Australian Open, so its obviously gona be faster than clay....but its a proven fact that Wimbledon plays slower than it used to. In 2001, they switched from a 70-30 mix, to a 100% perrenial-rye that grows thicker and starting using a denser and more firm soil. Both changes to the grass make the ball travel slower and bounce higher. It is scientifically tested and documented. There are videos that show the exact affects
splendid1000 1 year ago
if the courts at wimbledon are that fast, why do we see only ball bashers in the quarters, why do we see a Hewitt-Nalbandian final, a defensive (!) baseliner in Nadal winning it twice, no serve-and-volleyers going deep in the tournament?
89Pleasek 1 year ago 2
@89Pleasek Because nobody can serve-and-volley well enough nowadays.
morallies 1 year ago
Federer could serve-and-volley very well in his prime yet you didn't see him attack the net too often. It just doesn't pay nowadays to approach the net after every shot with the tendency of slowing many courts down, including grass at Wimbledon. Sampras playing the way he played wouldn't win half the Slams he won in the 90's.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@menakandy god you have nothing to do
a01139933 1 year ago
@menakandy I agree. It is noticeably slower than previous years, but it is by no means slow. You could make a fair argument though that the serves are still fast, whereas the baseline tennis is slower due to the wear on the court late in the second week. Still, if the grass was at its former length, I believe there would have been more of a Federer-Roddick rivalry on grass than a Federer-Nadal rivalry.
AnalogVenture 8 months ago
Comment removed
randykarmakum 7 months ago
@AnalogVenture the speed dont matter but its the height of bounce that matters. Clay courters have western grip and slower stroke as they play top spin. If the bounce is like knee level they hardly touch the ball to offensive players with flat strokes. Now it bounces to chest or shoulder its easy to return serve and rally for them, giving them time. Fast reaction and attacking game don't pay off in wimbledon right now. So does 1 handed bakchand which has better reaction speed.
randykarmakum 7 months ago
@randykarmakum I've never looked at it that way. That makes perfect sense. DARN THIS SHORT GRASS
AnalogVenture 6 months ago
@menakandy why u compare roddick in 2009 to 2004? Roddick was always bad returner to fed's serve no matter where. Roddick actually get far because his rallies and defence improved in 2009, not like his old aces game. Your opinion is not related to this video. Also it shows 2004,2005 was faster because roddick could use his old game to enter finals. 07-11 bounced higher than 01-06 if u look at the videos. Topspin don't work on earlier surfaces.
randykarmakum 7 months ago
@menakandy that's cause he's GOAT .... if it was still fast it won't be 50 it would be 60 ...
mechkapechka 2 months ago
dude they played for 3 days! it's hard not to have a high ace count after,what 15 hours of play
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Comment removed
alin1975 8 months ago
the crowd loves it ,some player like taylor dent might not feel the same way, but so what, sport won't live without people watching, then that's the deal. And A.Roddick still rocks here in wimbledon right?~ it's good for the future
hungsiuming 1 year ago
lol WTF, those 2 serves.... even tho it was served at the same speed, different impact angle affects the speed it takes off >.> not to mention the spin, this is a no brainer
chonobe 1 year ago
@chonobe that is exactly what the actual video was showing. on the DVD of this, the commentators are referring to how federer's serve has changed and how that was enabling nadal to take advantage of the difference. it had nothing to do with the surface.
talesandlegends 1 year ago
@talesandlegends if what ur saying is true, than the video didnt fail, just the uploader fail..... with a bad title and wrong discription
chonobe 1 year ago
wonderful technique
kuklisz 1 year ago
I love it how people entirely misunderstood this video.Although they have the same speed,thos are 2 completely different serves altogether: Different contact point,different spin and that leads to different contact point at the ground,different bounce and speed after ground contact.
Grass has been slowed down in 2001,but concluding that it slowed down even more based on 2 different serves that only have their speed in common is stupid.
kingnimi 1 year ago
..but it still has the highest serves held, highest aces, and lowest bounce. It is still grass...So shut up you folks.
Raf won it because Nadal and Fed both play well above the field on natural surfaces with their talent at adapting.
Look at their record on clay and grass, having played almost every major final for the last 5 years.
Please shut up guys!!
cathwitness 1 year ago
Yeah, the Wimbledon courts have gotten a lot slower. So lame imo... get the faster courts back, this is not RG!
Whe112 1 year ago
he needs work out horizontal components of the balls velocity, cause those balls were hitting the suraface at different angles
oneheroclass 2 years ago
Who cares about that, it is still going to go through the court. What you're supposed to care about is the number they show after the balls bounce. As long as they were both flat serves, the direction won't matter at all.
AllGenreMusic 2 years ago
spoke to someone who played at Wimbledon 2 years ago... he said it's "not far off Roland Garros"... how pathetic is that?
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
Speed it up!!!!! right now!!!!!
mosquito1983 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
serve and volley is so boring I like watching the crazy curving topsin rallys of these days
AkrivsTube 2 years ago
This video doesn't really explain how the courts are slower in 2008 compared to 2003. It's true that the ball on the blue trajectory slows down less but its trajectory is also at a smaller angle relative to the ground, which means less energy loss on the rebound. While the grass at Wimbledon may well be slower in 2008 than in 2003, this video does not show it conclusively. Both the serve speed and trajectory need to be the same in order to isolate the surface contribution to the ball's slowdown.
jeremychong 2 years ago
Feds is a baseliner. it's a shame he never got truly tested on grass. even now, Feds and Sampras struggle to beat each other even though Sampras serve-volleys almost every point, and Sampras is so many years older (and didnt touch his rackets for 2 years before coming back!!). i'd bet my life Sampras would beat Federer on the old serve/volley courts at Wimbledon (1990's) every time. Every time. Courts are too slow these days - just to make tennis worth watching...
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
It looks like you didn't do your homework. Sampras and Federer only played once against each other (in 2001, 2 years before Federer had won a Grand Slam), and then Federer already beat him. Besides, on the fast courts Federer's aggressive topspin strokes would give him lots of points. Sampras' serve wouldn't be a real problem, Federer has already proved he can withstand big servers with ease.
ikazooka 2 years ago
Topspin is not as effective on grass. Not that it would really matter on the old grass, because of all the S&Ving.
And back in his prime, Sampras was more than just a serve. It would be pretty close IMO.
TWKang 2 years ago
i think you misunderstood what i was saying. Sampras came on the scene in 1988, 13 years before Federer was around, thats a long time. and in that time, Sampras was playing on FASTER courts at Wimbledon. the grass was much faster. just watch mac vs borg, even they struggle with ball speed at times. Wimbledon has practically become a hard court, does not test the true serve-volleyer because it is impossible now. it's become a battle of the hardest hitter.
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
I merely made a point because you implied that Sampras and Federer faced each other multiple times. I agree about the courts, even roland garros is becoming a tournament in which power is the most important facette of the game. I don't think that it would benefit Sampras though, Federer is too allround for that.
ikazooka 2 years ago
Sampras and Federer have played quite a few times since 2001. the last 3 meetings were in Aisa, exhibition matches, and Sampras beat Federer 1 out of 3 matches, but was 5-3 up in final set in 1 match - sevring, and lost. faster courts would definitely suit Sampras as you can serve and volley, which Sampras is a natural at. Federer is not. even in those ex matches, Sampras was s&v most of the time. S&V gives you far less time to react, esp on fast grass.
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
exhibition matches.. come on. the point of an exhibition match is that you make sure that the crowd has a good time, and not to annihilate your opponent. If faster courts would suit s&v players, then why aren't there any of them in tennis nowadays? players like safin proved that on the fast courts they can outplay s&v players like Sampras. Players don't serve and volley anymore because nowadays every player can hit 200 km/h serves and hit ridiculous passings. the game has improved.
ikazooka 2 years ago
you obviously didnt watch the ex matches. there was no holding back, and they were out to destroy each other, no doubt about that. why is there no more serve and volley? because the courts and balls have been changed to provide more rallies, so that you get value for money, rather than a match with 2 shot rallies over in an hour. everyone knows this. and the ball doesnt actually travel that fast after bouncing anymore, just look at this video. like i said, watch borg vs mac, and you will see
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
i dont have to watch an exhibition match to have an opinion about it. it's a fact that in your mind something happens when there's a real prize at stake. no exhibition match can recreate that. you're right about the courts, but that was not why I reacted to your post.. it was because I disagreed about if Federer would be able to play on the old courts. He has proved to be an allrounder, so I'm sure he would.
ikazooka 2 years ago
we'll just have to agree to disagree. my original comment only stated that i would bet Sampras all the way against Federer on the faster courts as Feds cannot volley anywhere near as well as Sampras. and that was so important on the old wimbledon courts. Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Stich - all class volleyers. the slow court just doesn't help the volley at all.
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
and maybe you haven't ever played on grass, the way it used to be... the ball stays so low that every return of serve has to be hit up, making it a serve/volley arena, and topspin has very little positive effect. players made too many errors and were pushed to the limits at the baseline on fast grass. ask any pro why the s&v game no longer exists, and they all say that the courts and balls are too slow. watch some old-skool videos man. they used to hit the ball almost as hard even back then.
Volleymaster2 2 years ago
Wow, thanks for posting this.
TheAnonymousViewer 2 years ago 3
And the slowness favours nadal more than federer.
Team3xtreme 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone see Wimbledon this year? You dare say the courts are still too slow? lol I guess it's alright now that Roddick made the final. :rolleyes:
mavsfan1000 2 years ago
uhh...the courts are still slow dude. slow as HELL
squinty1292 2 years ago
Federer won the first wimbledon with 80% of serve and volley, and then he won the last with 5%. Aside from the astonishing ability of the player in changing his style, this must say something about the speed of the grass in my view......
darkpunkguy1984 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The data was scammed. Wimbledon is still as fast as it always is.
mavsfan1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gioch24 2 years ago
i hate that the slow the surfaces or make them faster it really should be like this from fastest to slowest:
-Wimbledon
-US Open
-Australia
-Roland Garros
Also I believe they should change the AO to a carpet because thats a great surface or just make it a more medium pace and also because there is no need for a 2 hard court slams
KRodfadesaway427 2 years ago 4
Interesting you raise this and I intend to agree with you. I also thought that we have too many hardcourt Masters Series. I always thought if we could have at least one grass on one of the Masters Series it would be great. We already have 5 Masters Series on hardcourt.
Indian Wells, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai.
3 on Clay, and 1 on carpet.
I mean we have 9 in the competition but not have a grass. The ATP should consider slotting one before Wimbledon.
seelowcell 2 years ago 2
This video proves nothing. The ball kicks with different angle, so the ball of 2003 has a smaller space to acomplish.
And realize tha the ball in 2003 goes from a higher place ang travels with a different angle, again. And you have to considerer the effects, as slice, spin, etc.
And to finish this, Federer himself told, in Wimbledon 2008 (you can see in interviews in the official website) that the court hasn´t changed since the past 5 years.
This video deceives who want´s to be deceived.
pberutti 2 years ago
Couldn't agree more.
titi142 2 years ago
lol because of the angle actually the "yellow" ball from 2009 should become even faster than the "blue" if it landed on the exact same surface.
it's got an better angle and still is much slower in the end than the one from 2003.
Watch games from 2003 and compare them to the ones now: there were much less longer rallies back then.
Also, there's hardly ever any slice (let alone spin) in any 126mph serve ...
greenberetta2001 2 years ago 2
in pre -2003 nadal won't even get good chance to return Federer's serve or any other player with strong serve. It looked like both slams are played on clay. Traditional grass need extremely fast reaction and quick thinking. We need back the fast, medium and slow surfaces for the 4 slams.
Baddieko 2 years ago 4
When the surface is very fast.. rally's become shorter.
Short Rally's suck, that's why its better now :D
EricTheRed03 2 years ago
Short rally's suck? What about the uber long ones today that are so friggin boring because each player just tries to push it back and wait for an error? Yeah man, those are so exciting.
squinty1292 2 years ago
@squinty1292
Push it back and wait for an error? What tennis are you watching?
mikatagahara1212 2 years ago
Plenty. Gilles Simon, Rafael Nadal, Gael Monfils, Novak Djokovic (when he is tentative which is often), David Ferrer, Andy Murray, etc.
AllGenreMusic 2 years ago
they didn't land on the same spot
Marackis 2 years ago
the 2003 ball landed shorter except it got there faster which means tat it is a lot faster than 08
Rfederer987 2 years ago
Wait till Fedex kicks everybodys ass in Wimbledon from 2009-2012...
satishsatishiyer 2 years ago 15
@satishsatishiyer Specially 2010, right?
biancapo81 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I AGREE! anyway , now federer is serving slower than a few years ago because he's putting much more spin on serve.
gutilis1 2 years ago
This isn't only because of the court, it is because federer has changed the way he hits his serve. He hits it with more spin, so it loses speed.
2Conme 2 years ago
Why not compare from the 70`s when they played with wooden rackets. Wimbledon had to slow it down as the game became way too fast especially in the Sampras era when the courts at Wimbledon were even faster and the balls were faster too.
Giveussometruth 2 years ago
looks like 2 slams are played on clay these days
bobomber 2 years ago 10
so is the australian open
the surface got slower
forselanne8 2 years ago
every surface on the tour get slower since 2003..
seidl01 2 years ago
not the us opoen
forselanne8 2 years ago 2
except for the US open WHICH IS GREAT!!!!
Prickle 2 years ago 2
A part of what is said is wrong.
To compare the 2 services, they must have the same speed, the same spin AND the same impact point.
Here the angle of the 2 shots isn't the same, the yellow (2008) serves catches the line while the 2003 is 30cm in, it might change their final speed.
I don't say that the grass is slower but i think that there's not a such difference as they say
Federerfanforev 2 years ago
Thats why he lost to nadal, because it became a slower surface
daigunder35 2 years ago 37
@daigunder35 really...
SirVetje 1 year ago
@daigunder35 that's why nadal lost to him, because it was a fast surface
Currymastuh 1 year ago
@daigunder35 the surface has remained the same since 2002, before federer even won his first wimbledon crown. This video is a joke and doesnt even take into account the amount of spin.
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
@hhhhdmt it's Federer's serve dumbass
ottackon 1 year ago
@daigunder35 your argument is stupid, Nadal win because he can adapt his tennis for all of surfaces, he win us open 2010, and the surfaces is so fast, and the balls makes this sourface more fast, than european balls, why other clay specialist do nothing in wimbledon now? nadal win because is the best player, thats the principal argument.
alexSOTG 1 year ago 9
@daigunder35
The surface was changed back in 2001, get your facts straight. Also the serve still rules, look at Wim 2009 final with Roddick. At this point in Andy's career he is nothign but a serve and it almost won him the trophy.
Get your facts straight!
jacksonvile12345678 1 year ago
yer wimbledeon uniqueness is ruined yep its defintelty green clay
mysam1231 3 years ago
wimbledon=rigged
destoroy4 3 years ago 3
Wimbledon is the new RG
MrDgenerate212 3 years ago 6
thats the only reason why nadal won wmb 08!
MattS04hias 3 years ago 7
I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe Roddick could have remained a contender at Wimbledon if they kept the grass quick.
tvp900 3 years ago 6
@tvp900 the grass at wimbledon has been the same since 2002. Nothing has changed and roddick is still a contender, he nearly won last year.
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
Nobody gives excuses, Nadal was just better in that final in 2008, but not mentioning the fact that grass is not "grass" anymore is not right. It is slower.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
is that your excuse? if you're a better player, you'd be better....period, not make excuses
TibxB0i 3 years ago
uh no, roger was a pansy on every break point, thats why
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
@MattS04hias Nadal won wimby 08 because he deserved to. Stop making excuses.
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
I dont think they compared this right, they didnt take into account the spin generated from the serves. If he had hit a flat ball in 2003 and a more topspinny ball in 2008 then the way the ball bounces off the surface would be completely different.
grumblegrumble 3 years ago
gud pnt dude..taking the spins into account will make the analysis slightly different!!and at this year fed was asked.."how much has the grass changed?" he said" nuthing has chnaged since I won my first wimby in 03!!!!!!!!!!!...well this video xagerates the scenario a bt..bt no doubt the grass has slowed down..but at wimbledon mainly!! nto QUEENS!!!
hasanmurad 3 years ago 2
well the serve speed was 126 mph, pretty fast for a spinny ball. whether the 2nd one is spinnier than the first will not make that 9 mph difference, imo. both balls came so fast we can only conclude both serves were flat.
kakashi1300 3 years ago 4
in 5 years : WIMBLEDON = ROLAND GARROS = NADAL VICTORY
Ludovicdu33 3 years ago 3
@
hasanmurad
Your saying that players "lack VERSATILITY"
if they can't play on different surfaces.
This is kinda stupid since making grass slower only means all the surfaces will be more the same (grass will be more like gravel)
arduderjnn 3 years ago
look mate...all the surfaces cant be similar!grass shows amazkingly low bounce which no other court can show..the Us open hard courts by deco turf..man they are so quick rite now ..the quickest in the past decade...cant ppl see how nadal sticks to the baselineto finish off points earlier.cant ppl see rafa hitting serves all over the box against fed instead of pummeling his bh like he does at RG..cant u ppl see his willingness to appraoh the net and win pnts and silent critics.....*
hasanmurad 3 years ago
**...eevryone has a different way of showing versatility..there is no need to go for that stupid serve and volley on every pnt just to show that u can play on quicker surfaces...i can bet no one can other great champ.take fed..can imiotate nadal's game at RG!!can he??no!!evryone has his own style..nadal has to win matches which he does so well..and have a luk at teh half grass half clay match..that grass ws so strange..so quick and bounces were so odd..rafa adjstd so wel & showed variety!
hasanmurad 3 years ago
* beating novak and roddick in 2 sets!!the guy is showing great versatility.have a luk at his forecourt game in 05 and compare it with his current forecourt game..not splendid but atleast 10 times better..he now knows how to punch thru the volleys better...often hits xquisite drop volleys and the scariest thing for others is..THERE IS MASSIVE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN RAFA"S FORECOURT GAME ASWELL AS SERVE!!
hasanmurad 3 years ago
Dude i fully understand ur point here..but the thing is..is the grass is slowing down and if the players whose games were better suited to traditional grass..if they cannot adjust to today's grass then it also means that they lack VERSATILITY!!!u have to learn to play on every surface if u r a versatile player...and considering nadal..yes wimby conditiosn are to his adv rite now but u know what..the conditions/grass at queens championships are faster!!luk what rafa did ths yr..beatign rod+novak!
hasanmurad 3 years ago
No, it basically means players like Nadal have no need to show versatility due to lack of variety in surfaces today, plain and simple.
SoooBlue 3 years ago 6
youngest player ever to reach wimby 3rd rnd since becker in 1986 **
hasanmurad 3 years ago
why do ppl always say that its to nadal's advantage!?? ofcourse it is but if i say that federer and others lack teh versatility to adjust on a slightly changed surface !!! what is the ans then??how can u say so confidently that nadal cant play on fast grass!! ofcourse he can..he is taking his time and adjusting briliantly ..and it ws the grass of 2003 when nadal became the youngest player to reach wimby 3rd rnd..so instead of devaluing his achievements ppl shd appreciate his greatness...
hasanmurad 3 years ago
no it is nadal's advantage. he is a defensive baseliner who likes to hit hard shots from several meters behind the baseline. a slower surface helps him by giving him more time to get to each ball. people who traditional dominate on grass are baseline huggers and volleyers because the slick surface of the grass keeps the ball low and it maintains more of its momentum after its bounce. slower grass means this advantage is taken away
jetsmashmoney 3 years ago 4
yes i agree!! wimbledon used to be a tournament where pure brute won't get a player anywhere, while footwork, precision and flat shots thrived amongst others. sampras, mcenroe, laver, federer. i heard at us open 2008 the courts have been made faster than ever, i gathered from the commentators even faster than wimbledon now.
becoo1 3 years ago 3
The speed was the difference to the other tournaments. So I think Wimbledon lost unfortunately its singularity.
Niklas2104 3 years ago 10
Unfortunately it has already become like this.
Robbie0415768067 3 years ago
that's a huge difference!
I hate to see Wimbledon become like this!
wxsty 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2008 wimbledon grass is a real grass court! sampras would never have a wimbledon in a real grass court! if the old grass was still around, nadal would be already a multiple wimbledon champ since he prefers the slick,low bouncing grass courts like at queens, it helps his serve better and his slice!this new grass really helps federer unleash his forehand!thank god the brits saw they needed to move into the 21st century,instead of that old boring fart serve and volley!god how ancient is that style!
stealthpakfa 3 years ago
well it may be 126 but the difference of spin and how it landed can change the mph. interesting
Elohite 3 years ago
That's why Nadal is so strong in Wimbledon since 2006.
The Federation Intenartionnal of tennis is helping him like they never helped another tennisman in the world. A real shame and a champion manufactured since the beginning.
laurentdu78 3 years ago 7
thats why he lost the final?
habibko 3 years ago 3