The Green Clay of Wimbledon
Congratulations to Wimbledon. I hope the tournament officials of the All-English Club are happy. Sunday they got a nearly five hour tennis match that, for the television viewer who began watching at eight a.m. promptly, took up their entire morning and most of their afternoon.
It was sad, though, that International Tennis Hall of Famer Bud Collins was not on hand throughout the day with his naturally funky-dressing self to lend some deft historical precedence for what we witnessed (though he did say it was the greatest match he has ever seen). But then again, today Bud is much more a master of hyperbole and tennis ambassador than the acerbic voice and conscience of the sports he once was as a tennis writer.
And though there might never be another writer like Collins, it is already time for the Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal Wimbledon final to be put into some perspective.
Finally, in 2008, Wimbledon has successfully turned its two week-long tennis major into a glorified French Open. You see, for the first time in grass court history the now green clay just outside of London yielded a player who played an entire tournament 12 feet behind the baseline and was able to became the Wimbledon Men’s Singles Champion.
How do I know Wimbledon is no longer a real grass court tournament? After the final rain delay, the third in all, the tarp-tent was pulled from the court and John McEnroe told the viewing audience that he saw dust coming up from the bare areas behind the baselines.
How do I know Wimbledon is now closer to clay than it is what it was just five years ago? Late in the fifth set Federer blasted a forehand on his way to the net only to be easily passed by Nadal. Watching the replay, McEnroe commented that the grass “slowed up” the five-time tournament champion’s approach shot; an impossibility a half a decade ago.
I am sure most tennis fans, from the casual and those who watch more than just Federer and Nadal (or Andy Roddick, if you’re an American) the match appeared like it was something to behold; that they saw the best match in the history of tennis.
Appearances, though, can be confounding because the reality of the match does not equal the talk surrounding it.
I am sure you also remember that tennis great John McEnroe said it was the best tennis match he ever witnessed. But the key is that he said, witnessed. John McEnroe played in at least three matches far more riveting - and one an hour longer with no rain delays - than what we watched Sunday.
As a former Challenger circuit - mostly - professional tennis player I am embarrassed at what Wimbledon has become. I am embarrassed to know that Nadal could win Wimbledon with the game he presently possesses.
What the outsider does not know about the one-on-one battle called is tennis is that most players’ psyches are very fragile. If a player defeats an opponent two or three times in a few month period, the loser usually enters the next match against the player who defeats him with the attitude that he is already beaten. And unlike other sports most players where teams get pumped up to play the top team and often play above their capabilities at least for a stretch against a top team, tennis players will fold up the tent in a hurry against a top player if things do not go their way early in a match. This attitude allows players with “never say die” attitudes that is bigger than their games to excel in tennis where they could not in other sports.
It allows Rafael Nadal to excel with what can only objectively be described as a limited arsenal.
It is embarrassing to know that Rafael Nadal won Wimbledon and played serve-and-volley tennis exactly one time the entire final match. It is embarrassing to know that Nadal was able to return Federer’s serve by standing eight to 10 feet behind the baseline ——– on both serves and get away with playing the remainder of the point from that same deep area on the court that is usually the domain of ball kids.
Having played a few matches on the grass courts at the Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island I can safely say that on the Newport courts even a player with Nadal’s speed would get chewed up by players who can flatten out their groundstrokes and make then zip throught the court a la Federer or James Blake with his forehand or Novak Djokavic from both wings.
The courts at the tennis HOF are basically the same courts of Wimbledon five to seven years ago.
I was so distressed by the lack of all-court tennis in the finals that I spent over three hours You Tubing old matches just to see if I had lost my mind or whether my memory was failing me. Sadly, I found I was and am completely accurate.
Watch the greatest clay court player of all time, Bjorn Borg, play at the All-English Club. Borg played serve-and-volley about 75% of the time at Wimbledon. Not once in 170 points or so on his serve as did Nadal Sunday, but three out of four serves. Watch how Borg negotiates the baseline during a rally. He did not station himself 12 feet behind the endline, he played either on the baseline or three or so feet behind it.
Check out Andre Agassi, a consummate baseliner, play at Wimbledon. He stood on the baseline almost exclusively. He played serve-and-volley tennis about one-third of his service points. Borg had to retreat a bit even at the slow speed of the 1970s game because of his loopy groundstrokes. But Agassi’s compact swings allowed him to stay planted on the baseline and take his shots at the big servers and big-time volleyers.
What we missed Sunday was the game at its most elegant. We missed serve and volleys, we missed approach shots, we missed overhead and lobs, we missed meaningful returns of serves and meaningful second serves.
In other words, we missed most of what makes a great tennis match.
You see, what truly separates Wimbledon as it was traditionally played, from any other Grand Slam tournament is this: every single shot was meaningful. A weak second serve was punished by the returner. A weak volley was punished by a passing shot. A weak return was punished by a put-away volley. A weak groundstroke was met with an approach shot and a point-ending volley.
Sunday, we missed most of that.
—————————–
So how did we get to a place where Wimby’s grass is barely grass at all?
Some 10 years ago or so the dirtballing, clay court-playing Spanish contingent of tennis players led a near mutiny on Wimbledon. They began to complain bitterly about the All-English Club’s seeding methods at Wimbledon where better grass court players were given higher seeds and better placement within the tournament’s draw than were clay court players.
The Spaniards would gain valuable computer points during the spring claycourt season and artificially inflate their world rankings as most of the year’s tournaments are played on surfaces other than clay. But on grass or the slick hard courts of Flushing Meadows at the U.S. Open or on the carpet of indoor tournaments they would generally flail around as if they were playing on foreign surfaces - which to them, they were.
After years of this go-around in 2000 Alex Corretja, Albert Costa (two Spaniards, then in the top 16 in the world), and then French Open winner Gustavo Kuerton, pulled out of Wimbledon after not being seeded. Though they probably would not have played Wimbledon that year, pulling out with fake injuries to save their rankings, the point was made. The following year in 2001 the All-English Club accomodated the puling Spaniards and South Americans and Wimbledon expanded its seeds to 32 forever altering its system and forever losing its autonomy and status as a unique tennis event.
Though the seeds were expanded, the dirtballers remained sour because they were still seeded lower than their computer ranking. So, with the threat of a massive still looming came another capitulation from the All-English Club. In 2001 year they began to seed players according to their computer rankings instead of by committee, but reserved the right to move a player up or down one spot (this year James Blake was moved down to the #9 seed from his #8 ranking because of his poor grass court record).
Then the Spanish and the South American players began to grouse that the courts were too fast and were groomed too much in favor in serve-and-volley players. Though the information on the Wimbledon website reads that the last ball change was in 1995, Wimbledon’s powers that be of the All English Club responded by using heavier tennis balls made by Slazenger - the traditional ball-maker of Wimbledon which made balls that were always a bit heavier than usual - made especially for Wimbledon. In addition to the added weight, the balls were designed to fluff up rather than get slick as do normal tennis balls, making them move through the air even slower. The balls fluffing is common knowledge among professional tennis players as is the fact that the balls lose their liveliness quicker than balls at other tournaments. This might be the result of the balls being delivered to Wimbledon two weeks before the beginning of the event in vats rather than in pressurized cans as are balls at any other professional tournament:
The tournament acknowledges that the balls are delivered in vats prepared two weeks in advance of the tournament, but continues to claim that the balls are the same as when they were provided in pressurized cans. As an engineer, I’m very skeptical. Tim Henman, the last great Brit to grace the lawns of AELTC with a serve and volley style, himself noted several times in the past couple of years that the balls lost their liveliness quicker and had less life in them after just a few games.
The final “clay-courting” of Wimbledon also came around 2003 when the All-English sought and found a strain of tough, thick grass that slowed the courts to their present feel. With that grass came a change in the ground beneath the grass. Instead of the traditional clay-sand mix surface that was the foundation for the grass courts the All-English Club now uses a much, much firmer clay-sand mix to underlie the already slower, new sod. This makes for a higher ball bounce which again, favors the clay court player as the ball does not stay low and travel quickly through the court.
Tim Henman was England’s best player at the time and one of the world’s top 10. Henman grew up on Wimbledon’s courts and felt the change immediately. Though the All-English Club directors attempted to deny that the change was designed to help the very players that threatened to boycott, it was odd that this final change was made and only aided clay courters:
Those that rise to the top in the new-age at Wimbledon are baseliners.
Reigning women’s champion Maria Sharapova barely ventures to the net while big-hitters such as Andy Roddick and Marat Safin are now cutting a swathe through the field.
“We are moving in that direction,” admitted [John Lloyd, BBC Sport commentator and two-time Wimbledon mixed doubles champion]. “I think the serve-and-volley game is dying.
“You could probably count five serve-and-volleyers at Wimbledon but 15 years ago they made up 50% of the draw.
“The ball is bouncing so much truer now, it’s almost like playing on a hard-court.”
In 2001, the initial year for the new sod but with the old under surface, 19-year old Roger Federer and Pete Sampras played a five-set match for the ages. That match, a 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7- 5 affair, marked a true changing of the guard from one great all-court player to a burgeoning great all-court player. Sampras entered the match with a 31-match winning streak equaling that of two-time Grand Slam winner Rod Laver and had won seven of the previous eight Wimbledons.
With shot-making at a premium, it was far more entertaining than the Federer-Nadal match Sunday. And the two played serve-and-volley almost exclusively.
Former clay court specialist and French Open winner Mats Wilander blasted Wimbledon for the new state of its grass and its deleterious effect on tennis. In a 2005 interview he said:
“I’m personally very disappointed (at) the way they are making Wimbledon these days,” Wilander told reporters.
“We’re slowly losing the style of playing tennis which is the serve and volley.”
Wilander, Sweden’s non-playing captain for this weekend’s Davis Cup World Group play-off tie in New Delhi, said ideally players should mix serve and volley with a solid baseline game.
“But we are slowly losing that because the grass courts in Wimbledon are getting slower and slower,” said the 41-year-old, winner of seven grand slam titles in the 1980s.
“I’m not sure what they are thinking in England because you have (British) players like Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski,” he said.
“England might be the only country in the world who don’t actually try and (prepare courts to) suit them. It seems they are doing everything they can for them not to win.”
Wrong Mats. Actually they were doing everything to acquiesce to the Euro and South American dirtballers who threatened to ruin tennis’ best event because it meant they actually had to learn how to play tennis to win the game’s biggest prize.
Just ask Rafael Nadal.
Tags: Albert Costa, Alex Corretja, Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Bjorn Borg, Greg Rusedski, Gustavo Kuerton, James Blake, John McEnroe, Marat Safin, Maria Sharapova, Mats Wilander, Novak Djokavic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Tim Henman, Wimbeldon
apt observations …as i strongly blieve Nadal doesnt really have the game to play in grass courts….my heart goes to federer..he deserved to win with the game he possesses…the shots..ill nvr see any1 els[minus borg]playin such shots
Comment by kriti on July 8, 2008
Well written article, but, with all due respect, not very balanced. May I suggest you re-read the classic David Foster Wallace article “Federer as a Religious Experience”? In here you will find wider and more balanced explanation of why serve and volleying have diminished greatly. It is not that your points about the changing of the surface are wrong, just not balanced with the other factors involved. Interestingly, in describing the first Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal (two years ago) Wallace talks about Nadal having adjusted his game to grass, playing more forward etc. As to last Sunday, all the dry weather had a lot to do with that dust, just as in 2006. Also, I don’t know whether we saw the same match as I frequently noticed Nadal returning Federer’s serve very near the baseline. He also did come to net more than you seem to suggest. And last year, another five setter, we saw Nadal as well as Federer play many games at the net, I still remember that I had not seen such a wide array of strokes in a single match for a long time… Is there really a sort of conspiracy as you imply and is the management of Wimbledon really that prone to be bent? I am not sure. In any case, with all due respect, you seem to have some prejudices against Nadal that are unrelated to changes made the surface and balls at the AELTC.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 8, 2008
kristi-
Even Borg played more aggressively at Wimbledon than did Nadal….
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
How do those sour grapes taste, my friend? I wonder if you were bemoaning Lleyton Hewitt’s victory as well? Or was it that he didn’t take down the vaunted Federer? No one serves and vollies enough anymore on grass. Not even Mr. Federer. Perhaps if he did he might be more successful. Then again he failed quite a bit this year so perhaps the baseline is where he belongs. It’s not Nadal’s fault that serve and volley tennis is dead. And no one was whining over the slowness of the courts the last 5 years when Fed was victorious.
Comment by Tennisfan on July 8, 2008
Really interesting, and maybe you are right, but, wow! I didn’t know spanish and south american “dirtballers” were so politically powerful and their opinions and interests so respected by Wimby’s organizers in last few years.
Comment by Emilio on July 8, 2008
An excellent article and one which explained a lot of what I am regrettably seeing at Wimbledon now. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your article to the All England Club. It would be woderful to see a return to true lawn tennis. It might actually save the game.
Comment by Andrew Miller on July 8, 2008
Your article is absolutely correct - and timely. Watching the old Wimbledon Borg tapes, you can see how quick and accomplished he had become at net play. In one sequence, with both McEnroe and Borg at net, he actually wins the point with quicker hands. No way Nadal should beat Federer on grass with his style of play. I don’t see Roland Garros speeding up their clay to suit the American or all-court players . . Wimbledon has definitely made a mistake and a done a huge disservice to tennis by making their fabled green carpets play so slow.
Comment by Jack Schwarta on July 8, 2008
tennisfan-
If you bothered to read the article you’d have noticed that Mats Wilander’s statements were made in 2005… people have been upset with the courts since the changes…
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
Do read the article “Federer as a Religious Experience”. Besides giving a beautiful rendition of just how Federer is nearly sublime, Foster Wallace explains the tremendous changes made to tennis with the arrival and adaptation to the new types of rackets, and by the evolution of the conditioning and training of players. These two factors went a long way to change the game, e.g. it is now possible to consistently hit passing shots and balls with heavy topspin with pace from anywhere, including from behind the baseline. Something he explains was impossible to do with a high success rate with the wooden rackets of the past. Hence to come into the net is much more risky and usually has to be prepared by first building up an advantage in the interchange. So while the slowing of the grass surface at Wimbledon surely has been a factor, these two other changes have also greatly reduces the possibility to serve and volley. Interestingly he explains how this does not mean that the subtetly is out of the game. In fact, purely strong hitting baseliners, again according to Foster Wallace, still don’t tend to fare well on grass. But those with much greater skill, finesse, tactics, placement etc. do. That includes Federer of course, overwhelmingly. But if you have honest eyes or pay creed to the analysis of a number of top players, present and past, it does include Nadal as well. By the way, Mr. Wilson, how do you explain that Nadal won against various difficult opponents on the faster Queen’s Club grass courts?
Comment by Questions Questions on July 8, 2008
questions-
I have lamented the technology advantage long before Foster Wallace ever knew Luxilon strings existed. FYI, Gustavo Kuerton used them long before they became popular….
That said, professional players should not play with racket heads any larger than 80 cm. which would eliminate all the squash shots and much on the ridiculous amounts of topspin people like Nadal or Patty Schnyder on the women’s side generate. Oh, and it would also eliminate most players from finishing their forehands above their heads regularly and stil being able to hit shots that approach the baseline like Nadal and Sharapova (and no Sampras did not hit his forehand like that except when on the run hitting his “dipper” and when he was overly-challenged by an opponent’s groundstrokes at a given point and generally late on the ball - it’s called a “reverse forehand.”… there’s a New York Times article that actually examines the forehand of today).
With each five centimeters less of racket head area, there is a commensurate amount of less spin that can be generated on the ball because of diminished racket face surface. Players today can hit shots with the lead edge of the racket frame nearly facing the net when they make contact with the ball. At 80cm that is an impossibility; the racket face must be in a more traditional position to strike the ball properly.
Nadal at Queen’s Club: Now, you might want to study Nadal’s draw at Queen’s Club before you begin talking about his ability to play on grass.
Firstly, the tourament has only 32 players and Nadal received a bye in the first round.
In the 16s he played Jonas Bjorkman, a long past his prime serve-and-volleyer with no pop on his serve and two steps slower than he was say five years ago.
In the quarters he barely defeated someone name Kei Nishikori, who, I admit, I have never heard of or seen play (6-4, -3-6, 6-3 which tells me one break per set).
In the semis he defeated Ivo Karlovic, 6-7, 7-6, 7-6 and Karlovic even as bad as his groundies and returns are actually broke Nadal’s serve in the second set but choked.
In the finals he defeated Djokavic 7-6, 7-5 with but one break in the match. Novak is an all-court player but is still learning the vagaries of serve-and-volley. And from his debacle against Marat Safin, Djokavic looked to be on the verge of being burnt out.
At Queen’s Club Federer defeats Nadal in straights.
Nadal is today’s best clay court player in the world. As I wrote tennis player’s psyche’s are very fragile and Nadal takes full advantage of that fact, as very good players do.
His 2008 Wimbledon run was very easy thanks to the upsets in his section of the draw. But Roger Federer on traditional grass is like playing no one in the history of the game. And the only part of Nadal’s game that can stand up to the speed of the “old” Wimbledon surface is his backhand because it is perfect. But his forehand? Like Sharapova’s in tight situations, it becomes a liability because of his swing is generally too long and the stroke itself is not fundamentally sound,
Finally, in addition to having played on slick grass and having a sound understanding of where one can and cannot play, I would much prefer to take the word of another great clay court player, Wilander, over anyone else when it comes to the effects of Wimbledon’s grass and dirt-clay changes on the game.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
Great writing. It’s all true and it’s a shame for the sport. This TennisFan is actually a moonballerfan.
Grass tennis is ruined.
Comment by GM on July 8, 2008
Also Nadal is a clown at slicing, volleying and just about anything that doesn’t have topspin.
Wimbledon’s slow play is a mockery to the sport. Add to it that Federer shits his pants when facing Nadull.
A disaster was in the making and it happened.
Comment by GM on July 8, 2008
Andrew M.-
Thank you for forwarding this to the All-English…..
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
GM, I entirely agree with you that Roger shits his pants when facing our Spanish friend. He never plays his normal game as he’s too stressed and fears to get beaten. You can clearly see this on his first service percentages. Everyone always talks about how Roger handles difficult situations so cool, but that’s not the case when playing Nadal. And that’s the reason why he always gets beaten in his last matches against Rafa.
Comment by Ivan on July 8, 2008
DWil,
An interesting article, and I agree with you on the All England Club’s shameless capitulation to the rabid “clay-courting” rabble-rousers. That said, I must say your put-down of Nadal is a tad unfairly harsh. You’re right that this year’s Wimby final didn’t see a whole lot of activity at the net from Nadal, but in last year’s final, where he did come to the net more often, his volleying was actually pretty solid. And that’s on top of the huge improvements he’s made in his serve, just like Borg did as he began his legendary five-straight Wimby title run. Great players can and do adjust themselves to their own times and circumstances, and I have no doubt Nadal would’ve been able to improve his serve-and-volleying skills if they were called for by the current grass surface. I just don’t think it fair to criticize him for something instituted by the erstwhile clay-specialists–of whom, of course, he wasn’t a member.
Comment by NP on July 8, 2008
DWil, I appreciate the points you make, and don’t doubt for a minute the courts have been slowed and the balls cooked. But that’s not the entire story.
Federer doesn’t play s&v consistently anywhere, and no other top player, male or female, does either. Regardless of court speed, and a number of comments have been made about the relative speed of the courts at Flushing Meadows, no one walks the s&v path consistently.
So should we expect them to do it at Wimbledon, slower courts or no?
The fact is it’s a style of play that’s not being taught, and not being practiced. I love watching Federer play, but damn if he doesn’t pull up just inside the service line when coming in behind an approach. I’m sorry, and don’t mean to be presumptuous, but even the world’s number one can’t volley successfully from one step inside the service line, and he can’t close any further once the passing shot’s hit because there’s no time. (And there was not time to do that 30 years ago, either.)
If s&v, or volleying by itself, isn’t being executed well throughout all its components, and therefore isn’t looking like a good option, it’s not entirely the fault of the courts.
Let’s keep in mind that Henman was pretty successful at the French a few years ago, and he was coming in fairly often. It can be done on slow courts, with more difficulty of course, but it can be done.
As regards the dust/dirt at the back of the Wimbledon courts, as someone who’s spent weeks on grass courts that are being played on regularly I can attest that that’s just what happens to the baselines. There’s no conspiracy there. And besides, once you’ve had a ball land on that kind of packed, dry dirt, you’ll never consider it clay-like anyway.
And btw, all the big tournies went to 32 seeds, not just the Big Four. It’s a travesty, no doubt, but as the article you cite suggests, it was more the result of pressure from television than anything else.
Comment by skip1515 on July 8, 2008
Informative and nicely argued — perhaps the All England Club should watch “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”?
Comment by corey on July 8, 2008
skip-
DWil? You must also know me from Sports On My Mind…. cool.
I’d agree with your assessment of Nadal except that I grew up in tennis knowing about Guillermo Vilas and listening to pros talk about about his game, and having access to film (then) of his matches.
Vilas was a lefty, strong as an ox, fast, a whip-like forehand (for wood rackets), an incredible backhand, and an iron will forged on clay.
He had his time and did well (the U.S. Open was played on Har-Tru at the time) and won slow court majors, and had the, or one of the longest match win streaks in tennis history (because he skipped Wimbledon!) and certainly the longest clay court winning streak (Har-Tru included).
From all accounts, Rafael Nadal is the 21 century version of Vilas - which is certainly not a bad thing.
Vilas ended up breaking down because he could never learn the net game, and the transition game from baseline to net, and the pounding ruined his body. I can see the same thing happening to Nadal’s knees that happened to Vilas’ knees. In fact, it appears it has already begun.
Though I am not a fan of his game, or those I consider one-dimensional players (hell, Andy Roddick among many, is one-dimensional!).
I want people to be able to watch tennis at its finest. I want teachers and coaches to teach the entire court to children (it was a chore as the coach of nationally-ranked juniors to get them to come to net and learn to believe that they could do it!).
It is my sincere belief that Rafael Nadal has never been properly contextualized by those who know the game because it is in the interest of tennis to pump up rivalries and players and such to “grow the game” rather than fix it and get it right for the long haul.
And I see that as a major problem with American tennis. We need to “grow” some players who can do everything on the court (boys and girls) and let the world follow, rather than play poor imitations of Andre Agassi’s game, which incidentally, grew as he did as a person (and remember it took huge failures and injuries for him to evolve like he did - that never happens with most players).
Finally, remember that after McEnroe defeated him at the U.S. Open Borg quit because he would have to overhaul his game to match the all-court game of McEnroe and he did not want to put in the time and effort to try.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
Oops, that last reply was meant for “NP.” Sorry Skip.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
Skip-
Commercial pressure was and is the least of Wimbledon’s concerns. As for the other majors, sure. They always flagged behind Wimbledon in worldwide audience. The Australian was and still is an afterthought to global viewers, the French’s audience was and remains largely European, and the U.S. Open is an American affair (and most foreign players abhorred the U.S. Open until they jazzed it up with a huge pre-tourney party and perks galore for the players).
Top clay court players have skipped Wimbledon for decades. Ivan Lendl, after winning the French, did not play Wimbledon as he claimed he was “allergic to grass” (a quote) and was then seen on a golf course near his, then, new home in Greenwich Ct.
The only way Wimbledon would ever suffer is if the players led a strike…. that is why Wimbledon allowed 32 seeds; that and the seeding by committee and the speed of the courts have always been the clay court players’ complaints.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
skip1515 has explained the problems with your views very well. No conspiracy. Ways of playing, training and practicing have changed and, for better of for worse, few favor a lot of serving and slicing. Not the least because of the modern players’ speed with the new rackets and training approaches. I remember too that last year (much rainier, if that was a factor) Nadal volleyed a lot more… and came close to winning, despite the 7 days of playing in a row, the knee, the momentous prospect of defeating the Big One on grass,…
And indeed, the dirt patches at Wimby wherever the grass is gone are quite different to run on and the ball bounced quite differently on them that on the red clay. Despite the misnomer of ‘dirtballers’ for those who have mastered playing on red clay, with its sliding, high bounce etc. It would be less misleading to all them ‘redballers’. Let’s not forget also that on some days the red clay plays very fast. So in the end your assessment was not at all balanced, the conspiracy never was, and your assessment of Nadal is quite biased with little evidence to support your views of his tennis. (E.g. so what if he ends some of his strokes very high?) And why should we listen only to Wilander? Why not give some credit to the assessments of Nadal by Federer, Roddick, Djokovic, Murray, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, and a few more of the top present and past players?
Comment by skip1515 on July 8, 2008
Are you saying that Nadal’s play is one-dimensional too? Did you watch last Sunday’s match? And, for that matter, last year’s? I could not dream of calling it one dimensional. So what is your fundamental beef with this fine player? That he does not play a traditional all-court game? Even Federer hardly does for the last few years. Yes, Federer is a tennis genius, is in a class apart and is more varied in his strokes than Nadal, and than most other players. But it gets tiresome to hear Nadal, a still up and coming player who is visibly evolving and adapting his game year by year, more or less reduced to an allusion to the fact he is strongly built and is incredibly strong from the baseline. Time will tell whether he will manage to adapt his game enough to be a serious contender on hardcourt. We know he is working towards it. He is as worried as anyone about preserving his knees and has been repeatedly seen to trying to shorten points and reduce running where possible. I, for one, admire his dedication to get his serve to world-standard levels after having to master it with his left hand, being naturally a right-hander. His serve was much better last year and is again much better this year. For once just look at all his hard work, his positive qualities and achievements, and his consistently honorable behaviour off-court, and I think you have yourself a fine role model for the American juniors.
Comment by questions questions on July 8, 2008
I’ve just re-read your article, for the third time. Again, were we watching the same match? There were plenty of meaningful service returns, but both. A number of winner service returns, including many jaw-dropping ones. A number of service returns that immediately put advantage with the returner. We saw tremendous displays of both aggressive play and fabulous defense. All of this from both players. Perhaps your upset at the lack of serving and volleying (not a new thing) skewed your vision. For most of us watching were dumb-founded. Many accounts of spouses (including mine) who usually don’t watch along getting entirely engrossed and emotional and staying with each ball until the end of last Sunday’s long final. There was little in the way of uninteresting tennis, if any.
Comment by questions questions on July 8, 2008
questions-
I’m happy you saw what you saw. What you did not see, though is the type of tennis that until really about three years ago, was the type of tennis played at Wimbledon.
Plenty of meaningful shots is not the same as every shot.
Please do not mistake what I am imparting for your enjoyment of what you saw Sunday; they are not to be compared. And from reading your latest comment I am unsure you would understand how much greater a match like the Sampras-Federer match was than what transpired Sunday. Or any match where both players have the ability to traverse the entire court with equal acumen.
Again Rafael Nadal served and volleyed one time the entire match. Once - and that was on his final service game of the match. By no means does that equal what was riveting tennis at Wimbledon.
I urge you who do not understand what I am saying to watch the Federer-Sampras match of 2001. You will then understand how much true tension Sunday’s match lacked, as well as how little all court tennis was played.
As far as Nadal’s game is concerned, the only stroke he has that can stand up to any surface because it is technically sound is his backhand. His serve is average, compared with top servers, his forehand is the stroke which breaks down under pressure. He still volleys more often than not with a Western grip, which is what children learning the game do (seriously).
So what makes him win, again? Fragile egos. Players unwilling or unable to stay out on the court and break his forehand down. His speed and his backhand.
And now the fact that the courts around the world are largely slower than they have ever been.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 8, 2008
Excellent article and a brave man for writing it. The hyperbole for this match has been off the charts insane.
Anyone calling this the greatest match of all time should be taken out and horsewhipped. The first two sets were abysmal IMHO, only the 4th and 5th sets were worth watching. I can name 10 Wimbledon matches off the top of my head that were better than this one.
I had forgotten about the Spanish boycotts - what a bunch of crybabies. Instead on trying to adapt their games they bitch and moan to the press. Guess what, it worked, only too well - now we have one-dimensional moonballers winning Wimbledon. I think it is disgusting Wimbledon caved to the dirtballers - they should have told them to stuff it.
I thought it was the nadir when Hewitt and Sharapova won and Nalbandian reached the finals, we’ve reached lower than that.
I’ll laugh my ass off when Nadal gets crushed at the U.S. Open (which he usually does) - let’s hope they don’t slow down those courts to help him out.
Comment by Sick on July 8, 2008
In case anyone cares, the Wimbledon matches that (in my mind) were better than Fed-Nadal 2008 (in no particular order)
1.) Borg-Mcenroe 1980
2.) Sampras-Federer 2001
3.) Ivanisevic-Rafter 2001
4.) Rafter-Agassi 2000
5.) Rafter-Agassi 2001
6) Henman-Ivanisevic 2001
7.) Becker-Agassi 1995
8.) Agassi-Ivanisevic 1992
9.) Henman-Moya 2007
10.) Sampras-Rafter 2000
11.) Connors-McEnroe 1982
12.) Gasquet-Roddick 2007
13.) Becker-Edberg 1990
P.S. I know some will disagree but in MY opinion these matches were better quality throughout the ENTIRE match than the Fed-Nadal final which only had high quality the last two sets.
Comment by Sick on July 8, 2008
Brilliant article and kudos to you for your courage in standing up against unfair unjustified critcism for your apt exposition on the slowing down of Wimbledon and the subsequent death of S&V Tennis.
Comment by RFF on July 9, 2008
Serve and volley sucks almost as much as this pretentious and woefuly biased article.
Comment by tom on July 9, 2008
Thank you very much for a very well written piece.
First, Sorry if my English is not great,
The thing is I totally agree with you. how in hell a pure defensive player win Wimbledon. And please don’t tell me that Nadal is an aggressive player because no way in the world he is.
For me he is player who hide behind his left handed top spin shots, no more and no less. If we looked at the unforced errors, which in (57) in Federer’s case, here this indicates how aggressive player he is. he goes for his shots ( am not going to deny the element of high tension because it is Nadal). But if you look at Nadal’s he committed only like 24 why because he hit only in his comfort zone he is a smart player he knows what it takes to win he is by far the most top player who lack the natural game. If you watched the 1st and 2nd set closely you would see most of his shots were directed towards Federer’s backhand which means he wasn’t depending on his superiority in the match no he was depending on Federer’s relatively weakness against big muscle rocketly speed topspin shots.
As we all know how proud Federer is, he was in complete denial that this backhand is killing him, and kept playing with it giving Nadal short easy balls or unforced error in a gift wrapping.
Why am I saying that he is really a smart player, his coach along with him were studying Federer’s game like maniacs. He knew that the first set is THE PILLAR. Which his triumph going to be built upon it, I knew who ever going to win the first set is the one who is going home with the trophy. the first 5 games Nadal served and 97 percent of the following were directed towards federer’s backhand it became ridicules in the end and rather silly. he doesn’t got the guts to serve into his forehand because he knew that will be it for him, Federer will build up a point, and so long Nadal.
It is not Nadal’s fault that he won it is Federer’s fault in the first place and then by far it is THE ALL ENGLAND CLUB
in the final of the Master Cup 2006, Federer’s backhand not only exceeded his forehand it was phenomenal. But he neglected it and I don’t know why. He knew what it was coming towards him, Nadal played the same kind of game in FO final and we all know what happened.
Not forgetting the psychological barrier, I still can’t believe how he let 4/1 lead slip away from him, same old story.
The thing is in the end Nadal would never ever be able to implement his smart game plan without Wimbledon became this green clay court.
For me Wimbledon was the turf were you can distinguish super natural player from imposters.
I don’t hate Nadal but he is so much of a bully who kills every elegant touch in tennis, he is not a Wimbledon Champion material. If the turf keep getting slower I guess Wimbledon will be the Next best French open when we will see counter punching rather than a high class tennis.
Comment by GINGER on July 9, 2008
The author’s utter disdain for Spanish and South American players is intense.
I wonder if the author felt any desire to write such an article when Hewitt and Agassi won Wimbledon while playing mainly from the baseline? Oh wait- doubt it because their first language was not Spanish.
And the author fails to really talk about how one main reason for the change of surface was because Wimbledon was becoming serve- not serve and volley but just serve- dominated in the late 1990s.
But I guess I shouldn’t have an opinion- as I speak Spanish and don’t agree with the author that Nadal only has one decent shot and has won all of his titles because of his opponents fragile egos. (Silly me- I saw some good stuff for example in IW 2007 but I guess I need glasses because per the author Nadal is a mediocre player at best).
Also- Nadal did not always return ten feet behind the baseline like the author claims- but I guess again that must be my fault since I don’t agree with the author that Nadal is a no-talent outside of a decent backhand.
Comment by Simone on July 9, 2008
What an incredibly biased article.
Comment by JF on July 9, 2008
This article will definitely ruffle a lot of feathers, but I feel it is objective and unbiased in it’s analysis and was a long time coming. Thank you for writing it!
Comment by GWH on July 9, 2008
What a disgrace of an article.
The courts at Wimbledon have been slower for a number of years and that has pretty much favored Federer, who is not a natural serve/volley player.
Nadal demonstrated last year that he can volley well and his service has improved so much this days that it is as effective as anyone’s when it comes to win points.
Also, your knowledge of the men’s circuit seems to be lacking since you assume that his rivals in Queens were weak. However, some of them are amongst the most dangerous players on grass.
I am a big fan of Federer, but I feel Nadal is also one of the most talented players this game has seen. He has already achieved better results in hard courts than Federer had when he was Nadal’s age. That is pretty impressive for a dirtballer, isn’t it?
I firmly believe that the rivalry Nadal/ Federer is great for sport. Especially when both of them are so great inside and outside the courts.
Time (and not an ignorant bully like you) will tell.
Comment by Wimblefan on July 9, 2008
DWil,
Heh, this was actually my first encounter with your writing. I called you DWil ’cause “Mr. Wilson” sounded too formal, and I’m still enough of an etiquette stickler not to address anyone I’ve just met by his first name. Hope you didn’t mind.
First a few words on Vilas before I return to Nadal. I’m frankly rather surprised to hear you say that Vilas had no net game, ‘cause one of the strategies that helped him win the 1977 USO final, which you yourself mentioned, was to catch Connors off guard by, yes, coming to the net. As for the pounding which likely shortened his career, many will argue that today’s hard courts put even more physical strains on the body than any single aggressive playing style, but that’ s a topic for another discussion (perhaps you’ve already written about this).
Now back to Nadal. I still must say you have yet to give him his due. Like I said above, Nadal has improved his serve considerably compared to last year; in fact he was even able to pull off a SECOND-serve ace in this past Sunday’s final after noticing Federer moving to the center of the court. And sure, no one will mistake Rafa with Edberg or Sampras when it comes to volleying, but he’s improving in this area, too. He’s still just 22, barely one year Djokovic’s senior, and I don’t think it fair to say the Serbian is “still learning the vagaries of serve-and-volley” but not extend the same courtesy of tolerance to Rafa, especially in this age of power-baseline tennis. I also must say that, as jittery as it can be at times, Rafa’s forehand is actually one of his strong points. Of course no one’s forehand can match Federer’s in variety and artistry, but Nadal’s own does have more spin and “heft” (yes, call it “one-dimensional” if you will).
But maybe we’re missing the forest for the trees here. Peter Bodo actually wrote a piece not too long ago looking at the Wimbledon finals that took place one, two and three decades ago. His basic argument was that surface speed doesn’t necessarily predetermine Wimbledon champions:
“Style of play matters, but there’s a lot of choice between the bombs-away styles of Sampras and Becker, the surgical serve-and-volley game of Edberg, the baseline gumption of Borg, and the versatility of Federer.”
Again, I do agree with you and Wilander (gotta love the crank) that Wimbledon should restore its good ol’ fast surface. Let’s focus on THIS goal, and then let the players adopt whatever playing style fits them. Hell, Connors was also a baseliner with no strong serve (by his own admission) and not the most spectacular, “natural” game (also by his own admission), but he was still able to win two Wimby titles. Let ‘em figure out their game plan, and if that doesn’t work they should make any necessary adjustments, not whine about the “unfairness” of the court. I just think it’s a mistake to call for S&V as the only way to play at SW19.
Comment by NP on July 9, 2008
Dr.Wilson
Thanks for the article.. i have to agree largely to an extent on what you have written about slowing down the courts.. and the cry for the meaningful shots.. There is absolutely no denial that the courts have been slowed down way too much. The hawk-eye analysis shows it….July 6th is a day in tennis history that “All court play” has got a new meaning of “Clay court Grinding with absolute disrespect to Rules” - The mental edge really is taking time between points between Fed & Nadal.. I dont see anything else.
About Lleyton, Agassi, Nalbandian - the true baseliners. All these players play text book tennis in defense; Agassis half-volleying, Nalbandians winners from the backhand side.. If Fed or sampras can hit a ridiculous winner from an aggressive position, these guys will hit winners from the defensive position - That is the contrast in style which made the game interesting… not the extreme topspin.; All these players all court game is phenominal. Oh How many times these players have got time violation warnings? how many times they were taking 40 seconds to serve a second serve or when they were behind…
Feliciano Lopez - a spanish player; but his S&V, net game - a must see.. How many times he varies his serve? has anyone watched the match between Fed & Lopez in USO 2007… both were going for heck of winners and ridiculous shots.. Lopez displayed an amazing hands at the nets..
Reg the much improved style of Nadal serve, “he knows to serve only one way…Serve to the backhand for right handed players 98% time” and the remaining 2%, he will try to go for “down the line Middle”.. there is no secret here…. Nalbandian or Ferrer has one of the best returns in the game with his backhand and thatz why Nalbandians game matches up very well with Nadal.
Regarding Nadals knee problems, i reserve my comments; i dont see anything wrong with him especially the way how he is running like rabbit.. Even the magician Fabrice at 35, during his 5 set epic with James Blake in USO 2007, he took the medical time out only when he was cramping.. now talk about Nadal, his medical problems are nothing less than mysterical… I wonder he comes with the nail broken and instead of asking for nail cutter, he is asking for trainer..
At last for wimbledon, now that, a spanish player won, can we change it to “THE REAL GRASS” PLEASE???
ATP Umpires - will you start enforcing the time violation rules and the penalties accordingly? Please make the battle a “Fair one” please….
Comment by Geetha on July 9, 2008
Mr. Wilson,
I have now looked at your writer’s page and read your previous article about Nadal, posted following his previous Grand Slam win (only a few weeks ago, on the red clay). The fact that it was followed by 15 comments all critizing your opines and analyses, and especially critizing your insight into tennis, your assessment of Nadal, of several other current players (including Djokovic), of the reasons Borg retired, and the fact that you did not reply to any of the 15 comments would indicate that you must have realized some of the views you expressed were untenable. But now, after a Wimbledon final that has made two supremely good players (both of them excellent in their tennis thinking, physical conditioning and athleticism) rise to even higher levels of play than we had perhaps ever seen from either… you chose to come and write another extremely biased and in a number of ways ignorant article, not the least against Nadal, yet again. So, perhaps it is time again that you read some of the assessments of Nadal’s ability (beyond his physical fitness) by Federer, Borg, Djokovic, and various other professional players and seasoned professional tennis analysts.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 9, 2008
I agree with you - it’s an embarrassment!
Comment by VG on July 9, 2008
geetha (#35) and Ginger (#29) Haven’t been able to read all the comments, but completely agree with your comments and observations.
Comment by VG on July 9, 2008
tennisfan (#4) - Maybe you should try a different name; if you were a fan of tennis, you could never speak/feel that way about Roger Federer, though you may not be HIS fan.
Here’s a quote from a Federer fan:
“The loss will haunt me for a while, just as it will haunt him. But what does not kill him will make him stronger - and this loss will not kill him, no. Not him. Not the greatest sportsman the world has ever seen. Even if he lost that final, there is nothing that will ever stop this man being a champion. No one can take away what he has already achieved and no one can take away what this man is. He is a champion. And champions do not roll over and die.”
Comment by VG on July 9, 2008
Most of your facts are accurate, as far as I can tell. And I do agree that the dumbing down of the lawns of Wimbledon is ruinous to the game’s overall appeal, as it is precisely this variety of surface, and the numerous opportunities for interesting stylistic matchups these present, that makes the professional game so glorious to watch. No other sport offers this kind of diversity–of surface, style, or player background.
Yes, the powers that be at Wimbledon have been trying their damnedest for the past 10 years or more to slow down the court and the play, though I believe it was mainly as a reaction to the public’s disdain for bang-bang or boom-boom tenis, first seen in the person of Boris Becker and carried to its ultimate form in the persons of Pete Sampras and Goran Ivanisevic.
So, slow down the ball by making it heavier, softer and fluffier. Then slow down the court by taking away the “skid” factor that a normal, wide-blade grass produces, and replacing it with the tougher, wiry ryegrass. If that’s not enough, make the underlyign surface harder, more like a sandlot baseball infield. That’ll take care of those serving wizards. And lo and behold, the great returners and retrievers now rule. Of course, the best movers, those with the agililty and balance and speed, have always faired well on the grass. Borg epitomized this type of player. But even he saw the virtue of learning to serve bigger and flatter and follow it in to the net. Of course, that was pre-engineered grass.
All this said, however (and I, too, lament the apparent passing of the serve-and-volley style), with Nadal and Federer we still get two very different styles and mentalities. Nadal brings his amazing speed, unrelenting will, and tireless passion for every point. Federer the immaculate movement, the sublime stroke technique and variety of shot, the cool detachment of a surgeon at work.
I think we, as fans, won on Sunday, despite the efforts of the All-England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club to turn the match into a tedious affair.
And lets face it, two guys rushing to net as quickly as possible is not exactly a match of opposing styles, either. Ideally, we should want something in the porder of a Sampras-Agassi match-up, stylistically and temperamentally.
Comment by Slice-n-Dice on July 9, 2008
A brave article, and one that needed to be written. It’s funny how lots of people are coming out and pointing accusing fingers of this being anti-Nadal or pro-Federer, which is all that can be pointed to be honest. There’s also the defensive notion that Nadal has somehow adapted his game to grass.
Did you not grok the statistic that the current Wimbledon champion came forwards and volleyed once during a four hour, five set match? That’s the bottom line statistic. Let me say that again: NADAL HAS NOT IMPROVED HIS VOLLEYING BECAUSE HE ONLY NEEDED TO VOLLEY *ONCE* IN A FIVE SET MATCH AT WIMBLEDON.
While I agree that the courts needed adjustment because of the big serving bores we had in the 1990s and early 00s, it’s become quite clear that things have gone way too far in the other direction. The fact that Wimbledon have special heavier balls, in particular, is absolutely ridiculous.
Say what you like, but that is just not grass court tennis. Why bother with grass at all?
Comment by Segedunum on July 9, 2008
Nadal is the epitome of “violation of tennis rules”, “mysterical medical conditions”, disrespectful towards his opponents, (No-no, we are not talking about the oncourt interviews; his actions during the match) and most of all the “one-trick topspin ball-retrieving” pony..
My heart goes out for all those ATP players who has to play Nadal. I really hope he does not crush my affection for tennis… I am yet to see and hear any one player, at least one player who says, “Nadal brings the best out of me when i play him”… If it happens, i will be very happy to watch him play… I will still wait in hope, even if it is thin…
AELTC, Wimbledon, has denied the loyal tennis fans the “rare” and “unique” history from a legend whose game is made for Grass.. Shame for them. Shame for Tennis;
Wimbledon is “No-longer” “ALL-WHITE” tournament anymore…
Now looking at the ATP Tour schedule, from “March through July” and since all the courts are slow, we could pretty much say Clay and non-clay season…
Comment by Geetha on July 9, 2008
What an appallingly racist article.
I’m not sure that I should bother deigning to reply to such a biased and bitter load of twaddle.
I guess you’d just prefer to see a Karlovic v Roddick ace fest.
Oh, no. That wouldn’t work because one of them doesn’t have English as his first language.
Comment by MAC on July 9, 2008
Oh boo-hoo-hoo.
I’m highly amused at the level of hatred - and don’t give me the unbiased nonsense - against Rafael Nadal.
May we enjoy to see this marvelous, intelligent and great young man win a lot more marvelous titles.
I have been watching tennis for decades. I sort of stopped watching tennis in the 90s due to the boring big servers. Rafael Nadal brought me back to the sport
And may people like the author, Geetha and others hate every bit of it, I will enjoy it to the fullest because I pity their very narrow point of view.
Listen to “real” experts like John McEnroe talk about this final and the talented Rafael Nadal to get a real feel of things instead of this nonsense.
By the way, if you’re disgusted with the “green clay” of Wimbledon, you might as well be disgusted with every title Federer has won. Last year, Nadal approached the net more often than Federer. Federer mostly plays from the baseline.
In other words: your article is NONSENSE and both Federer but in particular Nadal deserves more respect.
Comment by Nio on July 9, 2008
Geetha writes: I really hope he does not crush my affection for tennis…
I hope he does…
Maybe you should actually start paying attention to what you are missing.
Nadal improved his serve. He has a lot of variation in it, his placement has improved and his serve was very hard to break in Wimbledon and in Queen’s. He’s starting to use his lefty serve more efficiently. It’s a wonderful shot
His backhand is marvelous these days. Down the line, crosscourt, flat, topspin with great angles.
His forehand is a huge weapon obviously.
His game is marvelous and exciting to watch.
If you don’t like it, tough. Plenty of others who love “real” tennis, fully enjoy it.
If you want to respect the sport, start by showing some respect for top players. You don’t have to be a fan but you have to show respect or otherwise, stop pretending that you’re a tennis fan.
Comment by Nio on July 9, 2008
This has to be one of the most biased pieces of garbage I have ever read and I’m a Federer fan!
Why are clay court players referred to as “specialists” or “dirt ballers” but hard court players are all round. With only a few grass tournaments there are no such thing as grass court players, but still you get my meaning. Big serving aka Ivanesvic, Sampras, Rusedski, etc. was boring to watch and tennis attendance and viewership went down as a result.
Get a grib and join the real world instead of the biased universe you currently reside in.
Comment by Tennis Fan on July 9, 2008
My goodness you’d think that no other sport in history ever made changes to adjust for the changing skill level of its participants! How about baseball’s ballparks and grass, (American) football’s padding, grass, protection of the QB rule, the 24 second clock and 3-point line in basketball to name a few? Nadal wins Wimbledon and it somehow doesn’t count because it isn’t “real” tennis? You sound like an old (racist) fuddy-duddy in this article. All that was missing was the “Back in MY day….” preface. Roger lost. He seems to be dealing with it better than you are.
Comment by Margaret on July 9, 2008
I have absolutely no idea how the article is supposed to be ‘racist’ (you are kidding, right?), nor how the above has been necessary because of ‘the changing skill level of participants’. Quite the contrary, actually.
Tennis players play on a wide variety of surfaces so that they can prove themselves as the best at the end of a year, who can play well on their favoured surfaces and who can overcome their deficiencies. That’s why different surfaces are played on. What is not supposed to occur is where the particular characteristics of one surface are nullified to make it exactly like those of another surface.
I’ll pop down to Roland Garros with my grass seed and watering can and soften the court up a bit, if that’s alright with you?
Comment by Segedunum on July 9, 2008
Nio (#45) writes… “stop pretending that you’re a tennis fan.” -
As much as you have an opinion about Nadal, i have an opinion about him too!! the topic is not about whether i am a pretending tennis fan or not… Get it??
Comment by Geetha on July 9, 2008
Segedunum (#48) - very well said..
For the Roland Garros, it would be beneficial if it is changed to “Indoor Carpet” … Because why not, let us make sure the clay courts be adjusted for hard court players right, which most of the atp circuit players prefer… It would be lot more interesting…
Comment by Geetha on July 9, 2008
“Nadal improved his serve. He has a lot of variation in it, his placement has improved and his serve was very hard to break in Wimbledon and in Queen’s.”
Nadal has done nothing to achieve his Wimbledon win. He volleyed *once* in four hours and his second serve was, at times, slower than the winner of the girls’ junior Wimbledon - and she played in the wind. His serve never varied either. *Variation*. What a joke. The left handed clay courter serves to the backhand of the right hander, *every* single time, and not once did he get punished for it because the court allowed him to get away with it as he can on clay.
“If you don’t like it, tough. Plenty of others who love “real” tennis, fully enjoy it.”
I take it you’ve never seen McEnroe, Borg, Edberg, Becker or any other player able to play on a ‘grass’ court? Pounding the ball back over the net for thirty shots in the general vicinity of the baseline is a test on a clay court, and I wouldn’t call it terribly entertaining either. A grass court is supposed to be a different test altogether to prove who is the best overall.
In terms of grass court tennis, Nadal’s Wimbledon (not that it’s his fault at all) was a complete joke.
Comment by Segedunum on July 9, 2008
the points the author is trying to make on this article is spot on.. I dont believe he is saying that Nadal does not have talent… he is also spont on about what it takes to beat Nadal..
Listen to the author about JMac on the FH approach shot. All that was displayed on Sunday was “Baseline Parking Tennis” all through the match. I have never seen the topspin being so effective on grass court over the last 2 years and this year it was inevitably evident…
Comment by Geetha on July 9, 2008
No one here is saying that Nadal did not deserve to win. He played the court he got. The subject of the article is not telling us that Roger Federer should have won.
What it is asking is whether the people running Wimbledon are actually running a grass court tournament, or something that just wants to be an imitation of harder court tournaments using imitation grass.
Comment by Segedunum on July 9, 2008
pfffft…. I see a lot of ppl bleeding after their idol fell down… accept the facts… If it is true that the changes started in 2001 then most of Federer’s titles are fake… If, only if, what the author of this joke says is true then we will never be able to know if Nadal would have adapted his game to the so called “real grass surface” because he adapted to what he knew would be the surface he would be playing at… more respect to Nadal and above all to Federer who has won here 5 times in spite of/thanks to the changes implemented in Wimby
Comment by morerespect on July 9, 2008
well I went to Wilson’s analysis of Nadals victory at RG,and the conclusion is simple: he hates Nadal, and he is entitle to it, why doesnt he just write a piece entitled: 10/100/1000 reasons why I hate Nadals game?
None of the posters there agreed with his opinions and their rebukes of his were far from kind… c’mon Wilson, admit, more than a tennis writer you’re a Nadal hater
Comment by morerespect on July 9, 2008
I can’t believe I just wasted five minutes of my life reading this prejudice trash. I’m surprised that the racist undertones haven’t offended more people. Then again when there are comments like “Wimbledon is ‘No-longer’ ‘ALL-WHITE’ tournament anymore… ” i guess I shouldn’t be.
Comment by nicky10 on July 9, 2008
I find the post by “GINGER” funny.
“he doesn’t got the guts to serve into his forehand”
Every player ever to step on the center-court, or any court for that matter, instinctively tries to exploit the weakness of the opponent. Its true for every sport.
At the end of it all, people really forget the one basic rule in tennis: “Put the ball over the net and between the lines”
Ofcourse, the artistry and aesthetics do play an important role in making a match more enjoyable. However, its only incidental. No one tries to build an aesthetically pleasing game. It evolves over a period of time.
Finally, it doesnt matter one bit what me, other posters or the author of the article feels about the “state of tennis”. Purists of any sport always have a myopic view of what makes a better sport. What matters is the how the general audience likes. If they liked the match then it will do good else it wont. As simple as that.
Comment by spacenoxx on July 9, 2008
Segedunum -
You imply that Nadal has no variation of his serve on grass. It actually is a lot more varied than it is on clay.
First, I must say that I don’t think Nadal played as well in the finals as he did against Murray and in the first set against Ranier. He had more variation and all court play in those instances. Of course- he was playind a different animal in Feds, but I thought that should be noted.
I watched his matches from the quarters of Queen’s through the finals of Wimbledon and in several of the matches they had graphics illustrating the various serves. And it is more varied than it is on clay- feel free to scoff at that. Around the fourth set of the final McEnroe even said something along the lines that Nadal was varying his severs more against Roger than he did in France where yes- it was so much about the backhand. But since Rafa was having more trouble at this juncture JMac even wonderered if Rafa should go back to targeting the backhand.
There is a general implication here that since it is Nadal who won then something must be wrong. Nadal actually has adapted and added variation to his game- although some of his detractors are loathe to admit it.
His volleys have gotten better- as I saw in Queen’s, against Andy, etc. I did want him to volley more in the final- but just because he did not does not mean he can’t and hasn’t done it. I don’t know if you recall last year in the final when he was going to volley more- and for stretches was doing it more than Federer.
Murray commented after playing Nadal that he has made his ball go a lot closer over the net on grass than it does on clay- again- an adjustment.
I am responding to this idea here that Nadal plays exactly the same on grass that he does on clay. He does not. He has made changes. I do not think that the final was the best showcase for the changes- but I have seen them as someone who has watched Nadal and does not view him with contempt.
He won Queen’s this year- a grass tournament. He had some impressive play there but again I imagine that will be negated and tossed off as just green clay as well.
I do feel that Nadal has some detractors that will detest him no matter what he does. For example, in Indian Wells in 2007 he won the tournament by playing the most aggressive hard court play I have seen by him. His serve was in a groove (and varied), his shots were flatter and he played much more in the court. And yet I imagine the author of this article and some other posters here would not say that he made any changes but just damn the surface and say that Rafa played the same way he did to win say Monte Carlo.
Grass has changed, yes- but that is independent of Nadal. But the thing that bothers me is this sometimes (imo) myopic view of Nadal that refuses to acknowledge that he can make changes for different surfaces. He does not always employ them- which frustrates me as a fan of his. But he can do them. And it bothers me to see his detractors just paint him with a broad brush at all times.
Comment by Simone on July 9, 2008
awesome opinion Simone… there is 10 times more useful infrmation in your lines than in the whole article than in the whole Wilsons article… and yeah: is a racist article
Comment by morerespect on July 9, 2008
thanks mr-
Just wanted to add one more thing about Nadal’s serve and his increased variation.
Jim Courier was on Charlie Rose tonight and said the following (from tennisworld)
“”His serve, [Nadal’s]- has gotten better. He served into the body, up the middle, and out to the forehand side. And Federer was not expecting it. ”
Segedunum- so I can’t join you in the dismissing of the idea that Nadal has not added or employed variation to his serve on grass.
Comment by Simone on July 9, 2008
Biased!
Bitter!
Racist!
No worthy of any other comment!
Comment by Liz on July 9, 2008
Nothing but a whiny racist. Just shut up and deal with it!
Comment by Lisa on July 9, 2008
if the grass is as slow as you have suggested, then why would Federer was thrashed by Nadal in Roland Garros but was able to play it close in 5 setters?
The grass is still very fast and that’s why Federer could keep serving winners/aces to keep up with Nadal.
Comment by Emerson on July 10, 2008
Geetha:
“I take it you’ve never seen McEnroe, Borg, Edberg, Becker or any other player able to play on a ‘grass’ court?”
lol
You’re assuming too much, Geetha. I have. In fact, I was a big fan of John McEnroe and to a lesser degree of Becker. I was over the moon seeing both of them win Wimbledon.
Saying that Nadal hasn’t adapted his serve. I’m sorry. Simone has written a great reply to that.
You’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to say it’s rubbish. Listen to the same McEnroe talk about Nadal’s serve and how it’s changed if you don’t believe me or Simone but something tells me that every tennis expert could be knocking on your door to tell you this and you would still dismiss them.
Geetha:
“why not, let us make sure the clay courts be adjusted for hard court players right”
The fact is, that your movement on clay is much different than on hardcourts for starters. American players often have not enough experience on clay to learn how to slide and get the timing right because that takes a lot of training and practice and that’s just not part of US tennis roots (which is no offence, it’s just what it is). If an American wants to learn it, he’ll have to dig deep and go to European or South-American clay courts often enough and work on it from an early age. Just like claycourters have to practice often enough on hardcourts to adjust to it.
A lot of those so-called dirtballers (a term I find condescending) have worked much harder to improve their skills on hardcourts.
Comment by Nio on July 10, 2008
Geetha,
Usually the name is spelled Geeta, but whatever. You are from India or have the roots, I assume. I am one too.
Coming to the point at hand, I am sure you wouldn’t much appreciate if you or we were called coloured, now would we?
Next time, have a little more respect for a tennis professional who plays on clay. Calling him a dirtballer is akin to being a racist IMO.
Enough said!
Comment by spacenoxx on July 10, 2008
space…-
Dirtballer is the name professional tennis players gave to clay court specialists - it doesn’t matter what country they are from.
In the 1960s players like Cliff Richey and Manolo Santana were dirtballers. In the early 1970’s Jimmy Connors was a dirtballer. Later Bjorn Borg was the ultimate dirtballer…
So, racism???? WTF?… Look, learn about the game and/or read my word before writing inane comments - and that also goes for the other commenter who said something ludicrous about tennis, speaking “English-first” and “racism” as if Roger Federer, who is Swiss and South African speaks English first - or as if I’m white, or what?…
And to to “morerespect,” “lisa,” and “liz”… did someone pay you to come on this website an call me a racist as if one word of what I wrote about Wimbledon’s court and it’s effect on the Final has anything to do with race?
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 10, 2008
Oh, and I forgot to finish about dirtballers. Also in the 1970s the maionditballers with Borg were Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon. In the 1980s Ivan Lendl, Aaron Krickstein, Yannick Noah, Guy Forget, and Henri Leconte, and Mats Wilander were the main dirtballers.
Thew difference with the Swedes is that they built hardcourts in reaction to Borg’s losses while other European countries did not.
In the U.S. hardcourts replaced clay and har-tru courts because they were cheaper to maintain. The Spanish were last to make that change, which is why Carlos Moya and Juan Carlos-Ferrero were the first Spaniards to consistently make a dent on the men’s game anywhere other than during the clay court season.
So, “dirtballers” and race?
Get a life.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 10, 2008
Why are you getting all bent out of shape D. K? Cant you read English, my post was specifically addressed to Geetha? He/She is always welcome to critisize my post.
Coming to your post, you are a typical fanboy, there is nothing wrong with it. However, saying that anyone, who isn’t a S/V player, not having any “real” Tennis talent is what you should be more embarassed, what with being (or was it hoping to be) a Tennis Pro.
If a dirtballer, as you put it, winning Wimbledon is an ambarassment, then Wimbledon got embarassed long time ago when Borg won it. So its nothing new.
Comment by spacenoxx on July 10, 2008
I have a question for you D. K.
Did you and Justin Gimelstob go to the same school?
Comment by spacenoxx on July 10, 2008
Finally, I never said anything about your article being racist. All I said and that too to Geetha was how would one feel when an adjective is used in a condensing fashion even though its a fact.
For instance a fat person would be offended if you called him a fatso, even though its a fact.
Comment by spacenoxx on July 10, 2008
Clay is quite easy to maintain and is not that expensive, mr. Wilson.
So, what’s your point exactly?
I wouldn’t go as far as to call you a racist since I don’t know you well enough. I don’t think it’s a question of racism - and I’m trying to pick my words carefully here - but of myopia.
Instead of joining others in a mud slinging contest, why don’t step above that and why don’t you calmly and professionally - as a journalist - address each comment and rebuttal that’s worthy of a second thought?
Simone wrote an excellent comment for example. Some people are trying to paint another picture of Rafael Nadal as the one you’re presenting us. Tennis giants like Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, etc. have nothing but respect for Nadal (and what he’s done in Wimbledon). Doesn’t it strike you as odd that their expert opinion is so far removed from yours?
You’re free to write what you want. Free speech can be a beautiful thing.
However, that goes two ways but it’s only beautiful IMO if you’re prepared to look at things from the other perspective.
One the one side, you can’t deny that grass court tennis has changed but it hasn’t all to do with the surface itself but also with things like racquet technology and strings. Borg and John McEnroe worked with different material. One of the reasons why you see less and less of the serve and volley game has to do with changed technology. Hitting a ball with a wooden racquet is not the same as hitting it with a modern racquet.
In the 90s, they reached an extreme effect of modern technology because thanks to the modern racquets, it was possible to hit other players off court and a rally was rare in Wimbledon. Serve, ace, point. Trading of shots, rallies were rare.
I’m sure that many people love that big serving tennis but the fact is: many more didnt.
So, work was done to take the middle road and finding a marriage between modern technology and attractive tennis. Wimbledon had the courage to do something about it. The final on yesterday proved to many people that they were right in doing so.
You may long for the old days, but you can not dismiss the impact of modern technology.
For me, it’s a good thing since something needed to be done after the boring tennis played on the surface in the 90s. One of the few players I enjoyed on that surface in that time was Patrick Rafter. However, I respect the fact that not everybody shares my viewpoint.
On the other side, you are ignoring a few simple facts in your article and your comments and you keep on doing that.
1. The surface has been like this since 2001. If it was really green clay, Roddick would not have reached the final a couple of years ago and Hewitt would not have won it.
2. Federer is mostly a baseline player. You can mourn the death of all court tennis but the simple fact is that he plays a huge chunk from the back.
3. Last year, Nadal approached the net more often than Federer.
4. Watch matches from Roland Garros 2007 and compare it with 2008: Rafael Nadal has changed as a player. He’s working on his “all court” game and he’s applying some of those changes to clay as well, being more aggressive. Saying that he’s only waiting for the other to make a mistake and playing defensively - as some suggest - (although he is a fantastic defensive player) is not watching the game well enough.
5. Then compare how he plays in Roland Garros with how he plays in Wimbledon and see the changes he’s making.
IF Wimbledon was really green clay, Federer would have lost in less than 5 sets (with all due respect to the Swiss maestro) as he did in Paris.
Nadal stands closer to the baseline to return in Wimbledon, he steps inside the box more often, he changes his serve (and others are free to deny that…it’s very easy to watch it on youtube and see the facts for yourself), he puts a lot of variation in it, he has worked hard to flatten out some of his shots and it was visible in Wimbledon.
6. Queen’s hasn’t made those changes like Wimbledon has and yet, he’s won against Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic. Queen’s - by all (reasonable) accounts plays fast.
In short, I’m trying to be very polite here since I don’t think that a mud slinging contest is helpful.
However, I’m sure that Rafael Nadal, when looking at his Wimbledon trophy, isn’t exactly losing sleep over it and nor should his fans.
I have a question for you if you don’t mind. I know that some American players had fantastic results on clay (Chang, Courier,…) but in general, they underperform on clay. Quite a few are - ball bashers on hard courts, so to speak. What is your viewpoint on why so many US players underperform on clay?
Rafael Nadal, 2008 Wimbledon Champion. It was a joy to watch and it’s fantastic that another great player like Federer was standing on the other side of the net. If you can’t appreciate it, it’s your loss.
Whatever they did to change the grass back in 2001: I applaud it if the result is a fantastic final as this one was and as last year’s final was.
Comment by Nio on July 10, 2008
I really don’t know why people are running around, covering their rears and trying to tell us that Nadal has developed some sort of grass court game. I’m also not sure why people keep telling us about his performance at Queens. It was still the same defensive baseline game, with high looping ground strokes and the occasional volley when there was short ball and he found himself at the net.
However, we’re talking about Wimbledon. The analysis of Nadal’s serve is that he got away with serving to Federer’s backhand in all but two serves, and he got away with a catalogue of 85 mph serves. That’s the ‘analysis’ of Nadal’s serve. He gets away with what he gets away with on clay. The statistics from the final are there if you want to get them.
The bottom line is, Nadal has not developed a grass court game because he hadn’t needed to. In that light, Wimbledon then needs to ask itself what sort of tournament it wants to be.
Borg was a baseliner, but when it came to Wimbledon he was always looking to be aggressive, move forwards and he still came in and volleyed more than half of the time. That’s the difference.
It’s amusing to see some people grapple with the statistics and the bottom line from that final. It was a baseline, high bouncing slow ball, non-serving, non-volleying slug fest as we get in France. Wimbledon is the new French Open on grass.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
You don’t have to be this condescending in your attempt to push your own personal viewpoints through, Segedunum.
Nadal IS more aggressive in Wimbledon, he stands closer to the net, he looks to take the ball earlier and while he still uses a lot of topspin (heck, it works) but he flattens his shots a lot more these days.
As far as the speed of his serve is concerned: he isn’t a Roddick no. But a serve is more than speed alone and what he did with his serve made it unpredictable enough to be hard to break.
Perhaps you find it amusing in your own little way, but hey, real experts like John McEnroe and Boris Becker agree with me on this.
If it helps you to sleep better at night to call their professional opinions amusing, be my guest.
Comment by Nio on July 10, 2008
I apologize about the use of the word “racist”, is just that the combination of “dirtballer” and some ppl saying that wimbledon is no more “white”… is to say the least explosive… anyway Wilson, you still havent answered the fact of the difference between RF’s RG results and Wimby results… the fact that Federer’s game is enough to defeat Nadal anytime in Wimbledon (Sunday was not his best day) while the best Federer in clay can achieve at the most 4 sets clearly shows there is some difference… it shows that Nadala clearly has improved his grass court game, not yet as to say he is among the best at grass, but enough as to, combined with his excelent defensive skill and his natural power, produce excellent results. Thanks again to Nio and Simone for taking their time to fully express what is becoming the general opinion, and so show the lack of vision and imparcial judgment of Wilson…
so wilson, green clay of Wimbledon? WTF!!!
Comment by morerespect on July 10, 2008
“You don’t have to be this condescending in your attempt to push your own personal viewpoints through, Segedunum.”
It’s not my personal viewpoint. Nadal volleyed once during the entire match, and he got away with a completely predictable serve at 85 mph to the backhand every time. It’s not personal against Nadal either.
I’m not criticising Nadal himself, he played what was there, but it’s reasonable to ask in view of that whether we were actually watching a grass court tournament.
“Nadal IS more aggressive in Wimbledon, he stands closer to the net”
Where? When did he do that? If anything he stood a foot or two closer to the net - which is still several feet behind the baseline. That’s still not grass court tennis.
“But a serve is more than speed alone and what he did with his serve made it unpredictable enough to be hard to break.”
He served all but two of his serves to the backhand. That’s not unpredictable, and he got away with it because the serve has been all but totally negated via a high bounce off the surface. A characteristic of grass court tennis is that if you have a weak serve you get exposed, and Nadal had a pretty weak serve in that final.
“Perhaps you find it amusing in your own little way, but hey, real experts like John McEnroe and Boris Becker agree with me on this.”
They’re sitting on TV in front of millions of viewers. What do you believe they’re going to say in the immediate aftermath of the final?
Besides, bringing in the opinions of others and saying “See, that’s what they say so this must be right” is a classic way of trying not to confront the content of the article. It doesn’t give you a better argument I’m afraid.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
“while the best Federer in clay can achieve at the most 4 sets clearly shows there is some difference…”
Yer, there’s bound to be *some* difference. However, the two tournaments are not as different as they used to be which is borne out in the way that the match was won. No volleying and weak serving.
“it shows that Nadala clearly has improved his grass court game”
What grass court game? Did you not read the article? Nadal volleyed once during the whole match and got away with more than one predictable and 85 mph second serve.
“Thanks again to Nio and Simone for taking their time to fully express what is becoming the general opinion”
Unfortunately, their opinions are at polar opposites with regard to the facts and statistics from the match - Nadal volleyed once, never came into the net, was able to serve to the backhand predictably in all but two serves and was able to get away with 85 mph second serves.
The crux of the article is that that just isn’t grass court tennis. If people are getting uncomfortable about perceiving that as something personal against Nadal then that’s their issue.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
He never came to the net?
LOL
You lost all your credibility with that one.
Look at the stats of the match. They’re easy to find on the tournament site.
He approached the net 33 times in one match and he had a succes rate of 71%.
Come on, man/woman. At least, back up your opinion with real facts instead of invented ones.
Furthermore, how do you explain that Nadal’s serve was hard to break then if he doesn’t serve hard (which he doesn’t really, he’s no Roddick) and it’s predictable according to you?
Comment by Nio on July 10, 2008
Re Nadal’s serve being varied or not, and McEnroe’s comment on this…. Let’s look at the following facts. Not counting tiebrakers, where Federer edged out, Nadal served 30 full service games over 5 sets. While so much was at stake Federer broke Nadal’s serve only once, even though Nadal served about 5 times fewer aces. When so much was at stake, and Federer brought his best play to the last three sets he did not break Nadal even once in those 3 sets. While the match was unfolding, not after, McEnroe shared frequent observations on Nadal’s serve, including many references to it being varied and difficult to predict, even as, yes, many of them were served to Federer’s backhand. But there is so much more to a serve than which side it is aimed at. And let’s remember who it is that didn’t break Nadal’s serve more than once… not just any excellent top level player: Federer.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Segedunum,
“They’re sitting on TV in front of millions of viewers…”
Come on, most of the comments were made as the final was unfolding, and not only the final but all the matches on grass Nadal played during this short season (5 at Queens + 7 at Wimby).
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Segedunum, you wrote:
“Besides, bringing in the opinions of others…”.
When many of the best tennis players present are in close agreement of their assessment perhaps this means something? Most of the champions whose opinions were mentioned in the comments above are playing today or have played since the advent of the new rackets. And most of these people we are quoting have won Grand Slams at Wimbledon and elsewhere. So perhaps this is not just a case of any “others” but of those mortals among us who understand very deeply what we saw in the final and in preceding matches. Have you as much experience and insight into all the details of playing tennis at the stratospheric level as do Federer, Borg and all the others that have been quoted here? I am not saying that ‘experts’ are always right. However, would it not be useful to listen to the combined opinions of these champions? Is dialogue not especially about listening very carefully to a variety of viewpoints and trying to really hear, subtly and accurately, what each viewpoint is conveying?
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Many of the present and past tennis champions have commented that Nadal was very close in last year’s final (we all saw it), and that he was much stronger this year, much improved his serve, the versatility of his game and moves forward to the net more… they’ve said it about his early year hardcourt play, about his play on red clay, which evolved since last year, and about his play on grass at Queens and at Wimbledon leading up to Sunday’s final. And a number of them said Nadal was quite likely to upset Federer. So while the outcome of the final was not certain at all, an upset looked a lot more likely than last year. The only thing no-one saw coming was that Nadal almost broke Federer’s serve in the third set, and so came quite close to winning in straight sets. At that moment in the match I told my wife, if Nadal breaks Federer now and holds his serve I would love to hear Federer’s post-match interview.
Comment by Adam on July 10, 2008
“Look at the stats of the match. They’re easy to find on the tournament site.
He approached the net 33 times in one match and he had a succes rate of 71%.”
What match was this?
Nadal won Wimbledon by coming into the net and volleying once in the final, and spending it camped several feet outside of the base line.
I love how people are trying to pick out specific examples in unnamed matches, or trying to talk about Queens where not much grass court tennis was played either.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
Segedunum, the stat is about last Sunday’s final. Did you actually watch it? If so, is it difficult to remember at least some of Nadal’s 31 net approaches? Ok, serve and volley, specifically: one.
From Wimbledon’s website:
Net approaches: Fed 42 of 75 = 56%, Nadal 22 of 31 = 71%
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Nope, you’re wrong again.
What match are we discussing here? Come on, focus…
Those statistics I copied in here were from the 2008 Wimbledon final, Segedunum. Look it up. It’s easy to find. Unlike you, I’m not inventing the stats.
Like I said, you have your opinions. Fine. But you’re making a fool out of yourself by backing it up with incorrect information.
Comment by Nio on July 10, 2008
Segedunum, re. the serving you wrote:
“It was a baseline, high bouncing slow ball, non-serving, non-volleying slug fest”
Here are the serve stats from the Wimbledon website:
1st serve: Federer: 66%, Nadal: 73%
Aces: Federer: 25, Nadal: 6
Winning on first serve: Federer: 73%, Nadal: 69%
Winning on second serve: Federer: 57%, Nadal: 59%
Fastest Serve: Federer: 129 MPH, Nadal: 120 MPH
Avg 1st serve speed: Federer: 117 MPH, Nadal: 112 MPH
Average 2nd serve speed: Federer: 100 MPH, 93 MPH
Combine these stats with having witnessed carefully the entire match and it is absurd to call this a non-serving match. And yes, there is more to holding your serve than always wacking it with maximum force.
Top players last spring commented that Federer held on to his trophy last year thanks to his serve but that in 2008 at Wimbledon, if he met Nadal, this would not be enough. True enough, he almost lost in three sets, almost lost in four sets, and almost lost earlier in the fifth, but didn’t thanks to his serve, thanks in good part to serving 26 aces plus many service winners.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Segedunum, you still cant explain the big difference between Roger’s performance in RG and Wimby… the 2 tournaments arent as different as they used to be? I agree to that, ppl were switching channels instead of being tortured by hours of big serve… Wimbledon organizers had to find the proper balance between the new technologies and the courts the game was played at… Another thing I dont understand of Wilsons analysis is why a tennis player who doesnt know to play on clay is a complete player? Shouldnt we say a hard court expert, a grass court expert and a clay court expert are in the same lvl? and a player who wins in all three surfaces is a complete player? Why isnt Federer unanimously accepted as GOAT? Because he is missing a FO title. So stop disrespecting clay specialists by saying that they dont know how to play tennis as it should be.
BTW Segedunum, I guess after the facts Questions Questions showed I can just say: PWNED
Comment by morerespect on July 10, 2008
“Come on, most of the comments were made as the final was unfolding”
Comments over what? I fail to see what all these ‘experts’ are supposedly justifying for you or talking about. All they’ve told us is that Nadal had a decent chance of beating Federer. Wow.
The courts have got much harder and the balls have got much slower negating a traditional grass court game, and the statistics bare that out. That’s what this is about.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
With all this talk about net play, is it not a little ironic that the following photograph is displayed in the Wimbledon website in their highlight section? (Look it up, very easy to find). In the photo the time is 4:41pm, time played 2.05 hours, Federer is on serve and the score reads 4-6, 4-6, 3-3, 0-30. Nadal has broken twice, was broken once and is one point away from a triple breakpoint, and arguably near a straigh set victory. And where are Federer and Nadal in this picture? Both at the net.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Segedunum said:
“What grass court game? Did you not read the article? Nadal volleyed once during the whole match and got away with more than one predictable and 85 mph second serve.”
I read the article, but because I SAW the game I conclude this article is just a bunch of lies and biased comments.
Comment by morerespect on July 10, 2008
Nio-
If you understood that to keep up clay courts they must be periodically watered overnight, rolled, watered again, and when played on, watered yet again in the early afternoon - and that’s not counting sweeping lines - daily while hard courts need only be swept at best, then you’d be worth addressing.
To fail to even know the procedures for basic court upkeep and the expenses inherent in their upkeep lets me know how little you actually know about the game.
Comment by D.K. Wilson on July 10, 2008
Segedunum, “Comments over what?”
Again, did you actually watch the (entire) match? All kinds of comments. Over the great difference between the bounce on dried-up modern grass and the bounce on red clay. Over the slippery nature of even this grass for the players (very different than the sliding on red clay). Many comments on both players’ play as it was happening, including the nature of Nadal’s varied serves. At the end of the second set, on the tremendous difficulty and historical rarety of the player who is behind to win the next three sets. On Federer’s resolve and ability to hang on as those last three sets unfolded. On the excellence displayed throughout most points, by both, during those last three sets. On the unbelievability of some of Federer’s returns, e.g. the famous save of matchpoint during the second tiebreak. On the great evolution of Nadal’s game on grass (yes, the new grass) compared to last year. On the fact that both players were bringing out the best in each other, game after game, to a degree they had previously not done, not even during last year’s classic Wimbledon final. On the priviledge to watch a match where two tennis greats were so close and went to levels they themselves probably did not know they had in them… and how this has been witnessed in the past but very rarely. Do you remember any of these comments?
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
“Avg 1st serve speed: Federer: 117 MPH, Nadal: 112 MPH
Average 2nd serve speed: Federer: 100 MPH, 93 MPH”
What on Earth is that supposed to tell me? They’re statistics you can pick out from any tennis match. The point here is a weak serve on grass is no longer being punished.
I’ve picked out the relevant stat here - Nadal’s average 93 mph second serve over a five set match. During the final set he was serving slower than that. How much more evidence do you need that serving has been totally blunted, and weak serving is no longer being punished as in a traditional grass court game?
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
NIO & Spacenoxx
where did i say Nadal as the dirt baller?? where did i use the racism comment??
Stop manipulating my posts; hey my posts do not have any “topspin”… Get it??
spacenoxx, whether i have indian roots or not, is not what we are talking here…
I agree with the author entirely on what he’d written.. if he would have written this 2 years ago, i still would have agreed.
Now to AELTC and Wimbledon, can we please get the true “All-white” tradition please?????????????? Get the real grass courts please………… (Nio & specenoxx - this particular question is to AELTC and not to you… Get it??)
Comment by geetha on July 10, 2008
“Wimbledon organizers had to find the proper balance between the new technologies and the courts the game was played at…”
Yer, and they did that circa 2001. Unfortunately, they felt the need to go even further and use heavy balls that no one else does and harden the courts even more to the point where the serve and volley game has totally died. Why bother with grass?
“So stop disrespecting clay specialists by saying that they dont know how to play tennis as it should be.”
That’s not what’s being said. What’s at issue here is that Wimbledon has turned into a tournament where serving and volleying is completely dead and clay specialists don’t have to learn how to play on it, as Borg did.
“BTW Segedunum, I guess after the facts Questions Questions showed I can just say: PWNED”
Assuming of course you and everyone else actually know what this is about, and judging from the comments - you don’t.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
“All kinds of comments. Over the great difference between the bounce on dried-up modern grass and the bounce on red clay.”
Regardless of any differences, playing on grass where it is a test of serving and volleying is now dead.
“Blah, blah, blah blah…..where two tennis greats were so close and went to levels they themselves probably did not know they had in them… and how this has been witnessed in the past but very rarely. Do you remember any of these comments?”
Alas, that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of what’s happened to Wimbledon’s courts and how the serve and volley game hasn’t just been blunted slightly - it’s been totally obliterated.
Picking out pictures which you can’t link to that allegedly shows Nadal and Federer at the net doesn’t get away from the fact that Nadal volleyed once (possibly twice). I’m sure he had to pick up one or two short balls, but that doesn’t mean he was playing a volleying game. Even the net ‘approaches’ (that’s not net play, and it’s not volleying) are a very small percentage of the total points played.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
Segedunum, I detailed some of the comments made by the commentators only as a reply to and because of an earlier post of yours.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Segudenum:
The discussion here, over nearly 100 posts by a number of different people, has ranged over a number of topics related to the views in the article. Such as whether Serving and Volleying is the only style of play that should be encouraged at Wimbledon, and whether this is even feasible with changes in racket technology, advanced player conditioning and tennis training, etc.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Segedunum - thanks for those first serve statistics… as you can see and the author cried for it, “There are no more meaningful shots” in the grass court tennis… we are talking about the much improved serve here right??
i wonder what is going to be the state of hard court tennis from now till the end of the year?? i wish USO has not slowed down their courts to suit the much improved variation serve…
Alas, going forward, serve is not going to be crucial in tennis i guess?? - this is the new level of excellence..
Comment by geetha on July 10, 2008
Segedunum,
“Picking out pictures which you can’t link to that allegedly shows Nadal and Federer at the net”.
Come on, play fair. I mentioned it is easy to find - did you at least try? Here is how you’ll find it: go to the Wimbledon homepage and look at the largest picture displayed front and center. Wait a few seconds until the slideshow shows the third of the five pictures. Or right away click on the third thumbnail picture.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
“doesn’t get away from the fact that Nadal volleyed once (possibly twice). … but that doesn’t mean he was playing a volleying game. Even the net ‘approaches’ (that’s not net play, and it’s not volleying) are a very small percentage of the total points played.”
True, it was a small percentage of total points (31 out of 413 for Nadal and 57 out of 413 for Federer). But Nadal volleyed way more than twice in his 31 net approaches: I saw the entire match. And an earlier post on this was in reply to your unrelenting claim that Nadal only volleyed once in the entire match, something you extrapolated in later posts from the article’s mentioning he served-and-volleyed only once. The last “once” is factual, the previous “once” not at all.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
Geetha,
Serving well (not always hard) is how Federer survived against Nadal last year at Wimbledon, and how he kept himself alive through the last three sets. Serving way better is one of the major improvements we’ve seen in Nadal game over the last year or two. Serving well was very important in last Sunday’s final. Serving is by far not dead. Serving and volleying, on the other hand, is not practiced much anymore for a COMBINATION of reasons.
Do read “Federer as a religious experience”, a classic, very well written article that talks, among other things, of the evolution of rackets, training etc, that I keep referring to.
Comment by Questions Questions on July 10, 2008
I don’t know how anyone can argue or grouse about the predictability of Nadal’s serve in the Wimbledon final. First I don’t believe it was that predictable; it alternated between body serves, forehand, and backhand although he did go predominantly to Roger’s backhand. The question is, why would he change the pattern? To satisfy tennis purists at the expense of winning? After all, the Nadal’s serve was broken 1 time in almost 5 hours of play. Something that seems to have been overlooked in the writer’s analysis. Why would he (Nadal) do anything different if he was having that kind of success?
The writer also completely ignores/discounts the evolving racket technology. Rackets the players use are so much lighter than in the old days of serve and volley (and yes, I have been watching tennis for over 35 years) that matches had become ace, ace, serve & volley, ace. In other words, boring! Something had to be done to counter the rapid disintegration of all court tennis. I think Wimbledon organizers make the intelligent decision and modified the surface to mitigate the new technology. Did they go to far? Perhaps, but that can be easily remedied. I for one would hate to see them go back to the courts of the 90s. Call it what you will, the tennis is better on today’s surface than it was in the Sampras era. Notice, I did not say the McEnroe/Borg era which was incredible time but, unless they go back to wooden rackets, those days are gone forever and rightly so. Sport doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it has to evolve just as other parts life. Green-clay indeed! How ridiculous.
Comment by Clair on July 10, 2008
“But Nadal volleyed way more than twice in his 31 net approaches: I saw the entire match.”
No he didn’t actually. He approached the net when he had to pick up some short balls, but he didn’t volley anything until the final set.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
“Serving way better is one of the major improvements we’ve seen in Nadal game over the last year or two.”
Hawkeye and the stats say otherwise. He got away with serving continuously to Federer’s backhand, and serving average second serve speeds of well below 100 mph. The simple fact is, that hasn’t been punished as it would have been in years gone by.
“Serving and volleying, on the other hand, is not practiced much anymore for a COMBINATION of reasons.”
What reasons would these be? Racket technology has not improved spectacularly in the past four years, and in 2004 it was demonstrated that the balls travelled faster and bounced lower than they do now. Ergo, the courts and the balls are harder.
Comment by Segedunum on July 10, 2008
I was referring to the change in racket technology from wood, and the change in training and conditioning resulting from this change and from other factors. A change that took place many years before 2004. In 200