Some really great points here
Naturally, I am taking Dmast and Monster's side here.
There really isn't much I can say besides what's already been said. At some point you also have to factor in the fact that I simply prefer a more complete and agressive style of play and not the game that has thrived on clay for so long and am very opposed to that kind of game spreading. But again, i have tried to be as objective as possible but I can't be totally objective I suppose.
Surfaces definitely make a difference. There's definitely going to be statistical outliers like Borg and Nadal who, honestly - not much I can do beside admit it - are just too good and will win if they want to win regardless of surface and style. People like Agassi and Federer are agressive baseliners - completely different from the likes of Nadal - and they can win the FO even though its clay and thier game is not suited simply because they are great champions. Same goes for Nadal and Wimbledon even if I don't like it.
but again, bottomline is surfaces matter and the whole purpose of having different surfaces is to play differently and test various kinds of players. If I could compile some statistics maybe I could really show the trend. or maybe I'll find out the trend is really not as bad as my mind makes it out to be.
But you know, just generally looking, there's a reason the game played by Roddick, Blake, Berdych and such has its best results on faster hardcourts and grasscourts and not on clay and slower hardcourts. similarly, there's a reason guys like Nadal, ferrer, robredo have their best results on clay and slower hardcourts. And people who have variety and can be the agressor and play defensively and simply put, more game in them, like Federer, Djokovic, Gasquet and such have the potential to do well anywhere.
And the simple trend is pointing to the spread of claycourters into grass and no matter how you look at it, ultimately there's a relation between the surface and the style of players that flourish on it. and I don't like it. therein lies my pretty straightforward answer to this poll.
I am not a big proponent of serve and volley, I have never watched it and can't imagine actually watching it to the extent it was played in the 90s. I think its amazing tactic to disrupt rythem, put pressure and all that and its amazing to see Federer and Gasquet actually do it and get some momentum going when they are doing or you know, just to show the variety.. its cool. But I am not a proponent of s&v tennis. Pure s&v is just as boring and one-dimensional as pure 20ft-behind-baseline tennis. I am talking about agressive tennis vs. defensive tennis. Blake losing to Schuttler on grass is something that shouldn't be happening that often and that has been happening more and more and more lately.
and seroiusly, great last few posts Babblelot, Dmast and Monster.. why can't everyone learn to have this kinda civilized discussion?