Conditions

Ok I know we all love to bemoan the generally slow playing conditions on the 'grass' of Wimbledon, however, this year, it seems that we are not the only ones.

McEnroe (yes, I know, wagon load of salt) says that he and Flemming practised with a can of balls from this year and last year; this year's lot were noticeably heavier and slower. Dustin Brown has said the same.

Various players including the Murray bros have stated that CC is beaten up around the baseline. AM: "There's quite a few spots on the court, just behind the baseline and just in front of the baseline, where there are quite big lumps of grass, almost like little divots there, which I don't remember really being the case before,"

It is postulated that the extreme heat from Donald Trumps's fake and glowing tan may have something to do with this.

So what does this mean for the competition?

Sadly for Federer it's all bad news. Slower, heavier balls negates his natural attacking game. An uneven court with divots and clumps of grass mean it's going to be impossible to take the ball early. 

You'd have to think that Rafa would benefit most from these conditions. If Federer does play him in the final I think he's gonna find himself behind the baseline playing a lot of shoulder height BH's that'll be bouncing in funny directions. Of course, these conditions are gonna make it extremely difficult to get past Novak.

thoughts?



Emancipator

Conditions are far from ideal (obviously) and they may be worse than in recent years (though it is not entirely obvious to my naked eye) but:

1. they are not that dramatically worse than in recent years and

2. they are still far more friendly for attacking than clay courts are.

That said, relatively speaking, they will probably be more to Rafa's than Fed's liking.  Oh well.  Tournament organizers are within their rights to set up these conditions, so it is what it is.

It's strange and a little sad that the TD (presumably he makes these decisions) felt the need to slow the conditions down even further. 

Admittedly we are talking about minutiae but at this level it could make the difference. More importantly perhaps is the psychological effect. Federer said about Oz that he felt he could play a certain way because the quicker conditions permitted it. I think this brings to the fore the very pertinent observation that you made about Fedal knowing who holds the cards between them on any given day.

This will stack Rafa's deck just a little higher.

There is no evidence this year is any different to last year. It's true that it's changed for the worse grass wise in the last 20 years, but from year to year the change is small or nonexistent.  I think a lot of it is people grasping at straws to explain baseline bores like Nadal prospering or getting further in the tournament - something that is more down to the easy draw and weak shitty era.

summerblues wrote:Conditions are far from ideal (obviously) and they may be worse than in recent years (though it is not entirely obvious to my naked eye) but:

1. they are not that dramatically worse than in recent years and

2. they are still far more friendly for attacking than clay courts are.

That said, relatively speaking, they will probably be more to Rafa's than Fed's liking.  Oh well.  Tournament organizers are within their rights to set up these conditions, so it is what it is.

I actually don;t think so cause not only the courts are slow but the balls are bigger and that makes it harder to hit winners. Whereas if you have big arms a la Nadal you can still hits through the courts safely.

At least the FO was won by Stan recently...Wimbledon has had only retrievers winning it for the last 4 years...and soon 5!

Daniel wrote:There is no evidence this year is any different to last year. It's true that it's changed for the worse grass wise in the last 20 years, but from year to year the change is small or nonexistent.  I think a lot of it is people grasping at straws to explain baseline bores like Nadal prospering or getting further in the tournament - something that is more down to the easy draw and weak shitty era.

The problem Daniel is that nothing is evident for you!

Well, I actually require evidence.  And you never provide any concrete facts.  See, that's the real problem. I don't work on your say so or magic balls. When you say "God, it's so slow this year."  I want you to, like, prove it.  You come back with stats that are cherry picked or rely heavily on the opponent or match up or even weather - and so on.  It's all in your head.  I've said this before 100x, but your MO is mostly rubbishing players you don't like by coming up with whatever you can to fit your own profile.  So if Nadal wins, it's the surface or because he is doping. If Fed loses, it can't be his age or because he had an off day or because he was outplayed or because his draw was one hard match after another... it has to be some sort of special grass seed that thwarted him.  Or his opponent was doping. It's sad because it's delusional thinking.  Anyone can do it.  Excuse making.

I failed at my exams because they deliberately changed the questions to things I didn't know. 

Then there are players like Wawrinka and Nishikori... who never do well on grass - going out early.  If it really was like clay this year, don't you think they'd still be in the draw?

Daniel wrote:Well, I actually require evidence.  And you never provide any concrete facts.

Results often prove me right. For instance I knew that nadal would win in 3 sets yesterday. You thought he woudl struggle.

Daniel wrote:Then there are players like Wawrinka and Nishikori... who never do well on grass - going out early.  If it really was like clay this year, don't you think they'd still be in the draw?

Both were injured this year...but again you did not see any evidence of it.

Daniel wrote:...

I failed at my exams because they deliberately changed the questions to things I didn't know. 

Sorry to hear.

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Well, I actually require evidence.  And you never provide any concrete facts.

Results often prove me right.

Daniel, feel free to link some of my posts from page 6/7 of 'grass 2017' thread

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Well, I actually require evidence.  And you never provide any concrete facts.

Results often prove me right.

Daniel, feel free to link some of my posts from page 6/7 of 'grass 2017' thread

What? searching 5 years of posting and that's all you found? bad guesses about some talented youngsters which did not fulfil?


I feel pretty good about it actually.

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Then there are players like Wawrinka and Nishikori... who never do well on grass - going out early.  If it really was like clay this year, don't you think they'd still be in the draw?

Both were injured this year...but again you did not see any evidence of it.

Anyone can do it.  Excuse making.

No, because, again, you provided no evidence of it.  You've done here EXACTLY what I said you do...  make your own narrative up from beliefs.  Nishikori and Wawrinka didn't lose because they were outplayed on grass... No... they were injured.  It must be an easy life to be able to just conjure up excuses whenever your ego or vanity or opinions are challenged or destroyed.

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Well, I actually require evidence.  And you never provide any concrete facts.

Results often prove me right.

Daniel, feel free to link some of my posts from page 6/7 of 'grass 2017' thread

What? searching 5 years of posting and that's all you found? bad guesses about some talented youngsters which did not fulfil?  


I feel pretty good about it actually.

No I was actually showing how you predict contradicting things and then create a situation where whatever happens you can selectively choose some of your earlier arguments to make yourself appear prophetic.
The fact some of your predictions turned out to be so hilarious was by the by, and can be used by Daniel if he wants.

It's funny that Tenez says results prove him right - but Wawrinka and Nishkori didn't.  But then he doesn't count those as him being wrong... He just claims injury.  YAY!  Easy.

Daniel wrote:It's funny that Tenez says results prove him right - but Wawrinka and Nishkori didn't.  But then he doesn't count those as him being wrong... He just claims injury.  YAY!  Easy.

Everybody but you knows that Stan had a knee injury. The commentators were all talking about it. he had a huge plaster and had 4 treatments during his match.

What is evidence for you? do you have to feel his pain?

And Nishi has had a recurring ankle's injury.

The commentators always talk about injury and knees. They do it with Nadal every single tournament.  I think they do the same you do... get their excuses in early so they don't look silly on air.

"Commentators said" isn't an argument.

I guess if Fed loses, that will be injury too, eh?  I mean.. that back of his can always be used can't it?

Emancipator wrote:I think this brings to the fore the very pertinent observation that you made about Fedal knowing who holds the cards between them on any given day.

This will stack Rafa's deck just a little higher.

Wow, you remember comments.

If Fed plays Rafa it will be difficult for Fed.  But I think the most difficult part will be maybe not so much the exact condition this year but the fact that it seems that he cannot hit his BH on grass as well as he could no HC.  Even in Halle, he would barely hit over any BHs.  I suppose the bounce makes it that much harder.

Someone might have to beat Rafa before Fed does it.

Anyway, long way to go, Fed could lose today and, just like that, we would not have to worry about his Rafa match-up.

I hope at the end of the year we are not saying how lucky we are with the AO result or Rafa could have won a CYGS

Daniel wrote:The commentators always talk about injury and knees. They do it with Nadal every single tournament.  I think they do the same you do... get their excuses in early so they don't look silly on air.

"Commentators said" isn't an argument.

I guess if Fed loses, that will be injury too, eh?  I mean.. that back of his can always be used can't it?

Another typical case of you not accepting the facts. Having the trainer 4 times on court and a plaster doesn;t mean anything to you.

As I said, if you don't feel Stan's pain then there is no evidence to you. You are wasting my time.

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:[...]
2. they are still far more friendly for attacking than clay courts are.
[...]

I actually don;t think so cause not only the courts are slow but the balls are bigger and that makes it harder to hit winners.

I disagree.  Assuming Federer and Thiem both win (they both seem to be on course) and comparing Rd16 players at RG and Wimbledon:

Eight players made Rd16 both at RG an W:
Anderson
Bautista-Agut
Cilic
Djokovic
Murray
Nadal
Thiem
Raonic

Eight players made Rd16 at RG but not W:
Carreno-Busta
Khachanov
Monfils
Nishikori
Ramos-Vinolas
Verdasco
Wawrinka
Zeballos

Eight players made Rd16 at W but not RG:
Berdych
Dimitrov
Federer
Mannarino
Muller
Paire
Querry
Zverev

As a group (some exceptions notwithstanding), the eight that advanced in Wimbledon are certainly more aggressive and more suited to "grass court" than the eight that advanced at RG.

For me a good barometer of the speed of the conditions is the ease or frequency of clean Federer winners from the baseline when his opponent is on the opposing baseline.

I've hardly seen any so far.

Compare this with OZ where it seemed he could pull the trigger almost at will and hit a winner.

The court is looking beaten up and we haven't started week 2 yet!

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:[...]
2. they are still far more friendly for attacking than clay courts are.
[...]

I actually don;t think so cause not only the courts are slow but the balls are bigger and that makes it harder to hit winners.

I disagree.  Assuming Federer and Thiem both win (they both seem to be on course) and comparing Rd16 players at RG and Wimbledon:

Eight players made Rd16 both at RG an W:
Anderson
Bautista-Agut
Cilic
Djokovic
Murray
Nadal
Thiem
Raonic

Eight players made Rd16 at RG but not W:
Carreno-Busta
Khachanov
Monfils
Nishikori
Ramos-Vinolas
Verdasco
Wawrinka
Zeballos

Eight players made Rd16 at W but not RG:
Berdych
Dimitrov
Federer
Mannarino
Muller
Paire
Querry
Zverev

As a group (some exceptions notwithstanding), the eight that advanced in Wimbledon are certainly more aggressive and more suited to "grass court" than the eight that advanced at RG.

It's a good idea but I am not sure what to make of this. It very much depends on who beat them there and then. Take Khacha for instance. He is the one who gave Fed most trouble at Halle cause his game there was deadly. Here he struggled against a Brazilian retriever and I am pretty sure he woudl have got rid of him with more ease in France.

Zverev...good enough to win Rome but could not get through teh first round of the FO and coudl have easily lost at Wimby too (can't remember against). And again, knowing how the second week is slower, as has less grass, that is when you will expect a real slow conds worse than the FO.

Let's revisit your idea on Monday eve.

As Thiem just said, "I had to run a lot"! In the past there was no point running on grass. You could not.

Yeah in days gone by - like last year - you could just stand still and do a Dhalsim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjYD2WI0yOU

Tenez wrote:As Thiem just said, "I had to run a lot"! In the past there was no point running on grass. You could not.

But that past is long gone. Rafa was running a lot when he won here and that is almost a decade ago.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:As Thiem just said, "I had to run a lot"! In the past there was no point running on grass. You could not.

But that past is long gone.  Rafa was running a lot when he won here and that is almost a decade ago.

Oh yeah....when it was easier to break in the FO than in Wimbledon (2010?).

If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Decima*
This match will show who knows more about tennis.

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Noooo!

You must never shut up!

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Decima*
This match will show who knows more about tennis.

...or who jinx best!

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Decima*
This match will show who knows more about tennis.

...or who jinx best!

I'm not jinxing, Im saying if Nadal does beat Cilic he's favourite to then beat Murray (and perhaps 5050 or higher against Djokovic, and Federer too if Roger doesn't improve from today); if I was jinxing I'd just say he will lose the tournament at some point anyway.
If what you're saying is right, and this court suits attacking players in a similar level to RG, suggesting that Cilic will beat Nadal would be nonsensical. If Cilic won it would be very likely that your analysis was way off. Meanwhile I've given a breakdown of what I think the match patterns will be.
So are you ready to commit to this, yes or no.

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Decima*
This match will show who knows more about tennis.

...or who jinx best!

This reminds me of a scene from The Office where that peasant loses in a quiz and afterwards says in the carpark: whoever throws the shoe over the roof wins!

Just hope they now drench the place and keep it up until Sunday night.

bogbrush wrote:Just hope they now drench the place and keep it up until Sunday night.

Yeah, do a triple dose of MiracleGro as well!

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:As Thiem just said, "I had to run a lot"! In the past there was no point running on grass. You could not.

But that past is long gone.  Rafa was running a lot when he won here and that is almost a decade ago.

At some point we have to recognise that this is no longer the 'new' grass and accept it for what it is.

Of course it's not the same as a clay court and attacking will pay more dividends here - but maybe not as much as some of us would like   We shall see.

I for one would like to see W as a slam that requires a very different set of skills than the other slams. RG provides that, but W it seems to me has become a medium paced, medium bounce tournament that is very similar in terms of the skills required to win at as most of the medium paced HC's that make up the tour.

Emancipator wrote:The court is looking beaten up and we haven't started week 2 yet!

it pretty much looked beaten uop from day one,looked like dozens of matches had already been played on it before the first round match with murray

Emancipator wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:As Thiem just said, "I had to run a lot"! In the past there was no point running on grass. You could not.

But that past is long gone.  Rafa was running a lot when he won here and that is almost a decade ago.

At some point we have to recognise that this is no longer the 'new' grass and accept it for what it is.

Of course it's not the same as a clay court and attacking will pay more dividends here - but maybe not as much as some of us would like   We shall see.

I for one would like to see W as a slam that requires a very different set of skills than the other slams. RG provides that, but W it seems to me has become a medium paced, medium bounce tournament that is very similar in terms of the skills required to win at as most of the medium paced HC's that make up the tour.

i agree they seem to be catering too much to an audience,it should still be a "specialist" surface like clay is

Tenez wrote:Let's revisit your idea on Monday eve.

You will be surprised when we have QFs with Paire vs Querrey, Muller vs Cilic, Raonic vs Fed and Berdych vs Mannarino.

No need.  I just went Back to the Future and would ya'll believe it?  Muller won!  The Yoghurt did it! 

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Decima*
This match will show who knows more about tennis.

...or who jinx best!

It's a win-win situation for DECIMAL. If Cilic wins, he'll be showing off, if Nadal wins, he'll be telling in an ecstatic mood he was wrong. And after that he'll go on jinxing the next match.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:If Cilic beats Nadal...I'll shut up. If Nadal beats him in 3.....I want DECIMAL to vanish for another year or 2.

Decima*
This match will show who knows more about tennis.

...or who jinx best!

It's a win-win situation for DECIMAL. If Cilic wins, he'll be showing off, if Nadal wins, he'll be telling in an ecstatic mood he was wrong. And after that he'll go on jinxing the next match.

Oh really? I know him GP.
In fact I am not sure Cilic will past Agut....this is where Decima"l" might be exposed.

Nope pay attention to what I said, if Nadal does beat Cilic, I see him as 5050 or better vs Murray in the semis.
I'd even fancy him as 5050 or better against Djokovic; the best bet to stop Nadal then I feel would be Federer if he recovers form his cold and thus improves his form (if he plays like he has so far, then Fed will not win tournament).
If I was jinxing I would say Nadal has no chance against Murray, Djokovic, Federer; players who according to the bookies are much more likely to win the tournament than Cilic.

DECIMA wrote:Nope pay attention to what I said, if Nadal does beat Cilic, I see him as 5050 or better vs Murray in the semis.
I'd even fancy him as 5050 or better against Djokovic; the best bet to stop Nadal then I feel would be Federer if he recovers form his cold and thus improves his form (if he plays like he has so far, then Fed will not win tournament).
If I was jinxing I would say Nadal has no chance against Murray, Djokovic, Federer; players who according to the bookies are much more likely to win the tournament than Cilic.  

Rafa will break Cilic down if they play. Will start tight and end a landslide. Something like 76 57 63 62. Cilic just isn't good enough to compete with this version of Rafa. I think we are pretty much guaranteed a Fedal final, given the lack of form of Djokray. Agree that Fed will be favourite then - he will find his form in time.

DECIMA wrote:the best bet to stop Nadal then I feel would be Federer if he recovers form his cold and thus improves his form (if he plays like he has so far, then Fed will not win tournament).

Finally you're sounding realistically.

Daniel wrote:No need.  I just went Back to the Future and would ya'll believe it?  Muller won!  The Yoghurt did it! 

  You'd think with my delorean that I'd win a lot more bets.  But you have to actually put them on.  

Ugh and even worse, Tenez doesn't have to shut up cause Nadal didn't lose to Cilic. 

Well done to Muller. That was close and unpredicted. I think what made the difference is as mentioned the fact that Muller was hitting heavy and flat. Nadal had no time to inject his safe and heavy spin.

Gilles' game made this court look faster than they were.

Tenez wrote:
Gilles' game made this court look faster than they were.

lol.  You're as bad at predictions as you are at accepting you are wrong. If this were even remotely slow, Muller would have lost.  Deep down, you know that's true.

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Gilles' game made this court look faster than they were.

lol.  You're as bad at predictions as you are at accepting you are wrong. If this were even remotely slow, Muller would have lost.  Deep down, you know that's true.

No I don't. What I learnt today is that certainly the flat shots keep their pace...but anything spiny ball make the courts look slow. And yes, maybe the courts look a bit more like grass today and you could see that Nadal never looked as confident as teh first week.