Mercedes Cup, Stuttgart Open 2018, ATP 250

[Moxie]

try try, I am sure you can

I have tried. Even before there was a Nadal. Apparently it's not in my DNA.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The grass court season is my favorite part of the season in terms of tennis, and my least favorite in terms of forums nonsense. It's literally been WELL over a decade since the surfaces have slowed down. Get over it already, Jesus. And there's always ridiculous conspiracy theory talk as to why this has happened (pro Nadal conspiracies are my favorite. Yes, the same guy who hasn't gotten past the 4th round in literally 7 years. So how much is the slowed down surfaces benefiting him really?). Can't we just watch the fucking matches?

And by the way, Wimbledon is still easily the fastest slam when you combine all the elemnts, and that can be determined by merely watching.

How many times and in how many different threads, I need to post the link for current court pace index of different tourneys . Do you even bother to look at them. AO has a CPI of 42 and Wimbledon has a CPI of 37. Also, the difference is substantial, not just a negligible amount.

Are you claiming that God gave you such powerful eyes that your eye test produces more reliable results than the scientifically measured court speeds posted in that web page.

It is funny that you are chastising other people that they should do more research before posting. :lulz2:

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think you make stuff up, but you do occasionally declare things to be facts when they are either wrong, your opinion or debatable, i.e., that Nadal 'came out of nowhere in 2005,' and you've repeated it, even when told you were wrong about that. 2006 as a date for a ball switch is an interesting way that you remember it. Happens to be the same year that Nadal made his first final at W, and then I suppose you think it implies why Nadal won in '08. I'm sure you think you remember reading it somewhere, but I've googled it many different ways and looked on various websites, like Wimbledon site and wikipedia, but nothing to be found about the balls at Wimbledon being changed. So I don't think you should just declare that as a thing, esp. just based on a comparison video of Roger's ball. And I'm not sure what "general consensus" you refer to about more than just the grass changing.

This is a bit rich coming from you, since you're the one that insists that Roger would have 10 Wimbledons and Nadal & Djokovic none, if the the grass were as of old. So you're right about Roger at Wimbledon and Broken is wrong about Rafa at RG?

Easy, the surface has been unchanged since they switched it in 2002 and the general consensus is that conditions have been further slowed down since then. That would point to it being a heavy ball. And you had McEnroe and others talking about it being heavier in 2017 than 2016 to boot. The article I read, which again may not have been that reputable, was obviously a long time ago. But yeah I don't make stuff up.

If Rafa was playing at RG on clay that bounced a lot faster and lower (the equivalent of what Roger is doing on grass with a much higher and slower bounce) then I don't think he wins 11 RG's. If Roger was playing on fast and low bouncing grass it stands to reason that he'd have won more. This is really just common sense.

 

[brokenshoelace]

How many times and in how many different threads, I need to post the link for current court pace index of different tourneys . Do you even bother to look at them. AO has a CPI of 42 and Wimbledon has a CPI of 37. Also, the difference is substantial, not just a negligible amount.

Are you claiming that God gave you such powerful eyes that your eye test produces more reliable results than the scientifically measured court speeds posted in that web page.

It is funny that you are chastising other people that they should do more research before posting. :lulz2:

Luckily, I said "when you combine all elements," meaning conditions, types of balls used, etc... and not just looking at internet articles that are themselves admitting that there is a problem with taking their data for gospel.

Also, I really love how Wimbledon supposedly plays slower than the AO, yet all the big server and offensive players do much better at Wimbledon, Rafael Nadal continues to fail to get past the 4th round, and the same poster making the condescending post above claims part of the reason why Federer isn't as dominant at Wimbledon as Nadal is at RG is the fast nature of grass, how difficult it is to break serve, etc... so which one is it exactly? No seriously, as a long-time tennis fan, you do understand that surfaces are not an exact science and there are so many factors involved right?

So let me re-phrase my statement in a way that allows you not spam your research for the 20th time: All things considered, Wimbledon still plays the fastest, when you factor in all the the components, and not just surface speed.

Is that good enough?

 

[DarthFed]

Hold on, it is accepted that Wimbledon was getting slowed down in the early 2000's, and Roger won it in 03. 04. 05. 06. 07 and 09. That's pretty fucking close to almost every year (6 out of 7). Of course you can act that the reason he didn't continue to win it every year after that is because of the surface but we both know that'd be ridiculous since A) Why did he win it 6 out of 7 times if the surface is such an obstacle? and B) We all know he was past his prime, hence losing to guys like Berdych in 2011, Tsonga in 2011, Stakhovsky in 2013 (who served and volleyed in 2014), etc... OF COURSE Roger would prefer even faster grass. That's not debatable. But what you seem to be implying is silly.

So we are only taking Roger's very best years into consideration. Years where he was losing 5-6 matches on average and also won 5 straight USO's. Let's just ignore that he's only won 2 of the last 8 and that he's 8 of the last 15 overall. What I'm implying is he probably would've won more if he was playing on a surface much more suited for his game like ummmmm a surface with a lower and faster bounce. How the hell is that a silly suggestion?

 

[brokenshoelace]

How many times and in how many different threads, I need to post the link for current court pace index of different tourneys . Do you even bother to look at them. AO has a CPI of 42 and Wimbledon has a CPI of 37. Also, the difference is substantial, not just a negligible amount.

Are you claiming that God gave you such powerful eyes that your eye test produces more reliable results than the scientifically measured court speeds posted in that web page.

It is funny that you are chastising other people that they should do more research before posting. :lulz2:

By the way, here is what Murray and Nadal had to say about this back in 2010. Sure, things might have changed since then, but notice how pro players discuss conditions and types of ball used. So maybe you should start looking beyond your nose? Just a suggestion.

Both Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal have been mentioned that Wimbledon is still the fastest surface compared to U.S. Open. But the balls used at the latter are lighter and hence zip through the court faster than the ones at Wimbledon, which makes the courts appear faster.

Q. How does it compare with Wimbledon, for example?

RAFAEL NADAL: Everybody talks about Wimbledon is very slow. Maybe because I won two times. (Smiling.) When I started to play on Wimbledon in 2003 or 2002, I don't remember, 2003 we are in 2010, so I played like eight Wimbledons. The speed of the court always was the same. That's my feeling. So there's no discussion Wimbledon is much faster than here. Is another sport than here. But I like the faster courts.

Q. What are your thoughts on the speed of this court versus the speed at Wimbledon and how that affects Rafa's game?

ANDY MURRAY: It's quite clear the balls are a lot faster, a little bit harder to control the balls. Guys are serving harder. But I think the court itself I think grass is definitely still quicker than here. I just think because of the warm weather and obviously the balls being they seem very light in comparison to the Slazengers, which are pretty heavy. I think it's just a little bit harder to control the ball on the return. Obviously guys serve a little bit bigger, which might make it a bit harder for Rafa to break.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

another massive title for Federer..so amazing the earth almost stopped rotating.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also important to note that grass has always been an erratic surface to measure, because there's quite a difference in court speeds depending on cover, age and length of grass, wear and tear, etc... So for example, if the surface speed is measured towards the tail=end of the second week of Wimbledon, it's not that surprising that it comes off as Medium to fast. But if it's measured early in the first week, it'll likely be much faster. And we don't know when the surface speed has been measured at all, but I'm sure @GameSetAndMath and his otherworldly fact-checking, researching ability, and wealth of tennis knowledge can help us out.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So we are only taking Roger's very best years into consideration. Years where he was losing 5-6 matches on average and also won 5 straight USO's. Let's just ignore that he's only won 2 of the last 8 and that he's 8 of the last 15 overall. What I'm implying is he probably would've won more if he was playing on a surface much more suited for his game like ummmmm a surface with a lower and faster bounce. How the hell is that a silly suggestion?

Again, are you saying that in years in which Roger lost to Berdych, Tsonga and Stakhovsky, he would have won the freaking tournament on faster grass? Don't you notice the irony in you pointing out that Roger won a lot between 03-09 because he was in his prime, but neglecting to mention that he didn't win as much after that because he was past his prime, rather than simply a question of surface speed?

And again, of course Roger would prefer faster grass. That's not silly. What's silly is the inconsistency in the logic.

 

[Moxie]

Easy, the surface has been unchanged since they switched it in 2002 and the general consensus is that conditions have been further slowed down since then. That would point to it being a heavy ball. And you had McEnroe and others talking about it being heavier in 2017 than 2016 to boot. The article I read, which again may not have been that reputable, was obviously a long time ago. But yeah I don't make stuff up.

If Rafa was playing at RG on clay that bounced a lot faster and lower (the equivalent of what Roger is doing on grass with a much higher and slower bounce) then I don't think he wins 11 RG's. If Roger was playing on fast and low bouncing grass it stands to reason that he'd have won more. This is really just common sense.

I thought they changed the surface in 2001. That seems to be documented.

There is no clay that bounces lower, at least than grass or than more other surfaces. Even the slick clay in Madrid flies a lot because of the altitude. You can't hope for a low-bouncing, fast clay. It's never going to happen. It's not in the nature of the surface. You also over-estimate the nature of grass as being one thing across 2 weeks. It's a natural surface, and changes, given weather and use. We have all agreed that the grass was changed in 2001. Beyond that, it depends also on the weather of a particular year as to how it plays. And even then, day-to-day. It's a natural surface. It's not reasonable to talk as if it's one thing, day in and day out.

 

[DarthFed]

Again, are you saying that in years in which Roger lost to Berdych, Tsonga and Stakhovsky, he would have won the freaking tournament on faster grass? Don't you notice the irony in you pointing out that Roger won a lot between 03-09 because he was in his prime, but neglecting to mention that he didn't win as much after that because he was past his prime, rather than simply a question of surface speed?

And again, of course Roger would prefer faster grass. That's not silly. What's silly is the inconsistency in the logic.

Where did I say he'd have won it every fricking year? And just because he's past his prime does that mean he wouldn't have better chances on the faster, more normal grass? Last I checked Rafa is well past his prime and is still way way better than anyone on clay.

 

[DarthFed]

I thought they changed the surface in 2001. That seems to be documented.

There is no clay that bounces lower, at least than grass or than more other surfaces. Even the slick clay in Madrid flies a lot because of the altitude. You can't hope for a low-bouncing, fast clay. It's never going to happen. It's not in the nature of the surface. You also over-estimate the nature of grass as being one thing across 2 weeks. It's a natural surface, and changes, given weather and use. We have all agreed that the grass was changed in 2001. Beyond that, it depends also on the weather of a particular year as to how it plays. And even then, day-to-day. It's a natural surface. It's not reasonable to talk as if it's one thing, day in and day out.

Lol, I'm not sure if you are purposely being this dense. I'm not asking for RG to suddenly play faster than HC or grass, I'm just saying if you made the conditions noticeably faster and lower bouncing then Rafa simply would not have been as dominant.

Hell we actually saw this in 2011 when they switched balls and it played a lot faster than other years. The result was Roger taking out Nole and despite being God awful that whole year, and Rafa obviously owning his soul mentally, he even made the final semi-competitive.

 

[Moxie]

Lol, I'm not sure if you are purposely being this dense. I'm not asking for RG to suddenly play faster than HC or grass, I'm just saying if you made the conditions noticeably faster and lower bouncing then Rafa simply would not have been as dominant.

Hell we actually saw this in 2011 when they switched balls and it played a lot faster than other years. The result was Roger taking out Nole and despite being God awful that whole year, and Rafa obviously owning his soul mentally, he even made the final semi-competitive.

Now who's being dense? You can't make clay faster and lower-bouncing to any significant degree, at RG, unless I'm wrong. In the same way that grass can't be really slow. You can't turn grass into clay or clay into grass. Did they switch the balls at RG in 2011? I'm actually curious.

 

[DarthFed]

Now who's being dense? You can't make clay faster and lower-bouncing to any significant degree, at RG, unless I'm wrong. In the same way that grass can't be really slow. You can't turn grass into clay or clay into grass. Did they switch the balls at RG in 2011? I'm actually curious.

Yes they switched balls that year and it played a lot faster:

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/new-babolat-balls-shake-things-up-at-french-open-1.412031

 

[Moxie]

Yes they switched balls that year and it played a lot faster:

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/new-babolat-balls-shake-things-up-at-french-open-1.412031

Which should have favored Roger, and yet he lost in the final. This is further proof that Rafa would win in whatever conditions, no? They did say that they were fast when new and then slowed down, however. Which I think has to be a feature of a ball on clay. It picks up dirt. Then it moves slower. Feature of clay.

 

[monfed]

Wait a minute. It just hit me. Why didn't dull play this tournament?

 

[DarthFed]

Which should have favored Roger, and yet he lost in the final. This is further proof that Rafa would win in whatever conditions, no? They did say that they were fast when new and then slowed down, however. Which I think has to be a feature of a ball on clay. It picks up dirt. Then it moves slower. Feature of clay.

That was one year though, does a win over an awful Fed that year prove he'd win the other 10?

 

[Moxie]

That was one year though, does a win over an awful Fed that year prove he'd win the other 10?

That was Roger's best performance against Rafa at RG, so it's a stretch to say he was "awful." In fact, he was coming off of stopping Djokovic's streak, so he was in good form and full of confidence and momentum. Plus, you're saying that Roger was aided by the fast balls. Given that Roger is an ATG, and Djokovic, too, yes, I'd say that he'd have won the 10 and even the 11. The tightest one was SF v. Novak, which was fairly won. Which of the 11 would you say he wouldn't have won, had conditions been different? Keeping in mind that he won 3 without dropping a set, and this last one only dropping one set.

 

[Moxie]

Wait a minute. It just hit me. Why didn't dull play this tournament?

This tournament is only played by scruffs who don't play or don't do well in the clay season.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Luckily, I said "when you combine all elements," meaning conditions, types of balls used, etc... and not just looking at internet articles that are themselves admitting that there is a problem with taking their data for gospel.

Also, I really love how Wimbledon supposedly plays slower than the AO, yet all the big server and offensive players do much better at Wimbledon, Rafael Nadal continues to fail to get past the 4th round, and the same poster making the condescending post above claims part of the reason why Federer isn't as dominant at Wimbledon as Nadal is at RG is the fast nature of grass, how difficult it is to break serve, etc... so which one is it exactly? No seriously, as a long-time tennis fan, you do understand that surfaces are not an exact science and there are so many factors involved right?

So let me re-phrase my statement in a way that allows you not spam your research for the 20th time: All things considered, Wimbledon still plays the fastest, when you factor in all the the components, and not just surface speed.

Is that good enough?

1. First of all, if an "internet article" wants to fool you, they don't even have to admit the problems in the data.
2. The problem in the data is clearly explained. The discrepancy is between 38.9 and 39.1 coming from two different sources
for the Paris 2016 tournament. First, the numerical difference of 0.2 is negligible (not anything compared to the difference of 5 between
the speed of AO and Wimbledon courts). Second, it is explained why the difference arose in the first place. The 38.9 was the CPI at
a specific instant in the tourney), whereas the 39.1 was the overall average CPI. It is well known that the speed of the same surface
in the same year can change slightly during the course of the tourney.
3. Whether a service becomes an ace or not depends not just on the speed, but also on the bounce (and various other factors such as predictability etc). So, just because there are more aces in Wimbledon (I don't know whether that is a fact and need to check on it) does not mean it is faster than AO.
4. The last paragraph is meaningless and/or your subjective opinion and so, I cannot argue with it.