1. #71
    RogueJuror's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-08-08
    Posts: 10,010

    come on nobody should knock crazy L cause of his loses, im sure he still got much to learn


  2. #72
    WileOut's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-04-07
    Posts: 3,846
    Betpoints: 54

    Here is another source on court speed. Break percentage is a direct correlation to court speed.


    As for the loss, its way too small a sample size to say whether crazy is a good tennis capper or not. Keep up the capping crazyl. You are a very knowledgeable tennis capper from what I have read.

  3. #73
    HeeeHAWWWW's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-13-08
    Posts: 5,487
    Betpoints: 570

    The problem with most court speed measurements attempts imo (games/set is my favourite) is that grass in unique - most of the field is clueless on it, so the stats get very badly distorted.

    Other than Federer, Nadal and Roddick, most of them struggle to judge the bounce and find their footing. Ferrer is poor, Davydenko is awful - these guys are amazing returners, terrific top players, yet they just don't understand the surface. Gasquet is comfortable on it, but that's basically it. Blake useless, Wawrinka mediocre, etc etc. You start having to look way down the rankings to people like Lopez and Mahut to find comfortable grass courters. Even old fools like Scheuttler and Bjorkman can reach the semis every so often, simply because they understand the surface, and most of their opponents don't.

    Of course, the fact there's only one slam and no masters on grass means it's just not worth learning about. It's not like clay or hard, where you have a gigantic number of players who've grown up on the surface, and lots of points/money to be gained by specialising. To my mind Queens really should be a masters.

    Anyway, if I can find it I'll try dig out a recording of Hawkeye stats they did at Queens. They did a mass averaging, and the US Open basically worked out about the same speed/bounce as Wimbledon. Queens was way faster than both.

    You can see some of this in the results over the years. In particular, Karlovic is deadly at Queens and Nottingham, but every year he goes out in the first round at Wimbledon to a nobody, because his serves just have no speed off the turf. Ditto Roddick, whose serve wins Queens for him mulitple times, but not Wimbledon - ten years ago he'd have been cleaning up there (if rubbish like Krajicek can win Wimbledon.....).

    Or look at the 2001 final: Ivanisevic vs Rafter, two blazing servers, good volleys. Then they changed the courts, and 2002 was Hewitt vs Nalbandian, two baseliners. There hasn't been a serve/volleyer doing well at Wimbledon since - in 2004 Henman went as far as saying he'd played faster clay courts that year (not entirely believable, unless he'd been playing fast clay at altitude like Gstaad or Bogota).

First 123