How has surface change/homogenisation impacted the top players?

First topic message reminder :

As you may know, the courts now are a lot different to what they were a decade or so ago. Tennis is now a game dominated mainly by base-liners, and the impact of a big serve is not as big as it was before.

This is my judgement on the current surfaces in the Grand Slams of the ATP tour:

Australian Open- Medium Slow Hard Court

French Open- Slow Clay

Wimbledon- Medium Grass

US Open- Arthur Ashe: Medium Slow, rest all Medium Hard Court



So as we can see the surfaces at the moment are all quite similar, if you agree with my judgments you will agree that all surfaces vary from the range 'slow' to 'medium.' This means that the server will now have a decreased advantage during his service game, compared to 10 years ago.

I will now try and address some questions that could arise, in-light of this.



Why the shouldn't the Courts all be sped up?

Some of you may think: Ah, let's just speed up all the courts to what they were before. However I think this could have possible disastrous consequences. The tennis racket is becoming more and moer powerful as a weapon. If the court surfaces are sped up to what they were before, I really think the game would just become a serve based fest. Players above 6"5 would just hammer down ace after ace, and there would be a lack of rallying.

Hence I believe that we should try and speed up some of the courts, but not to the point where a 6"7 guy can just go tournaments unbroken.

In terms of surface variation between the four slams, this would be, for me (of course you can disagree!) a good change in terms of variety:

Australian Open (Medium Slow Clay- like Rome)

French Open (Slow Clay)

Wimbledon (Medium Fast Grass)

US Open (Fast Indoor Hard Court)

This would mean we have a real mix, with: slow, medium slow, medium fast, and also fast.



Who has really benefitted from the change in surfaces/surface distribution?

At the moment there is an inbalance in surface distribution. I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about the surface.

Movement on a particular surface stays the same, generally, for a player irrelevant of the surface speed. The only difference, however, is that as the surface gets slower, movement on that surface becomes even more important.

Now, we have 2 Grand Slams on Hard Court (50%), 1 on Grass (25%), 1 on Clay (25%). This means there is an imbalance, as there is more Hard Court Slams than any other surface.

If we look at surface movement, Federer moves equally on pretty much all surfaces (he's quite fast, but not as fast as others). The player though I believe benefits most from the Hard Court imbalance is: NOVAK DJOKOVIC. Djokovic, as we know, moves best on hard-courts. In-fact I could say that Djokovic is the best mover on hard courts of all time. So having 2 out of 4 slams on HC is brilliant for Djokovic.

What makes it even better for him is the fact these hard-courts are slower, which means that movement becomes more important, irrelevant of who you play. Let's get some stats to show Djokovic's hard court domination:

-Djokovic has only won 1 slam outside hard-court, half of the amount Nadal has won just on grass.

-Djokovic has won 5/6 slams on HC- this is 83%

So this 'hard court' imbalance has clearly benefitted Djokovic. The slowing down of the surfaces extend this even further to his favour as it makes movement more important, which is Djokovic's huge strength on hard courts.



What about Nadal?

Rafael Nadal has won 11 slams, this is the second most out of all active players atm. So how has the surfaces changes affected him?

Now let's get one thing straight before we start. There is no 'morally good' surface.' There is no requirement on surfaces- grass does not have to be fast, it does not have to be anything. A Grand Slam win, individually, is earned. Surface chance does not make a slam more or less 'valueable.'

However, when we have homogenisation of surfaces, it is easier to make your mark on all the slams, rather than just one or two. Nadal has shown he can win on clay, grass, and hard-court; i.e. on that particular surface. He moves well on all the surfaces, it is just the fact he moves best on clay which makes a big difference. More on this later. Anyway it can be argued he has not shown he can win on 'fast grass' 'fast hard-court'. In-fact I think if this was another era he might not have won so many slams off-clay. Conversely Pete Sampras, if he was playing now, in a game where rallying and baseline awareness is more important, would struggle to win a slam on any surface.

Nadal is not a 'one surface' pony at all, the fact is he has won Grand Slams on all surfaces. However it could be argued that he is a 'slow court' pony- i.e. he prefers slow courts to fast courts. But people get very confused when analysing the game of Nadal. I believe that Nadal could have chosen to be a more aggressive player, watch clips on Miami 2004/5 and Dubai 2006. However the surfaces then slowed down, and Nadal changed his game and has lost some of the aggression. If the surfaces were sped up I believe Nadal, as he matured, would be made by Toni to change his style to make it more effective on faster surfaces. Would he be successful? Who knows?

I am aware that when Nadal was young, and the surfaces were faster, he did not generate fantastic results on surfaces outside clay. But this does not mean it would have to be the case for his whole career. Nadal grew up playing tennis on clay in Spain remember, so would take time to change his game for other surfaces.

This causes a problem- it is like a experiment where two variables has changed:
-Nadal has got older, and hence was free to develop his game before-hand. If the surfaces were sped up then Toni could have changed Nadal's game to be effective for that, and the disparity in tactics between clay and hard courts for Nadal would increase further.

-The surfaces have changed. These changes meant that Toni didn't have to change Nadal's game as much for him to be able to play on all surfaces.


What would my surface mix mean?

I suggested this earlier:

Australian Open (Medium Slow Clay- like Rome)

French Open (Slow Clay)

Wimbledon (Medium Fast Grass)

US Open (Fast Indoor Hard Court)

This would mean we have a real mix, with: slow, medium slow, medium fast, and also fast.

I believe Nadal, throughout the decade, would dominate the first 2 slams of the year, just like Federer would dominate the final 2 Grand Slams of the year.
In my eyes, for Federer to win a Grand Slam on clay, he would need to avoid Nadal (i.e. rely on a early Nadal exit or him to withdraw from the tournament).
Nadal, would struggle on the fast indoor surface, the low bounce and pace would mean it would be very difficult for him to win. A win at Wimbledon would be more likely, although I feel Nadal would need to be serving very very well to have a chance there.

I think Djokovic would struggle away from the US Open, and even in the US I think he'd have to avoid Federer to have a chance of winning. That's just my opinion though, I am sure many Djokovic fans will disagree with me.


Anyway, thanks for reading, will be a pleasure to hear your views as usual
Amritia

Round my way, hard courts are very rare - most clubs have asrto-turf/all-weather, or whatever the current term is, along with Euro-clay becoming more popular.
Hard courts, i.e. tarmac/cement are becoming more of a rarity, and not very well maintained. Hard courts as used by the AO/USO are almost never seens, except indoors I think, and there's very few indoor courts.

Funnily enough I can think of at least 2 places within 10 minutes that have clay courts. I suppose it depends on where you live; you'd be hard pushed to find grass courts in Scotland I imagine.

Hmm my old club up near Paris used to have one clay court, other than that it was all hard court (indoors and outdoors). Very few grass courts in France I'd say.

Socal... now moving our discussion on this thread:

socal1976 wrote:Funny I could have sworn that you made those arguments about burnout and injuries over the years but if you say you didn't fine unlike you I will accept your clarification and move on.

Oh great sage of prognostication what about your posts in 09 and 10 on old 606 where you said Djoko was a one slam wonder, got lucky to win AO 2008 because fed had mono, that he is weaponless etc, etc has not big shot or whatever. I precisely remember argueing with you about that when Novak was down in 09. Seems like your famous future predicting skills failed you there, just like they failed your prediction that murray and Novak would not be marketable.

Socal, that's all well and good.
But answering Bogbrush doesn't really address my very simple point.

-Hard Court (cement) is the worst surface for the body- it is tough on the body compared to natural surfaces. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_court#Hard_courts
Although hard courts are the least expensive to maintain, they are generally more rough on the human body than other surfaces due to their rigidity.
-Slow courts mean longer points.
-Longer points mean more running.
-More running means more wear and tear.
-Which thus results in more injuries.

Simple as that.

socal1976 wrote:Hardcourt does tend wear on the body more IMBL but the fact remains that the injuries we are talking about usually are not career threatening. Sore feet, a little more pounding on the feet. I have played on hardcourt all my life in some ways for some injuries it is actually better than clay or grass. For example you get more injuries resulting for poor footing on the natural surfaces. Yes hardcourt does pound your body more but evidence that it is shortening careers or causing serious injuries beyond what we have seen in the past has not in my mind been established.

By the way IMBL do you play and what style do you play? If you do play I challenge you to run in and volley 90 percent of the points in your next match and see if it doesn't make your body howl. S and V is brutally physical. Not cardiovascularly as much but there is no comparison to the jarring movements you have to make when standing up close at net compared to when you are standing back at the baseline and have more time to react. That is one of the reasons that in the 80s you would often have an S and V guy make a big splash and then burnout or be forced from the game with bad hips, backs or knees. This is another poorly constructed myth from online that S and V and quote short point tennis is not physically taxing. Watch becker dive for a volley and tell me that isn't physically taxing and opening your body to more injury than hitting a forehand from 30 feet behind the net.

Socal.. hard court's wear and tear can be very bad for the body. It is more than just a 'little pounding.' Especially when the surface is slow you run around a lot.

I agree with you that S+V ing can also be strenuous for the body. I just a slow hard-court is still the worst for injures though.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal... now moving our discussion on this thread:

socal1976 wrote:Funny I could have sworn that you made those arguments about burnout and injuries over the years but if you say you didn't fine unlike you I will accept your clarification and move on.

Oh great sage of prognostication what about your posts in 09 and 10 on old 606 where you said Djoko was a one slam wonder, got lucky to win AO 2008 because fed had mono, that he is weaponless etc, etc has not big shot or whatever. I precisely remember argueing with you about that when Novak was down in 09. Seems like your famous future predicting skills failed you there, just like they failed your prediction that murray and Novak would not be marketable.

Socal, that's all well and good.
But answering Bogbrush doesn't really address my very simple point.

-Hard Court (cement) is the worst surface for the body- it is tough on the body compared to natural surfaces. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_court#Hard_courts




Although hard courts are the least expensive to maintain, they are generally more rough on the human body than other surfaces due to their rigidity.
-Slow courts mean longer points.
-Longer points mean more running.
-More running means more wear and tear.
-Which thus results in more injuries.

Simple as that.

More running doesn't necessarily mean more wear and tear. Which one hurts your body more a rugby match or 10000k run? When playing from the baseline you have more time to react to the ball. While there is a lot of stop and start and change of directions from baseline play it is uncomparable to the jarring of the rapid change of direction, lunges, and dives required of volleying a ball moving over 100 miles hour at times.

Who cares?

bogbrush wrote:Who cares?

About injuries?
Well the players themselves probably don't want to get injured. Their relatives maybe?
Also maybe fans?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Who cares?

About injuries?
Well the players themselves probably don't want to get injured. Their relatives maybe?
Also maybe fans?

No IMBL if the grand pubba says it is unworthy of discussion then it must be so, all hail BB the soothsayer and merlin of our time who can predict the future without any evidence whatsoever to back up anything he says.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Who cares?

About injuries?
Well the players themselves probably don't want to get injured. Their relatives maybe?
Also maybe fans?

Then they shoud adjust their play. Easy.

As usual socal completely misses the point. Only when we find out who cares do we see who has the incentive to fix it.