I think it's to make matches go longer. There's been an effort to make the courts around the world slower and more similar since the early-mid 2000's. Federer says for the first few years he was on the tour there were lots of different types of courts and now it's very similar everywhere you go.

Hence why Nadal and Novak were whinging about blue clay while Federer just got on with it.

yes, but it seems to me that Federer possibly benefited from the changes in courts as much as anybody

from late 1990s to early 2000s, French open winners were guys like Kuerten, Ferrero, Albert Costa, Gaudio - guys you wouldn't back on grass at all.
Wimbledon winners were guys like Sampras, Ivanesivic, Hewitt - guys you wouldn't back on clay at all.

The 90s were even more diverged. Only Agassi had a shot at both Wimbledon and French - and he was far from first favorite at either. Sampras flopped on clay, Muster, Brugera, Emilio Sanchez et. al. flopped on grass.

Fed himself is the one who came along and changed it all. Round about the time he came up, Jimmy Connors said (paraphrasing), "these days, your either a grass court player, a clay court player, a hard court player or you're Roger Federer"

Was Fed the great unifier because he was just that good? Or was it because the pace of the courts made it easier for someone to be that versatile? Some combo of both? I don't know.

I do know that Fed's game is a hell of a lot more aggressive than anyone else I've seen who's had his level of success on clay (if we say Nadal is probably the greatest clay courter ever, Fed could, theoretically be as high as second greatest ever). Did clay change to allow this? Or is Fed special?

Similarly, Djoko and Nadal coming up has made Fed look a little less special because they're also very versatile. Is it the convergence of courts that allowed this to happen? Or are Djoko and Nadal that good?

I don't know for sure - what does everyone think?

It's all in the courts becoming so similar. Federer has benefited to some extent as well for sure, but he's had to change his game to be dominant. Watch his 2001 victory at Wimbledon against Sampras (his breakthrough match)...he serves and volley's off pretty much every first serve, and maybe half of his 2nd serves.

Fast forward a few years to when he was winning his titles and he was coming in less and then to the last few years where he's coming in hardly at all. That's because Wimbledon has become slow and higher bouncing. Like every other court. Nadal has benefited from this enormously...though to be fair I think he would have been a good grass courter in any era because his volley is very good and his movement on grass is excellent. Not sure if he would have won any wimbledon titles though. But now even Djokovic...who in my opinion is not a good traditional grass court player (average volley, not a great slice, doesn't move as well on grass as he does on other surfaces etc) has won a title pretty easily.

Look at Nadal's record on indoor courts where he only plays once or twice a year, but are really the only exposure he gets to low bouncing, faster courts. It's terrible. Worse than Sampras on clay. He's a reasonably versatile player but he's not in the same league of versatility as Federer and neither is Djokovic. It's just those 2 are so good on the typical courts that you get in 99% of tournaments at the moment. Federer is obviously excellent on these courts as well, but not as good as he is on faster, low bouncing courts.

you're underrating rosewall, he owned clay for almost 20 years.

Federer is no where near the 2nd greatest clay courter of all time.

He's a very good clay courter, but there are quite a few ahead of him. Nadal, Borg, Rosewall, Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl etc. I think Federer would be maybe top 15 or so. Maybe top lower top 10.

Could somebody please explain the nuances of clay court tennis?

I understand its slower/ higher bouncing, thus discourages serve volleying, and base liners do well.

But not all baseliners. What are the nuances that make the top clay courters top clay courters?

Is it "not making mistakes" based baseline play, as opposed to "attacking" baseline play that makes the difference? I'd think Hewitt would have done better then.

What was it about Jim Courier's game that made him so much better than Andre Agassi on clay?

Initially Agassi seemed better suited to clay than grass, but that seemed to change over time. Why was this?

Any answers would be appreciated.

Some people don't move well on clay (Andy Roddick is the most extreme example of this I can think of...he says whenever he plays on clay he feels like he's just shuffling around).

Most of all though, it's the slow and high bounce and the fact it is so responsive to spin. Hewitt didn't do so well on clay because he was a counter puncher more than anything. He likes the ball coming onto him and using that pace against his opponent. He also hits the ball pretty flat and was never a grinder. He's also the sort of player that liked a target which you don't get on clay. Same with Agassi but to a lesser extent as obviously Agassi did a lot better on clay.

Hard to say why Courier has had more success on clay than Agassi. It's such a mental game that it might simply come down to Courier feeling more comfortable on clay than Agassi did. Maybe he played on it a lot more growing up.

courier has to be one of the worst players to win multiple slams/reach number 1, technically at least. his service action was hilarious. had some truly amazing encounters with sampras too

MC,

thanks

That court in London is really strange. I heard the commentators saying it was one of the slowest hard courts they've ever seen, one said it was slower than typical clay.

But the bounce is low. (Don't even know how that's possible)

Makes sense though in explaining Nadal's problems there. He hits the ball very hard, much harder than Federer, whose weapon is more placement. On the slow court, Nadal can't generate that kind of power.

With the low bounce, he can't make the ball get up with his vicious top spin to make even routine groundstrokes a little more troublesome for his opponent.

Its perfect for Fed. Placement makes life hard regardless of pace, and the vulnerability of his one handed back hand is negated by the low bounce, leaving just the extra reach and scope to create angles on that wing.

Well, you can break down the ball's trajectory after it bounces into two vectors: There's the vertical component, and then there's the horizontal component. Some courts slow the ball horizontally while still allowing for a high bounce - and these tend to be Nadal's favorite courts (Monte-Carlo, Roland Garros). But other courts have lower bounces while still slowing the ball horizontally. Hamburg was a great example of this. Slow as molasses, but not high bouncing. Probably why Federer did so well there. The Australian court is similar in this regard, as is the WTF court. Whereas a court like Miami is obviously higher bouncing.

The Australian Open plexicushion court is high bouncing as well. The old rebound ace surface (replaced a few years ago...can't remember exactly what year), was a little different.

And yes, Nadal hates low bounce more than anything else. If it's fast and high bouncing he's still dominant against most players. That said, I think if there were more low bouncing courts on the circuit he'd have adapted his game to it.

Yeah, I guess the Australian isn't low bouncing, but it's lower than Rebound Ace was. That surface was strange, though. Got all soft and sticky in the Australian heat, apparently.

2:41
"when i buy fruit..."

5:59