Are slam counts of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic inflated due to homogenisation of surfaces?

[Obsi]

I quote Federer:
"Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself. "
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=77084

What do you think?

 

[britbox]

I don't think it would make a big difference...

It starts with the question, When are you comparing it with?

Laver won 3 of his 4 majors on grass when he won the grand slam. I would say there was more homogenisation then.

I'm guessing you're comparing it with the 90s... how different is it really? OK, we've basically lost carpet as a surface... but that wasn't a surface in the grand slam events.

Clay... Nadal has won 9 grand slam titles on clay... Federer 1.. Djokovic 1, Federer has 7 on grass, Nadal 2. I think that tells it's own story that the surfaces are unique enough. Would Nadal have won less on clay? No. Would Federer have won less on grass? No... I'd be tempted to think that Federer might have won more on faster grass, not less...

US Open surface is pretty much the same now as then... Australia swapped out Rebound Ace for plexicushion... Federer won AO majors on both surfaces....

So, in a nutshell, no, I don't think it would have made much of a difference.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think it would make a big difference...

It starts with the question, When are you comparing it with?

Laver won 3 of his 4 majors on grass when he won the grand slam. I would say there was more homogenisation then.

I'm guessing you're comparing it with the 90s... how different is it really? OK, we've basically lost carpet as a surface... but that wasn't a surface in the grand slam events.

Clay... Nadal has won 9 grand slam titles on clay... Federer 1.. Djokovic 1, Federer has 7 on grass, Nadal 2. I think that tells it's own story that the surfaces are unique enough. Would Nadal have won less on clay? No. Would Federer have won less on grass? No... I'd be tempted to think that Federer might have won more on faster grass, not less...

US Open surface is pretty much the same now as then... Australia swapped out Rebound Ace for plexicushion... Federer won AO majors on both surfaces....

So, in a nutshell, no, I don't think it would have made much of a difference.

Interesting...I thought you were more in the "homogenized surfaces" camp, but I agree with your assessment. Good points, for example, re: grass v. clay...those don't really change. It takes really adept players to adapt to both.

 

[britbox]

Interesting...I thought you were more in the "homogenized surfaces" camp, but I agree with your assessment. Good points, for example, re: grass v. clay...those don't really change. It takes really adept players to adapt to both.

I am to a degree - but more to do with events outside the majors. I wish carpet was still a feature and we had more grass court events.

 

[Moxie]

I am to a degree - but more to do with events outside the majors. I wish carpet was still a feature and we had more grass court events.

I don't miss carpet at all, tbh. So fast as to be boring, to me. But I think we're all in agreement that we wish there were more grass in the calendar. It's really the old-school surface that has suffered the most at the hands of concrete.

 

[Federberg]

I agree with Roger, and when I met him he made the point that he felt that surface homogeneity had been a benefit to him. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a greater authority on this subject than him

 

[DarthFed]

I agree with Roger on that. Grass is significantly different and it first changed in 2001 before Federer won his first Wimbledon. Now I don't agree that slowing grass has helped Federer at all, more that it helped Novak and especially Nadal. Roger likely would have won more on faster, lower bouncing grass. But I do think the overall homogeneity of the surfaces has benefitted all 3 of them.

To my knowledge the USO only recently started slowing down. I think they are using a different ball as it is now clearly playing slower than it was just 10 years ago.

 

[britbox]

I agree with Roger on that. Grass is significantly different and it first changed in 2001 before Federer won his first Wimbledon. Now I don't agree that slowing grass has helped Federer at all, more that it helped Novak and especially Nadal. Roger likely would have won more on faster, lower bouncing grass. But I do think the overall homogeneity of the surfaces has benefitted all 3 of them.

To my knowledge the USO only recently started slowing down. I think they are using a different ball as it is now clearly playing slower than it was just 10 years ago.

So you think Roger's tallies are deflated by homegenisation?

 

[Moxie]

I agree with Roger on that. Grass is significantly different and it first changed in 2001 before Federer won his first Wimbledon. Now I don't agree that slowing grass has helped Federer at all, more that it helped Novak and especially Nadal. Roger likely would have won more on faster, lower bouncing grass. But I do think the overall homogeneity of the surfaces has benefitted all 3 of them.

To my knowledge the USO only recently started slowing down. I think they are using a different ball as it is now clearly playing slower than it was just 10 years ago.

In order for Roger to have "won more on faster, lower bouncing grass," he would have had to have beaten Nadal in '08, and Novak in '14 and '15, and I don't think there's a great argument for that. In 2008, Nadal had the hottest hand at the time, no one he faced before Roger was going to beat him, and he was getting into Roger's head. Also, it was a hot year, and the grass was beat up by the final, so it wouldn't have mattered. You might make a case for 2014 v. Djokovic, but Roger was getting a bit long in the tooth, and by 2015, it wasn't the grass, for sure.

Otherwise, don't you think the homogeneity of the surfaces matters less in the Majors than in the other tournaments, and perhaps the weeks at #1? Majors are still contested on 3 surfaces. Back in the old days, it was 2. I would say the evening of surface pace and bounce is about the calendar, more than the Majors, if you take the long view.

 

[DarthFed]

2008 and every match on grass would have been one way traffic for Roger on 90's grass. I doubt Nadal would've even made the final, any Wimbledon final that is. His game simply is not suited to the lightning fast, low bouncing surface that Wimbledon used to be. Maybe 2008 would've been the one year he made the final as he did do well at Queens that year but he'd have been dusted easily there. And even an ancient Fed may have had an edge vs Nole if it was playing like it once did but that's more debatable.

 

[DarthFed]

So you think Roger's tallies are deflated by homegenisation?

It's possible but it's not that simple. My theory is that it is easier for the best player in the world to be extremely dominant in the current era because of the homogenization, but it's not easier to be the best player in the world if that makes sense. Being the best is maybe tougher than ever but it has a greater reward now because being the best on one surface means you're probably the best on at least one other one since it is so much easier to adjust from surface to surface.

 

[Moxie]

2008 and every match on grass would have been one way traffic for Roger on 90's grass. I doubt Nadal would've even made the final, any Wimbledon final that is. His game simply is not suited to the lightning fast, low bouncing surface that Wimbledon used to be. Maybe 2008 would've been the one year he made the final as he did do well at Queens that year but he'd have been dusted easily there. And even an ancient Fed may have had an edge vs Nole if it was playing like it once did but that's more debatable.

I would invite you to revisit the 2008 draw. And how chewed up the grass was by the final. And how much Roger was bothered by Rafa's game. It's tempting to speak in generalities, but there are specificities of that time, and I think you're wrong about the 2008 outcome.

 

[Billie]

Yeah, it is easy. Everything is the same, everybody plays the same, less competition.

Is the clay the same everywhere or slowed down or made faster than before? I guess Rafa probably wouldn't be able to win much on clay in the 90s or whenever everything was so much different and more difficult.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, it is easy. Everything is the same, everybody plays the same, less competition.

Is the clay the same everywhere or slowed down or made faster than before? I guess Rafa probably wouldn't be able to win much on clay in the 90s or whenever everything was so much different and more difficult.

Clay's the one no one can argue is different. But to counteract that, they basically pretend it's not really a surface that counts. Or essentially to counteract Nadal. B-)

 

[Billie]

It's possible but it's not that simple. My theory is that it is easier for the best player in the world to be extremely dominant in the current era because of the homogenization, but it's not easier to be the best player in the world if that makes sense. Being the best is maybe tougher than ever but it has a greater reward now because being the best on one surface means you're probably the best on at least one other one since it is so much easier to adjust from surface to surface.

How can it be easy to switch from hard courts to clay to a couple of weeks on grass? Sorry but your statement doesn't make sense at all. The surfaces are the same for everybody and they adopt. Now everybody can play at least decently on clay and hard courts because they train on these and play a lot. And they mentally commit to the longer rallies that clay demands. Hard court tournaments are half of the season, that is the choice of governing body of professional tennis. So they mostly train on these courts. There is also enough of clay courts, enough for players to train on them and have success on them. Why is it today's players fault that people in the past didn't want to bother with clay if they were good only on fast courts? Or didn't bother going to Australia to play that slam that wasn't as popular as today?

On the contrary, it is harder now because the technology allows a lot of players, who want to train hard, to achieve decent results on almost every surface that is being used today. Before you had more specialists on specific surfaces, but now everybody trains to play well on every one of them. Some more successfully than others, but nevertheless. Some of the Spanish or South American players, who are considered clay court specialists, might have won more on clay in the 90s than what they are winning now.

Grass is the only surface that suffered the modernization of tennis game, going from 3 majors on that surface to only 1 and only about 1 month of grass season. If there were more tournaments on grass, players would have trained harder and more often for them and they would have been more comfortable on grass, I am sure.

 

[Billie]

Clay's the one no one can argue is different. But to counteract that, they basically pretend it's not really a surface that counts. Or essentially to counteract Nadal. B-)

Don't worry, I am sure there can be an argument about clay as well.

 

[Moxie]

It's possible but it's not that simple. My theory is that it is easier for the best player in the world to be extremely dominant in the current era because of the homogenization, but it's not easier to be the best player in the world if that makes sense. Being the best is maybe tougher than ever but it has a greater reward now because being the best on one surface means you're probably the best on at least one other one since it is so much easier to adjust from surface to surface.

Twisted, I think you're living up to your handle, here. Are you saying that, for example, unlike Pete, who was shite on clay, the top players now do well to extremely well on all surfaces, though, other good players do, too? If so, I get you. Also, perhaps, specialization has become a bit of a thing of the past. Clay-courters are not contented to be just dirt ballers, and are translating skills to slower HCs, at a minimum. If there is an upside to homogenization, perhaps it is that players are encouraged to make their games more well-rounded.

 

[Moxie]

@Billie: We posted at the same time, and had a lot of the same ideas. It's not just the elite players that are more dangerous across surfaces...it seems everyone is, to a lesser extent. But they're not writing themselves off as surface-specialists.

 

[DarthFed]

How can it be easy to switch from hard courts to clay to a couple of weeks on grass? Sorry but your statement doesn't make sense at all. The surfaces are the same for everybody and they adopt. Now everybody can play at least decently on clay and hard courts because they train on these and play a lot. And they mentally commit to the longer rallies that clay demands. Hard court tournaments are half of the season, that is the choice of governing body of professional tennis. So they mostly train on these courts. There is also enough of clay courts, enough for players to train on them and have success on them. Why is it today's players fault that people in the past didn't want to bother with clay if they were good only on fast courts? Or didn't bother going to Australia to play that slam that wasn't as popular as today?

On the contrary, it is harder now because the technology allows a lot of players, who want to train hard, to achieve decent results on almost every surface that is being used today. Before you had more specialists on specific surfaces, but now everybody trains to play well on every one of them. Some more successfully than others, but nevertheless. Some of the Spanish or South American players, who are considered clay court specialists, might have won more on clay in the 90s than what they are winning now.

Grass is the only surface that suffered the modernization of tennis game, going from 3 majors on that surface to only 1 and only about 1 month of grass season. If there were more tournaments on grass, players would have trained harder and more often for them and they would have been more comfortable on grass, I am sure.

The word I used was "easier" since we are comparing now to the way things used to be. And yes it absolutely is easier to adapt to clay today when the hardcourts preceding it are slower and higher bouncing than they used to be. Adapting to grass, particularly at Wimbledon, is significantly easier too after clay because again it is way slower and higher bouncing than it used to be.

And one factor is that due to racquet technology and the slowing of the surfaces practically everyone plays from the baseline regardless of surface. That is why players that would've been clay court specialists in the 90's can now play on everything.

 

[DarthFed]

I would invite you to revisit the 2008 draw. And how chewed up the grass was by the final. And how much Roger was bothered by Rafa's game. It's tempting to speak in generalities, but there are specificities of that time, and I think you're wrong about the 2008 outcome.

Roger was bothered by Rafa's game on the modern grass which was bouncing much slower and higher than before due to the surface change and Wimbledon using a heavier ball. Roger has had a lot of retarded losses to Rafa but him losing a hypothetical match on pre-2000's grass would've taken the cake, and that's if Rafa would've even made the final.