District, somebody said to me today that Wimbledon looks the best. When I asked why he said the white sports clothes on the green background. It does I agree look the best. French with that awful red surface and the clothes which don't match. Sorry, Wimbledon's the best.
As usual a Leftfield opinion DL which you are more than welcome to but the game started on grass, Lawn Tennis, so you take everything that goes with it, poke yer man-made millimetre perfect, baseline ping-pong encouraging surfaces up yer arse! Ask the players which is the most prestigious title! so on that subject you can argue with yourself, you can be such a berk!
Wouldn't argue with that. Most of the games were played on grass too but times are changing and we're in arguably the best tennis era (for Men) ever and that's partly been done to the newer surfaces and slower courts. Grass court tennis is pretty much brainless ball bashing which favours big servers, accelerators and big hitters that can hit it low and flat thus negating the little bounce there actually is on grass. Previously it was the Serve & Volley that reigned supreme. What we saw today with Hewitt & Federer + on Monday with Nadal was 3 superior tennis players that couldn't get to grips with big servers. One dimensional power play triumphed over versatility and skill. Such results can only be achieved on grass, hence why I am more partial to the other slams. Wimbledon is easily the most prestigious though, it's the oldest slam and most publicised. Won't argue with you there
Sorry DL, but that's not true mate. It doesn't matter what the surface is, the big servers always command their service games. A fast-ish serve of 140mph does not move slower through the air because of the type of court, not is it slowed down enough by the brief contact it makes with the court when it bounces. There's a reason why the majority of pro's love Wimbledon, and that's because it's known for having to bring out one's best tennis due to the court's unpredictability. It's known for producing epic rally's, not for being the home of "the server". - big servers will do it anywhere, not just Wimbledon.
Federer and Hewitt got beat by 2 players playing out of their skin who just happened to have good serves. It's not as if Hewitt and Federer went out on 3 tie-breaks, they both had their serves broken which shows their opponents weren't just servers. Hewitt is nothing special anyway Th courts are SO much slower than they used to be, hence the dominance of baseliners like Federer, Murray, nadal and djokovic. Btw, 2 of those are still cruising through and another was clearly injured and the 4th is an age where you would expect less consistency and for his dominance to wane. Nothing particularly special happened IMO Why do the women get equal pay but play only 3 sets? Often off the court in under an hour while the men regularly play for 4hrs. Equality gone mad (it's not equality at all actually)
Think about it, those beautiful girls all sweaty and see through tops showing their nipples for four hours....................oh what bliss but Sharapova's scream for that long would drive me bats.
Her match yesterday was funny. The other one served and without having looked at the tv i said "Sharapova's on". The next serve Sharapova actually had a shot... "oh, nope THATS Sharapova". It sounded like a massacre going on. Horrendous
Sorry Roo, but that's not true mate. The ball has a low bounce on grass and effectively skids off the surface. If you hit a low, fast and flat serve on grass it's near enough impossible to return. Part of the reason why Nadal does so well on clay is because his top spin game is perfectly suited to the high ball bounce of the clay and deep baseline game. The serve plays a bigger part on grass than on clay or HC, it's a fact mate. Many of the major upsets have been caused by big and consistent servers i.e Karlovic v Hewitt 2003, Krajicek v Sampras 1996, Stakhovsky v Federer 2013. Ivanisevic served his way to Wimbledon in 2001. He wasn't (technically) a better tennis player than Pat Rafter, Tim Henman or even Greg Rusedski but served his way through matches. On Clay and to a lesser extent the Hard Courts, you can't just outhit and overpower your opponents to win matches. Grass court tennis isn't renowned for long rallies, if anything it's the opposite and you can win cheap and quick points that you can't win on HC or Clay because players are more prone to error on faster surfaces like grass. General consensus is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious, but French is by far the hardest to win. Latin cultures favour clay, whereas Europe favours Hard Court with Grass being in the middle.
Things don't just happen by chance. Most players in the top 100 have excellent serves. It's all down to application, Hewitt and Federer were ill prepared and had no answer to the Serve & Volley and were pretty much relying on their opponent to slip up or lose concentration on serve, which they didn't. Federer's defeat didn't surprise me, but Hewitt's did. I agree with you re: pay. It's a joke.
I don't quite agree with that. The stats for the Hewitt match showed that the German chap won 50% of the points at the net. That means Hewitt won 50% too. The majority of the points at net would be on serve so by definition you would expect the server to be winning the points more often than not. So coming to the net wasn't the advantage you're making it out to be, not for that match anyway. I didn't see the stats for Federer/Stakovsky
The points Dustin Brown lost at the net were likely to be Forced errors. Hewitt played a counter/baseline game against an aggressive S&V. There was only going to be one winner, Hewitt himself admitted (which I said at the time) he simply couldn't exert enough pressure on Dustin's serve so every he served there was increased pressure which affected his confidence and decision making. Federer's defeat was more down to unforced errors and profligacy. Unlike Hewitt, Federer had his chances and was in a good position to win the match. When the court is faster and fresher (first week), the big servers have even more of an advantage. 2nd week when it gets worn down a bit and becomes slower, the S&V players will find it tougher.
it doesn't matter how the points are won or lost, if you only win 50% of them then you've only won half of them
DL, I'm not disagreeing that there's a difference between the courts. In rallies, there is a substantial difference. What I'm saying is that the big servers dominate everywhere, regardless of the surface. it's not just wimbledon. In the same way that the grass can make serves flatter, the hard courts see the serve fly off the surface faster. Both different, but just as hard to return against someone with that sort of pace on their serve.
I love how DL can be so puritanical about tennis, but when it comes to Chelsea it's just about getting the result. When Chelsea won the Champions League with their boring, unimaginative football you didn't complain - what's the difference with Tennis' big servers (who by the way also actually have to break their opponents serve to win )
No, what we saw was 1 and arguably 2 past their best, and one hampered by an injury. In past years each have had no problem whatsoever blowing away everything thrown at them, big serves an all! so I don't see your reasoning re the surface. Serve and volley, and baseline huggers have both won Wimbledon, so it does not favour a style and a true great player imo can just play the game regardless whats under his feet. At the same time it will also lead to certain players favouring a particular surface, but I don't see it as a problem, and for me does not detract from the sport overall, adds to it if anything. "Grass court tennis is pretty much brainless ball bashing which favours big servers, accelerators and big hitters that can hit it low and flat thus negating the little bounce there actually is on grass. Previously it was the Serve & Volley that reigned supreme." DL, this has to be the worst description of Wimbledon I've ever read, sorry but it is. Roger Federer a brainless ball-basher?? Favours big servers??, the 2 fastest recorded servers Andy Roddick and Roscoe Tanner never won it. The only thing you have right and I feel thats more by luck than judgement, is serve n volley was more prevalent in past years, but the modern power tennis is just progression coming from modern fitness and coaching. Most physical games have evolved, so I can't see the need to say anymore to say on this.
Exactly, Nadal is your classic clay courter, he has won Wimbledon. Admittedly the court was not as quick as it used to be in the 90s but its still the quickest court out of the 4 slams. Lots of players saying no difference in the court this year compared to last, including Hewitt.
