Topic: Which Grand Slam is your least favourite?

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

[kickserve]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

[falcon]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

[kickserve]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

Clay is by far the slowest surface, grass (should be) the fastest, hard courts should be the middle ground. You need aggressive hitting on grass, you can get by without great movement (ask Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman, Karlovic) and you can get by on clay without a whole lot of aggression (Coria, Monfils at RG this year, Albert Costa, Alex Corretja). Nadal may dominate clay and win on grass with aggressive hitting and superb movement, but he could get by on clay without much aggression and he could get by on proper grass without his great movement. Hard court tennis offers the balance between movement and aggression, both are necessary to succeed. Also, hard courts are easier maintain and more playable in bad weather: any rain at all makes grass unplayable and wet clay is horrible, on hard, you get the water off and go. Hard courts may be tougher on the body, which I suspect is the real reason you dislike them, but they offer the best balance between defensive and offensive players.

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

Clay is by far the slowest surface, grass (should be) the fastest, hard courts should be the middle ground. You need aggressive hitting on grass, you can get by without great movement (ask Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman, Karlovic) and you can get by on clay without a whole lot of aggression (Coria, Monfils at RG this year, Albert Costa, Alex Corretja). Nadal may dominate clay and win on grass with aggressive hitting and superb movement, but he could get by on clay without much aggression and he could get by on proper grass without his great movement. Hard court tennis offers the balance between movement and aggression, both are necessary to succeed. Also, hard courts are easier maintain and more playable in bad weather: any rain at all makes grass unplayable and wet clay is horrible, on hard, you get the water off and go. Hard courts may be tougher on the body, which I suspect is the real reason you dislike them, but they offer the best balance between defensive and offensive players.

krajicek, goran, henman etc are by no means average movers, they are SNVers, for which you need to have excellent movement...........it's not only just speed that is required on grass, footwork is the most important factor on grass........footing must be spot on or else you can very quickly get out of position, as sometimes you don't know how higher the ball bounces, on grass.........if you cannot hit vigorously on clay, you have no chance.........just ask anyone..........the thing is, you need to have excellent defensive skills as well along with relentless hitting..........not that you can get away without aggressive hitting...........that is the reason why french open is the toughest slam of all to win...........

one thing which i agree with you is, the natural surfaces are a headache when it comes to maintenance..........

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

wimbledon will stick no matter what...........tennis without wimbledon is as safe as a woman without covering..........

[falcon]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

wimbledon will stick no matter what...........tennis without wimbledon is as safe as a woman without covering..........

My worry is the way the grass is becoming....in a couple of decades i don't know how the grass will be....now itself its getting so slow that people have forgotten SnV...what about a decade or two later?

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

wimbledon will stick no matter what...........tennis without wimbledon is as safe as a woman without covering..........

My worry is the way the grass is becoming....in a couple of decades i don't know how the grass will be....now itself its getting so slow that people have forgotten SnV...what about a decade or two later?

falcon, i never felt like the grass is really that slow............the thing i see is, they made the balls slightly heavier so that they can bounce slightly higher..........one who has the gut and technique can play SNV and win wimbledon............currently, no one is that efficient with SNV..........

but like you said, all this too much of baseline tennis is killing the finesse...........

[falcon]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

wimbledon will stick no matter what...........tennis without wimbledon is as safe as a woman without covering..........

My worry is the way the grass is becoming....in a couple of decades i don't know how the grass will be....now itself its getting so slow that people have forgotten SnV...what about a decade or two later?

falcon, i never felt like the grass is really that slow............the thing i see is, they made the balls slightly heavier so that they can bounce slightly higher..........one who has the gut and technique can play SNV and win wimbledon............currently, no one is that efficient with SNV..........

yeah changing the balls has definitely added to it...but the grass has changed a lot...no doubt about that...but what you say is right, ppl don't ant to snv...

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

wimbledon will stick no matter what...........tennis without wimbledon is as safe as a woman without covering..........

My worry is the way the grass is becoming....in a couple of decades i don't know how the grass will be....now itself its getting so slow that people have forgotten SnV...what about a decade or two later?

falcon, i never felt like the grass is really that slow............the thing i see is, they made the balls slightly heavier so that they can bounce slightly higher..........one who has the gut and technique can play SNV and win wimbledon............currently, no one is that efficient with SNV..........

yeah changing the balls has definitely added to it...but the grass has changed a lot...no doubt about that...but what you say is right, ppl don't ant to snv...

better they start working towards having a grass court masters series..........

[falcon]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

And we can't fathom what improvement in technology will do in a couple of decades....grass may become as obsolete as the wooden rackets!

wimbledon will stick no matter what...........tennis without wimbledon is as safe as a woman without covering..........

My worry is the way the grass is becoming....in a couple of decades i don't know how the grass will be....now itself its getting so slow that people have forgotten SnV...what about a decade or two later?

falcon, i never felt like the grass is really that slow............the thing i see is, they made the balls slightly heavier so that they can bounce slightly higher..........one who has the gut and technique can play SNV and win wimbledon............currently, no one is that efficient with SNV..........

yeah changing the balls has definitely added to it...but the grass has changed a lot...no doubt about that...but what you say is right, ppl don't ant to snv...

better they start working towards having a grass court masters series..........

High time....
Clay and grass are true tennis surfaces....the only ones i don't get tired of watching...

[kickserve]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

Clay is by far the slowest surface, grass (should be) the fastest, hard courts should be the middle ground. You need aggressive hitting on grass, you can get by without great movement (ask Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman, Karlovic) and you can get by on clay without a whole lot of aggression (Coria, Monfils at RG this year, Albert Costa, Alex Corretja). Nadal may dominate clay and win on grass with aggressive hitting and superb movement, but he could get by on clay without much aggression and he could get by on proper grass without his great movement. Hard court tennis offers the balance between movement and aggression, both are necessary to succeed. Also, hard courts are easier maintain and more playable in bad weather: any rain at all makes grass unplayable and wet clay is horrible, on hard, you get the water off and go. Hard courts may be tougher on the body, which I suspect is the real reason you dislike them, but they offer the best balance between defensive and offensive players.

krajicek, goran, henman etc are by no means average movers, they are SNVers, for which you need to have excellent movement...........it's not only just speed that is required on grass, footwork is the most important factor on grass........footing must be spot on or else you can very quickly get out of position, as sometimes you don't know how higher the ball bounces, on grass.........if you cannot hit vigorously on clay, you have no chance.........just ask anyone..........the thing is, you need to have excellent defensive skills as well along with relentless hitting..........not that you can get away without aggressive hitting...........that is the reason why french open is the toughest slam of all to win...........

one thing which i agree with you is, the natural surfaces are a headache when it comes to maintenance..........

Coria and Costa seem to do fine on clay without a lot of aggression. French the toughest to win? Physically, yes, but look at the list of past winners: Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Gomez, Chang. Only the Australian Open throws up more 'unusual' titlists. Compare that with the US Open, where Hewitt is perhaps the weakest champion of the last 20 years, or Wimbledon, Hewitt again probably the weakest. The fact is you can get by on clay without aggression (Coria, Corretja, Costa) and you can get by on proper grass without any defensive game, hard courts, you need both. You may find hard court tennis 'monotonous' but it is the most competitive because grass-courters and clay-courters alike can compete well on it. Look at the current top-10, I think only Nadal would say his favourite surface WASN'T hard courts.

[Start da Game]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

Clay is by far the slowest surface, grass (should be) the fastest, hard courts should be the middle ground. You need aggressive hitting on grass, you can get by without great movement (ask Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman, Karlovic) and you can get by on clay without a whole lot of aggression (Coria, Monfils at RG this year, Albert Costa, Alex Corretja). Nadal may dominate clay and win on grass with aggressive hitting and superb movement, but he could get by on clay without much aggression and he could get by on proper grass without his great movement. Hard court tennis offers the balance between movement and aggression, both are necessary to succeed. Also, hard courts are easier maintain and more playable in bad weather: any rain at all makes grass unplayable and wet clay is horrible, on hard, you get the water off and go. Hard courts may be tougher on the body, which I suspect is the real reason you dislike them, but they offer the best balance between defensive and offensive players.

krajicek, goran, henman etc are by no means average movers, they are SNVers, for which you need to have excellent movement...........it's not only just speed that is required on grass, footwork is the most important factor on grass........footing must be spot on or else you can very quickly get out of position, as sometimes you don't know how higher the ball bounces, on grass.........if you cannot hit vigorously on clay, you have no chance.........just ask anyone..........the thing is, you need to have excellent defensive skills as well along with relentless hitting..........not that you can get away without aggressive hitting...........that is the reason why french open is the toughest slam of all to win...........

one thing which i agree with you is, the natural surfaces are a headache when it comes to maintenance..........

Coria and Costa seem to do fine on clay without a lot of aggression. French the toughest to win? Physically, yes, but look at the list of past winners: Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Gomez, Chang. Only the Australian Open throws up more 'unusual' titlists. Compare that with the US Open, where Hewitt is perhaps the weakest champion of the last 20 years, or Wimbledon, Hewitt again probably the weakest. The fact is you can get by on clay without aggression (Coria, Corretja, Costa) and you can get by on proper grass without any defensive game, hard courts, you need both. You may find hard court tennis 'monotonous' but it is the most competitive because grass-courters and clay-courters alike can compete well on it. Look at the current top-10, I think only Nadal would say his favourite surface WASN'T hard courts.

gaudio, ferrero, costa are someones who dedicated their lives to clay so that they could win at least one french........though not as strong hitters as guga or rafa, coria and costa are excellent punchers........and who told you that chang, kafelnikov and agassi don't hit the ball aggressively? agassi is not just a one time french winner, he was a finalist and semifinalist several times..........gomez is the only one who got lucky...........and you know what? none of those champions you listed could kiss the french open second time, where as patrick rafter who predominantly had a grasscourt game won us open like crazy, twice...........only goes to show how tough the french open is, to conquer and make it one's backyard..........

you can get away on hardcourts with consistently mediocre rallying and extracting errors but on clay just mediocre rallying alone is not sufficient, you must muscle the ball and run like a rabbit for the next ball..........now add to that the lack of sufficient friction, which only makes the footwork tougher..........hence, you need something more on the traditional surfaces..........

[monstertruck]

I don't have a 'least' favorite!

[Jamesblakefan]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of Wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

They are the only two slams Rafa has won and with your picture I'm guessing you are a big Rafa fan. Is that just a coincidence?

[pawan89]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.

you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........

Clay is by far the slowest surface, grass (should be) the fastest, hard courts should be the middle ground. You need aggressive hitting on grass, you can get by without great movement (ask Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman, Karlovic) and you can get by on clay without a whole lot of aggression (Coria, Monfils at RG this year, Albert Costa, Alex Corretja). Nadal may dominate clay and win on grass with aggressive hitting and superb movement, but he could get by on clay without much aggression and he could get by on proper grass without his great movement. Hard court tennis offers the balance between movement and aggression, both are necessary to succeed. Also, hard courts are easier maintain and more playable in bad weather: any rain at all makes grass unplayable and wet clay is horrible, on hard, you get the water off and go. Hard courts may be tougher on the body, which I suspect is the real reason you dislike them, but they offer the best balance between defensive and offensive players.

krajicek, goran, henman etc are by no means average movers, they are SNVers, for which you need to have excellent movement...........it's not only just speed that is required on grass, footwork is the most important factor on grass........footing must be spot on or else you can very quickly get out of position, as sometimes you don't know how higher the ball bounces, on grass.........if you cannot hit vigorously on clay, you have no chance.........just ask anyone..........the thing is, you need to have excellent defensive skills as well along with relentless hitting..........not that you can get away without aggressive hitting...........that is the reason why french open is the toughest slam of all to win...........

one thing which i agree with you is, the natural surfaces are a headache when it comes to maintenance..........

Coria and Costa seem to do fine on clay without a lot of aggression. French the toughest to win? Physically, yes, but look at the list of past winners: Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Gomez, Chang. Only the Australian Open throws up more 'unusual' titlists. Compare that with the US Open, where Hewitt is perhaps the weakest champion of the last 20 years, or Wimbledon, Hewitt again probably the weakest. The fact is you can get by on clay without aggression (Coria, Corretja, Costa) and you can get by on proper grass without any defensive game, hard courts, you need both. You may find hard court tennis 'monotonous' but it is the most competitive because grass-courters and clay-courters alike can compete well on it. Look at the current top-10, I think only Nadal would say his favourite surface WASN'T hard courts.

gaudio, ferrero, costa are someones who dedicated their lives to clay so that they could win at least one french........though not as strong hitters as guga or rafa, coria and costa are excellent punchers........and who told you that chang, kafelnikov and agassi don't hit the ball aggressively? agassi is not just a one time french winner, he was a finalist and semifinalist several times..........gomez is the only one who got lucky...........and you know what? none of those champions you listed could kiss the french open second time, where as patrick rafter who predominantly had a grasscourt game won us open like crazy, twice...........only goes to show how tough the french open is, to conquer and make it one's backyard..........

you can get away on hardcourts with consistently mediocre rallying and extracting errors but on clay just mediocre rallying alone is not sufficient, you must muscle the ball and run like a rabbit for the next ball..........now add to that the lack of sufficient friction, which only makes the footwork tougher..........hence, you need something more on the traditional surfaces..........

 

[Chris1987]

I like them all. They've all got something special and unique about them for me, so I couldn't pick a Slam I least like. Although I'm only 21 I'll be going to my 3rd different Slam next September in New York, so maybe when I complete the set I might be able to give a more definite answer.
Until then I say personally I like them all, but for 'other' reasons which many will guess I least like the French Open  Hopefully only for another year or two though 

[kickserve]

tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of Wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?

They are the only two slams Rafa has won and with your picture I'm guessing you are a big Rafa fan. Is that just a coincidence?

No, it isn't at all.

[Jamesblakefan]

Bummer. My smart side trying to kick in again.!