ATP Grass season 2017-w/c 15/7 Newport HOF

[prasen9]

I think this is partly because he does appear to have the fitness or nutrition habits of a top-100 professional.

You mean he does *not* have the fitness?

[Sin Hombre]

Agree w/arjun regarding matchup issues.

As brought up before the match, he has a poor record against Fabbiano.

[prasen9]

Am I alone or does anyone else feel the withdrawal after the clay court season is over? I love watching clay court tennis because you never know how the point will end. There are usually scintillating rallies at the French Open with huge shots and unbelievable retrievals. Then, we come to grass court and people with big serves are using their muscles to get easy points. No significant rallies. I sort of feel withdrawal symptoms. I love to see great volleying, but, these quick games especially going with the serve is not that interesting. Maybe it is because the FO finals have the best players and then we are seeing the lower ranked players at these tournaments and that is why I am not satisfied watching tennis matches now. Maybe it will get better come Wimbledon. But, on the whole, I seem to enjoy watching more clay court tennis and hard-court tennis than grass. Does anyone else feel that way?

[PKBasu]

I feel quite the opposite. Clay court tennis is quite boring, being nothing more than ball bashing.

[Rajiv]

Use to think similarly before , and Victories by Borg , Guliermo Vilas , Wilander , Lendl & Co were downright boring and ball bashing , but now seeing Grass Court tennis , Clay looks much better than grass .
The playing area near the net looks pristine untouched , even after two weeks of play at Wimbledon and even at the present grass courts Challengers the grass near the net looks as green as ever after many rounds of matches.
All what the players now are doing is , basically slugging from the base line ,similar to clay , and trying to adjust to the bounce and alien surface and in the process fumbling with none of them approaching the net where as 10-15 years ago the area near the net resembled the surface at the baseline and it use to be complete worn out with players making regular forays to the net.
So the complete essence of Grass Court Tennis is lost and makes watching Clay court tennis much more interesting.

[prasen9]

I feel quite the opposite. Clay court tennis is quite boring, being nothing more than ball bashing.

The ball bashers are actually people like Raonic, Becker, Ivanesivic, etc. who bash the ball while serving which either results in a point or results in the returner almost always being at a disadvantage. These musclemen can hardly be defeated. Another way to look at it is this, on clay, there are more breaks than on grass. So, there is more uncertainty in clay court tennis, which inherently makes it less boring. The more surprising something is the less boring, imho. I think clay courts give a chance to the returner to actually diffuse the advantage of the ball bashers. Grass courts do not give you that chance.

If you watch the finals between Nadal and Wawrinka, there were several forays to the net, volleying, and jockeying for space. In some of the forays, the returner won by playing a passing shot. In others, they did not. In grass court tennis, if you have a big serve and you approach the net, the other person is pretty much a spectator. Not much of a chance to get a point. That said, the only part of grass court tennis I love is the volleying. I hate the aces unless it is a smartly crafted one such as at the person's body, etc. Exquisite volleying and aggressive tennis is great to watch. But, as Rajiv said, very few people are actually great volleyers today. Most of the people who are winning are the ones who have big serve. Or at least that is my opinion. I may be wrong. I used to be a fan of Stefan Edberg.

I understand what is boring and what is interesting depends upon people's likes and dislikes. Hence, I know and respect that there are and will be different opinions.

[sameerph]

But, there is some amount of boredom in watching clay court stuff with long rallies and an attacking player not able to win the points as the ball keeps getting retrieved. Not so much when you watch Nadal vs. Wawrinka but at a lower level it gets somewhat boring.

I like hard courts the best as the serve is not as much a decisive factor as on grass and the attacking player too get the worth for their shotmaking.

[punarayan]

Yuki is just not nimble enough for grass and without a big serve, it's curtains. Clay was boring, but with the modern rackets, its gotten more dimensions. Slowing the courts down has let the baseliners prevail, but there have been some occasions recently where the hard courts have played faster and allowed more volleying and the ability to hit winners has helped. Faster hard courts would be my preference. Grass court tennis a few decades ago was the best.

[Prashant]

For me, both clay & grass are fun to watch only if you are watching really good exponents on that surface. Hard court is the most equalizing, where more good rallies can happen even between lower ranked players. I think this is because the vast majority of today's players are more comfortable on hard courts than on anything else.

[prasen9]

Sameer true. I was talking about what they show on the Tennis Channel here in the U.S. It is mostly ATP tournaments and that too they pick the matches that went 3 sets and 5 sets and hence were contested hard. I did feel a bit bored at the first few rounds of the smaller tournaments now that I think about it.

Yes, hard courts provide the best balance.

[Sin Hombre]

Leaving aside individual preferences, it is a factually incorrect to say clay tennis is ball bashing. The slowest surface by definition cannot be that.

[prasen9]

The slowest surface gives the most chance to the receiver of a bashed ball and that is why we have longer rallies. My major problem is with the huge part the serve plays on grass courts. Maybe they should make the service box smaller by moving up the line, i.e., give the server a smaller area to serve, which would prevent the brute force serves that cannot be replied. I like watching attacking tennis and volleys. That is not the problem. Or maybe, on grass, you do not have two serves but make it one. Of course, none of this will happen. But, I think something should be done to the runaway servers to make it a bit more interesting. Of course, that is my individual preference and others will have different preferences.

[PKBasu]

The really big servers like Roscoe Tanner and Ivo Karlovic never actually won the big tournaments -- because the really good players still figured out how to return their serves. I think serve-and-volley tennis is both more interesting to watch and play; going in behind your serve always involves some risk, and being able to volley a well-placed service return requires skill and reflexes that are becoming all too rare in modern tennis.

[prasen9]

going in behind your serve always involves some risk, and being able to volley a well-placed service return requires skill and reflexes that are becoming all too rare in modern tennis.

Fully agree with this.

I was thinking of Goran Ivanisevic.

[S_K_S]

Watched Ankita beat Katie Dunn 7-6, 6-4 in R1 of Qualies at the Aegon Classic. Close match but well played by Ankita. Really solid ground strokes. Serve could be better but has good placement.

R1 A.RAINA IND def K.DUNNEGBR 7-6(6), 6-4
http://matchcentre.lta.org.uk/classic-q ... ?mid=RS103

R2 A.RAINA IND v T SMITKOVA CZE(6) 11am on Sunday