Sampras says grass is "just as fast" as in his times
TT
1s Sampras, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg ruled the All England Club?
Could that explain the lack of serve-volleyers on the ATP World Tour?
Sampras doesn't think so.
"I don't believe the courts are any faster (means slower?) from the time
I played," said the Californian. "When I went to see Roger and Andy play
in the 2009 Wimbledon final, the court seemed to play just as fast. What
had changed, though, is how players play on the court and how the
technology in racquets and strings has allowed players to stay back and
compete."
Iceberg
Scott will be loving this one!
Joe Ramirez
> So have the rye-seeded courts really slowed down since former World No.
> 1s Sampras, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg ruled the All England Club?
> Could that explain the lack of serve-volleyers on the ATP World Tour?
> Sampras doesn't think so.
>
> "I don't believe the courts are any faster (means slower?) from the time
> I played," said the Californian. "When I went to see Roger and Andy play
> in the 2009 Wimbledon final, the court seemed to play just as fast. What
> had changed, though, is how players play on the court and how the
> technology in racquets and strings has allowed players to stay back and
> compete."
>
Sampras doesn't discuss how the bounce has changed.
A more interesting comment from Sampras is this:
"Neither Sampras nor Newcombe found the transition from clay to grass-
court play difficult. It was entirely natural to them. 'It was more of
a mind set and making minor adjustments to your strokes,' says
Sampras, who won 10 titles on the surface. 'At the end of the day by
the time you get to Wimbledon you should have had plenty of time on
the grass to make those adjustments.'"
In other words, the Whisper-bob excuse that Sampras couldn't be arsed
at Roland Garros because it would have disrupted his game for
Wimbledon is BS, according to Pete himself.
TT
> On Jun 10, 10:54 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> So have the rye-seeded courts really slowed down since former World No.
>> 1s Sampras, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg ruled the All England Club?
>> Could that explain the lack of serve-volleyers on the ATP World Tour?
>> Sampras doesn't think so.
>>
>> "I don't believe the courts are any faster (means slower?) from the time
>> I played," said the Californian. "When I went to see Roger and Andy play
>> in the 2009 Wimbledon final, the court seemed to play just as fast. What
>> had changed, though, is how players play on the court and how the
>> technology in racquets and strings has allowed players to stay back and
>> compete."
>>
> The height and quality of the bounce is more important than raw speed.
Height of bounce = speed
steve jaros
Sampras didn't play on the new stuff, which is obviously much slower and
bouncier, which is why baseliners are competitive.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
*skriptis
"Joe Ramirez" <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:28e53e3b-2a8d-4406...@e14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
The Whisper-bob excuse was about "exhausting himself" because he was
obviosly guy with health issues..
For him it would have been very dangerous to go "all-in" at FO.
He did have a go in 1996 at FO and what happened at Wimbledon?
Pedro Dias
No.
uly...@mscomm.com
match is worlds apart from playing on it.
Agassi played an exo there with Steffi when they unveiled the new
roof. He said the court was playing like an American green clay court,
far slower conditions than in the 90's. Becker, Henman and McEnroe
also play every year on the W. grass and constantly say while
commentating that the courts now are much slower than previously. So
does everyone else who has experienced playing on this grass from "the
old days" and now.
Dig up a single quote *from a former player who actually PLAYS on this
surface NOW* that says the grass is "the same." Won't happen.
Joe Ramirez
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
That was only part of it, and actually the less important part. (You
emphasize Sampras' stamina problems more than Whisper and bob do.) The
core of the excuse was that Sampras did not dare adjust his game in
any meaningful way in order to make a push for Roland Garros, because
doing so would have hurt his grass game.
> For him it would have been very dangerous to go "all-in" at FO.
>
> He did have a go in 1996 at FO and what happened at Wimbledon?
He was straight-setted by a zoned, big-serving player who previously
had beaten him a couple of times. It obviously had nothing to do with
stamina, nor with disrupted grass technique (Sampras won his previous
rounds without much difficulty, and rolled over Pioline in R4).
TT
Yes it is.
Sampras quite clearly said that court plays just as fast as before aka
that play is just as fast as before.
Also Federer has said that he has no noticed change in speed - but then
again he of course has to protect his own interest since he never won on
"fast" grass.
TT
Federe said he hasn't noticed any change in court speed. You dig it up
if you're memory is that short...
uly...@mscomm.com
on
"fast" grass."
Uh huh...Fed only beat the greatest-ever grass court player on fast
grass in 2001.
PeteWasLucky
Bounce and speed. How would he know without playing a pro match again?
felangey
Like all retired pro's, they nuture the fantasy that they could probably go
right out there and compete again.
kaennorsing
Maybe he's underestimating the racquet- and string technology,
allowing for much bigger hits without losing control. That could make
one believe the courts are as fast, especially when not having
experienced the actual conditions first-hand.
TT
And lost to Henman the next round - aka can't win on fast grass.
TT
So what's the difference then if the speed is still the same...
Pedro Dias
> 10.6.2011 19:10, Pedro Dias kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 11:17 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 10.6.2011 18:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> >>> On Jun 10, 10:54 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>> So have the rye-seeded courts really slowed down since former World No.
> >>>> 1s Sampras, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg ruled the All England Club?
> >>>> Could that explain the lack of serve-volleyers on the ATP World Tour?
> >>>> Sampras doesn't think so.
>
> >>>> "I don't believe the courts are any faster (means slower?) from the time
> >>>> I played," said the Californian. "When I went to see Roger and Andy play
> >>>> in the 2009 Wimbledon final, the court seemed to play just as fast. What
> >>>> had changed, though, is how players play on the court and how the
> >>>> technology in racquets and strings has allowed players to stay back and
> >>>> compete."
>
> >>> The height and quality of the bounce is more important than raw speed.
>
> >> Height of bounce = speed
>
> > No.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> Sampras quite clearly said that court plays just as fast as before aka
> that play is just as fast as before.
Doesn't mean much, since a) he stopped playing at about the time
changes were taking place, and b) there's plenty of opposing opinions.
The head groundskeeper's included.
In any case, the issue at hand is whether the height of the bounce is
the same thing as the speed of the court. I refer you to Hamburg,
where the bounce was very, very low, and the courts were perhaps the
slowest on Tour.
Not only that, but you're ignoring the other part of that sentence,
about the *quality* of the bounce: rye is not only a bit slower, it is
more *durable*, which means fewer uneven spots, which means players
have to make fewer adjustments. Huge difference in playability: at one
point, coming in was an advantage in part because if you stayed back
you were at significant risk of getting a bad bounce. That risk is
much lower now, so it's safer to stay back, so baseliners are doing
much better.
Not brain surgery. Keep up..
TT
Good point. If course there are 2 factors to speed of court...friction
and bounce...if the bounce is lower the ball comes at you faster.
Whether it's friction or bounce doesn't matter to what Sampras said...he
still said the court is as fast as before.
>
> Not only that, but you're ignoring the other part of that sentence,
> about the *quality* of the bounce: rye is not only a bit slower, it is
> more *durable*, which means fewer uneven spots, which means players
> have to make fewer adjustments. Huge difference in playability: at one
> point, coming in was an advantage in part because if you stayed back
> you were at significant risk of getting a bad bounce. That risk is
> much lower now, so it's safer to stay back, so baseliners are doing
> much better.
>
I have been saying this for years. Good for you to FINALLY catch up!
Pedro Dias
Pretty sure I got there first, discussing the whole "natural surface"
specialist issue, re Nadal/Borg. But glad you agree courts have
changed radically. Seemed for a minute that you disagreed.
TT
Yes, this change makes the courts much faster for the latter rounds...no
need to play the final on clay.
kaennorsing
Big difference. Coming in to the net is not less rewarding when the
ball leaves the racquet faster but leaves the court slower. The volley
won't nearly be a winner as often and the opponent's passing comes at/
past the volleyer much quicker.
kaennorsing
> On 10 jun, 19:23, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Big difference. Coming in to the net is not less rewarding
Read: less rewarding.
steve jaros
right, because fed was in peak form in 2001. he was winning slams left
and right back then.
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
TT
> On 6/10/2011 12:21 PM, TT wrote:
>> 10.6.2011 19:19, uly...@msomm.com kirjoitti:
>>> "Of course Federer has to protect his own interest since he never won
>>> on
>>> "fast" grass."
>>>
>>> Uh huh...Fed only beat the greatest-ever grass court player on fast
>>> grass in 2001.
>>
>> And lost to Henman the next round - aka can't win on fast grass.
>
> right, because fed was in peak form in 2001. he was winning slams left
> and right back then.
>
>
That too!
Pedro Dias
This willful stupidity is not your best side. Even *actual* clay needs
grooming to play the way it does: they add crushed brick daily, they
rake the top often, they water the court down regularly. Packed dry
naked dirt is actually extremely fast, and the ball gets no bite at
all - try playing on it. More importantly, only some spots were bare,
so the court played very, very unevenly.
Courts now have a nice, even, resilient nap, decent bite, and they
hold up over the course of the tournament. Weren't you the one who did
a survey of serve stats that seemed to show the AO to play slowest
these days, the USO fastest, and the FO and Wimbledon fairly even
somewhere in the middle? Someone did. Any rate, that's roughly how I
see the Slams' current speed.
TT
Wrong again.
W, USO, AO, FO was the order.
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 10:54 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> So have the rye-seeded courts really slowed down since former World No.
>> 1s Sampras, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg ruled the All England Club?
>> Could that explain the lack of serve-volleyers on the ATP World Tour?
>> Sampras doesn't think so.
>>
>> "I don't believe the courts are any faster (means slower?) from the time
>> I played," said the Californian. "When I went to see Roger and Andy play
>> in the 2009 Wimbledon final, the court seemed to play just as fast. What
>> had changed, though, is how players play on the court and how the
>> technology in racquets and strings has allowed players to stay back and
>> compete."
>>
>The height and quality of the bounce is more important than raw speed.
>Sampras doesn't discuss how the bounce has changed.
the bounce can change do the style of stroke, nothing to do with the
grass.
>A more interesting comment from Sampras is this:
>"Neither Sampras nor Newcombe found the transition from clay to grass-
>court play difficult. It was entirely natural to them. 'It was more of
>a mind set and making minor adjustments to your strokes,' says
>Sampras, who won 10 titles on the surface. 'At the end of the day by
>the time you get to Wimbledon you should have had plenty of time on
>the grass to make those adjustments.'"
>In other words, the Whisper-bob excuse that Sampras couldn't be arsed
>at Roland Garros because it would have disrupted his game for
>Wimbledon is BS, according to Pete himself.
no - in other words sampras incredibly poor results at RG was due to
his huge error in this philosophy. sampras played a 100% grass style,
which gave poor results on clay VS the specialists. easy to see.
bob
bob
the same yr sampras struggled mightily VS guys ranked probably outside
top 50 or 100, even at wimbledon, same yr henman thrashed federer.
tells us a lot about their games lady.
bob
bob
or we could just listen to the Wimbledon King!
bob
bob
he played a s/v game, which was a style with almost 0 success on clay
for previous 15 yrs. yet dominated grass. so sampras made his choice
and stuck with it.
>> For him it would have been very dangerous to go "all-in" at FO.
>>
>> He did have a go in 1996 at FO and what happened at Wimbledon?
>
>He was straight-setted by a zoned, big-serving player who previously
>had beaten him a couple of times. It obviously had nothing to do with
>stamina, nor with disrupted grass technique (Sampras won his previous
>rounds without much difficulty, and rolled over Pioline in R4).
he lost a 1-off to krajicek who was liable on a given day ride his
serve to a grass court win, especially if sampras had a bit of off
day. it happened. nothing to do with FO, IMO.
and if sampras had played later into tournament, i don't think it
would've happened, but he got early.
bob
steve jaros
in fairness, sampras's form against fed in 2001, just in that match, was
clearly better than his form against rafter in 2000 W final.
--
there is no doubt that the black-white
power struggle in south africa is but a
microcosm of the global confrontation
between the third world and the rich white
nations of the world.
- Steve Biko
Sakari Lund
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>A more interesting comment from Sampras is this:
>
>"Neither Sampras nor Newcombe found the transition from clay to grass-
>court play difficult. It was entirely natural to them. 'It was more of
>a mind set and making minor adjustments to your strokes,' says
>Sampras, who won 10 titles on the surface. 'At the end of the day by
>the time you get to Wimbledon you should have had plenty of time on
>the grass to make those adjustments.'"
>
>In other words, the Whisper-bob excuse that Sampras couldn't be arsed
>at Roland Garros because it would have disrupted his game for
>Wimbledon is BS, according to Pete himself.
Not exactly. He says 'At the end of the day by the time you get to
Wimbledon you should have had plenty of time on the grass to make
those adjustments.'" He always had plenty of time, but if he would
have been arsed at FO, he would have had much less time... :-)
Whisper
Yes, & consider the evidence. The only time he made FO semis was the
only time in 8 years he failed to win Wimbledon.
Coincidence?
TT
If not then Channel Slam must be the greatest achievement in tennis.
Joe Ramirez
> On 13/06/2011 6:19 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
Yes. I disposed of that question when skriptis raised it recently.
Sampras was blown off the grass by Krajicek; there is no evidence that
his performance at Roland Garros had any impact whatsoever. It wasn't
a stamina issue, and it wasn't a "not adjusted to grass" issue.