Topic: Who likes the changes at Wimby?

[Babblelot]

When they started tinkering with the courts and balls in the early 2000s, the changes were universally despised. Players who had dominated with the quicker combo of court and ball complained mightily about the slower playing courts and fluffier balls. And fans pretty much echoed their sentiments. Those who liked the faster combo of past years complained that Wimby is now just another medium speed surface.

Fast forward about 5-6 years and it's 2008: Nadal is dominating, Safin is resurgent and Roddick can't win.

So... what's the verdict?


I'll start. I love it!!!

What you say?

[Dallas]

As long as Roger keeps winning.... I don't want them to change the surface at all!

[Babblelot]

As long as Roger keeps winning.... I don't want them to change the surface at all!

Can I change your vote to reflect your comment?   

[Dallas]

As long as Roger keeps winning.... I don't want them to change the surface at all!

Can I change your vote to reflect your comment?   

Sure!   

[dmastous]

Call me an old fart, but I think they've gone too far. I think some change was good. perhaps one or the other, perhaps, not as slow of a surface. But to me there needs to be more of a separation between the clay and the grass. There needs to be a faster surface to balance the slower surfaces.
Right now Wimbledon is green clay, nothing more.

[kickserve]

This sucks now. All the slams are now just 'middle ground', so the slams don't really test versatility at all.

[mav140]

This sucks now. All the slams are now just 'middle ground', so the slams don't really test versatility at all.

I very agree with you, although not entirely... I used to like Wimbledon as the fastest on tour, the not so bouncing surface, winner making tournament. Now its a slow grass surface with high bouncing balls and not that many winners as we were used to.. I mean, we have the AO and even RG for that reason... Theree should still be tournaments who can value versatility.

[monstertruck]

Call me an old fart, but I think they've gone too far. I think some change was good. perhaps one or the other, perhaps, not as slow of a surface. But to me there needs to be more of a separation between the clay and the grass. There needs to be a faster surface to balance the slower surfaces.
Right now Wimbledon is green clay, nothing more.

Hey old fart, I think they should have made it even faster to offset the current trend of baseline bashing buffoons who show no interest in developing a full arsenal of shots.  The push for power in racquet and strings needs to be offset somehow.

Let's take this discussion a step further.  In what other sport do the manufacturers continue to develop new equipment (solely for profit) which profoundly affects how the sport is played at the professional level?  Baseball?  Football?  Soccer? Basketball? 
The only sports that pop into my head are auto racing and golf.

[Babblelot]

Wow! Where are the Nadal fans to get my back   

Let's take this discussion a step further.  In what other sport do the manufacturers continue to develop new equipment (solely for profit) which profoundly affects how the sport is played at the professional level?  Baseball?  Football?  Soccer? Basketball? 
The only sports that pop into my head are auto racing and golf. 

I've tried... I started a thread quite some time ago, something like "Has Technology Gone Too Far" (maybe someday I can find it). It drew about three posts. I later tried to resusitate it; maybe another post or two. It died a premature death, as most threads that don't conform to the formula:

When will Federer breaks Sampras' Record?
Is Roger the Greatest of All Time?
When Will Nadal break Sampras' Record?
Is Nadal the Greatest of All Time?
ad nauseum...

[Dallas]

Seriously, I wish they would make it just a little faster (but not like it was in the 90s where you only had serve/volley/winner.  That surface really did cater to the big servers only. )  I like the fact that the grass produced the 'low' bounce instead of the high bounces of clay.  So I actually wouldn't mind if they made it a little faster, but not to the point that Isner, Ivo,  and those type players win it.

It's hard for me to want them to chance the surface just because my favorite hasn't lost on the stuff since 2002.  So I really don't like change because I don't want anything messed up since it's working so well for my favorite.

[pawan89]

tell me this. In what way is Wimbledon, the most prestigious and historical tournament in the world (arguably at least), different than Clay? Or how about.. Miami or Indian Wells? How is it any different?

As far as I know and I am not even sure of this, the ball bounces a tad bit lower. I mean not really too with all the topspin.

So basic question is, are you happy to have the most prestigious and the only different tournament (no other main tournament is played on grass).. the so called only dfferent tournament with the unique surface to play exactly the same as 85% of the rest of the courts?

I know I don't.

The courts were fast, but with racqut technology that would have evolved. It could have remained a fast court while still gettign in more interesting tennis because of the better technology to return and such. Now its just like every other court in the world. I mean 30+ shot rallies? That's perfect clay court material right there - and that was between Safin and Lopez, two hard hitters who should be more likely to end shots sooner even on slower surfaces.

[Babblelot]

tell me this. In what way is Wimbledon, the most prestigious and historical tournament in the world (arguably at least), different than Clay? Or how about.. Miami or Indian Wells? How is it any different?

As far as I know and I am not even sure of this, the ball bounces a tad bit lower. I mean not really too with all the topspin.

So basic question is, are you happy to have the most prestigious and the only different tournament (no other main tournament is played on grass).. the so called only dfferent tournament with the unique surface to play exactly the same as 85% of the rest of the courts?

I know I don't.

The courts were fast, but with racqut technology that would have evolved. It could have remained a fast court while still gettign in more interesting tennis because of the better technology to return and such. Now its just like every other court in the world. I mean 30+ shot rallies? That's perfect clay court material right there - and that was between Safin and Lopez, two hard hitters who should be more likely to end shots sooner even on slower surfaces.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. Come on, now. The days of 42 W-8 UE, with 23 Ace are dead, buried and long gone...and that's a good thing.

[pawan89]

tell me this. In what way is Wimbledon, the most prestigious and historical tournament in the world (arguably at least), different than Clay? Or how about.. Miami or Indian Wells? How is it any different?

As far as I know and I am not even sure of this, the ball bounces a tad bit lower. I mean not really too with all the topspin.

So basic question is, are you happy to have the most prestigious and the only different tournament (no other main tournament is played on grass).. the so called only dfferent tournament with the unique surface to play exactly the same as 85% of the rest of the courts?

I know I don't.

The courts were fast, but with racqut technology that would have evolved. It could have remained a fast court while still gettign in more interesting tennis because of the better technology to return and such. Now its just like every other court in the world. I mean 30+ shot rallies? That's perfect clay court material right there - and that was between Safin and Lopez, two hard hitters who should be more likely to end shots sooner even on slower surfaces.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. Come on, now. The days of 42 W-8 UE, with 23 Ace are dead, buried and long gone...and that's a good thing.

I agree. But then do you think that the days of 30+ shot rallies played by hardhitters like Safin and Haas and such is a good thing? That's the same tennis claycourters play on clay.

[Babblelot]

tell me this. In what way is Wimbledon, the most prestigious and historical tournament in the world (arguably at least), different than Clay? Or how about.. Miami or Indian Wells? How is it any different?

As far as I know and I am not even sure of this, the ball bounces a tad bit lower. I mean not really too with all the topspin.

So basic question is, are you happy to have the most prestigious and the only different tournament (no other main tournament is played on grass).. the so called only dfferent tournament with the unique surface to play exactly the same as 85% of the rest of the courts?

I know I don't.

The courts were fast, but with racqut technology that would have evolved. It could have remained a fast court while still gettign in more interesting tennis because of the better technology to return and such. Now its just like every other court in the world. I mean 30+ shot rallies? That's perfect clay court material right there - and that was between Safin and Lopez, two hard hitters who should be more likely to end shots sooner even on slower surfaces.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. Come on, now. The days of 42 W-8 UE, with 23 Ace are dead, buried and long gone...and that's a good thing.

I agree. But then do you think that the days of 30+ shot rallies played by hardhitters like Safin and Haas and such is a good thing? That's the same tennis claycourters play on clay.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. If at RG, the typical W-UE ratio (I'm making this up), say, 15-30 with 6 aces and at Wimby the typical W-UE ratio is 30-15 with 12 aces, why do you insist they play the same or that Wimby is green clay as Dmast would put it?

Boy, I'm ready to do another analysis; the last one I did was to debunk the myth about "Men's best of 5 sets matches take 4 hours..." 

[wilsonboy]

I prefer the slower. I always thought that when it was fast, grass wasn't very enjoyable to watch on ATP because it would just be Ace/winner points... Now we actually have more rallies without sacrificing the whole grass aspect of it.

[pawan89]

tell me this. In what way is Wimbledon, the most prestigious and historical tournament in the world (arguably at least), different than Clay? Or how about.. Miami or Indian Wells? How is it any different?

As far as I know and I am not even sure of this, the ball bounces a tad bit lower. I mean not really too with all the topspin.

So basic question is, are you happy to have the most prestigious and the only different tournament (no other main tournament is played on grass).. the so called only dfferent tournament with the unique surface to play exactly the same as 85% of the rest of the courts?

I know I don't.

The courts were fast, but with racqut technology that would have evolved. It could have remained a fast court while still gettign in more interesting tennis because of the better technology to return and such. Now its just like every other court in the world. I mean 30+ shot rallies? That's perfect clay court material right there - and that was between Safin and Lopez, two hard hitters who should be more likely to end shots sooner even on slower surfaces.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. Come on, now. The days of 42 W-8 UE, with 23 Ace are dead, buried and long gone...and that's a good thing.

I agree. But then do you think that the days of 30+ shot rallies played by hardhitters like Safin and Haas and such is a good thing? That's the same tennis claycourters play on clay.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. If at RG, the typical W-UE ratio (I'm making this up), say, 15-30 with 6 aces and at Wimby the typical W-UE ratio is 30-15 with 12 aces, why do you insist they play the same or that Wimby is green clay as Dmast would put it?

Boy, I'm ready to do another analysis; the last one I did was to debunk the myth about "Men's best of 5 sets matches take 4 hours..." 

No I am not arguing that, I mean there's gotta be SOME difference or else the grass would be red and powdery and they wouldn't call it grass anymore. The point is its headed more and more toward clay. A few more years and your W-UE and ace argument might not hold, seeing the way things are going. The ratios have alraedy started to get closer and closer to clay, that's for sure. Its only a matter of time before guys like Nadal and Ferrer will start defending everything even on grass and the UFEs will start racking up for thier opponents. And people like Roddick whose matches I have found always have the best (highest) ratio of winners to UFE (like his match against Ancic in AO 07 and Gasquet Wimbledon 07) are also starting to have higher UFEs.

I heard they cut the grass even higher starting last year, is this true? This would slow down even more.

[Babblelot]

tell me this. In what way is Wimbledon, the most prestigious and historical tournament in the world (arguably at least), different than Clay? Or how about.. Miami or Indian Wells? How is it any different?

As far as I know and I am not even sure of this, the ball bounces a tad bit lower. I mean not really too with all the topspin.

So basic question is, are you happy to have the most prestigious and the only different tournament (no other main tournament is played on grass).. the so called only dfferent tournament with the unique surface to play exactly the same as 85% of the rest of the courts?

I know I don't.

The courts were fast, but with racqut technology that would have evolved. It could have remained a fast court while still gettign in more interesting tennis because of the better technology to return and such. Now its just like every other court in the world. I mean 30+ shot rallies? That's perfect clay court material right there - and that was between Safin and Lopez, two hard hitters who should be more likely to end shots sooner even on slower surfaces.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. Come on, now. The days of 42 W-8 UE, with 23 Ace are dead, buried and long gone...and that's a good thing.

I agree. But then do you think that the days of 30+ shot rallies played by hardhitters like Safin and Haas and such is a good thing? That's the same tennis claycourters play on clay.

Compare W-UE and Ace totals and you'll see the surfaces play diffently. If at RG, the typical W-UE ratio (I'm making this up), say, 15-30 with 6 aces and at Wimby the typical W-UE ratio is 30-15 with 12 aces, why do you insist they play the same or that Wimby is green clay as Dmast would put it?

Boy, I'm ready to do another analysis; the last one I did was to debunk the myth about "Men's best of 5 sets matches take 4 hours..." 

No I am not arguing that, I mean there's gotta be SOME difference or else the grass would be red and powdery and they wouldn't call it grass anymore. The point is its headed more and more toward clay. A few more years and your W-UE and ace argument might not hold, seeing the way things are going. The ratios have alraedy started to get closer and closer to clay, that's for sure. Its only a matter of time before guys like Nadal and Ferrer will start defending everything even on grass and the UFEs will start racking up for thier opponents. And people like Roddick whose matches I have found always have the best (highest) ratio of winners to UFE (like his match against Ancic in AO 07 and Gasquet Wimbledon 07) are also starting to have higher UFEs.

I heard they cut the grass even higher starting last year, is this true? This would slow down even more.

Okay, then what I'm saying is that I hope (not sure) that they stop, because I like it the way it is today. It brings more people into play, moreso than ever before when grass was dominated by the few specialists. And the changes are making Roddick's weak azz game look weak. I wish he, like all other top players, worked on improving his weaknesses. But he chooses not to and the sport will pass him by, if it hasn't already.

[swish]

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!! 

[OSU Buckeye]

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!! 

I do have to disagree with that because Fed's serve is dominating the tourney right now (he has only been broken 2 times).  Pete's serve was at least as good as Fed's if not better........so Pete would have done very similar to the way he actually did.  Plus, great players do what they have to do on changing surfaces.........Pete could have volleyed less on a slower Wimby surface and still been successful just as Fed could volley more on a faster Wimby surface and still be successful. 

[swish]

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!! 

I do have to disagree with that because Fed's serve is dominating the tourney right now (he has only been broken 2 times).  Pete's serve was at least as good as Fed's if not better........so Pete would have done very similar to the way he actually did.  Plus, great players do what they have to do on changing surfaces.........Pete could have volleyed less on a slower Wimby surface and still been successful just as Fed could volley more on a faster Wimby surface and still be successful. 

He should have been able to do that on clay then also by the same reasoning. Doesn't really matter though, there's no way to really find out, just food for thought.