And here you ignored the messenger

Moderator: Moderators
Last week one of my stops was Barcelona , and the Melia Hotel which I was staying was attached to the David Llyod Tennis centre and with its 16 clay courts had the privilege to play and experience Red Clay for the First time in my life.prasen9 wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2024 10:47 amTo me, this is not a surprise. However much I love to watch volleys, volleys do not win games that much. It was the serve that dominated in the grass court game. That is, players who were naturally strong and hit the weight room were extremely difficult to defeat. If you don't have a great serve, you have no chance on a grass court. On the other hand, on clay, it gives the slightly weaker player a chance if they can return the ball well. Players thought of that as more of a skill that could be developed than a great serve. Wrt a serve, there is skill too but strength matters a lot. And, it is harder to develop. The counter-example, of course, is that Nadal was near undefeatable on clay whereas many people won Wimbledon. But, I am talking of perception.Omkara wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 1:59 am Yes. Surprisingly clay, which is at the other end of the spectrum slowing everything down, has done well.
From a spectators point of view, they love watching more rallies than aces that finish fast.
Also, I think grass courts take a lot more to maintain. At least, it needs watering, etc. Clay courts do not need that much water. That means it can be built anywhere and needs lower maintenance. So, a bit of practicality wrt costs, etc.
This is what I think is why clay became more popular. But, I have not researched it well enough. From anecdotes and talking to some tennis people ...
You serve at 180 kph? Whoa...Rajiv wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:22 am Even my serve which according to Ram is in the 170-180 kmph range , simply anchored to surface and just slowed down compared to to zip obtained on HC or Grass.