Written by Mihir Raddi
Illustrated by Anonymous
When the layman sees tennis court surfaces, they only see colour — Wimbledon is a grassy green, Roland-Garros a sandy red, Australia and America a slightly boring blue. The more seasoned tennis fan, of course, sees past these aesthetics. To them, each surface poses its own unique challenge and adds its own flavour to the game. Grass is fast and slippery, making the ball bounce low. Clay is slower, with balls bouncing higher and retaining more spin — completing its martian look with seemingly martian gravity. Hard courts tend to lie somewhere in the middle. Great tennis players might master one surface in their lifetime. They may even win a major on one. Only the very greatest will conquer them all.
When the cynic views tennis surfaces, however, they do not share the fans’ romantic view. Instead, they see an array of surfaces that have over the last few decades been increasingly homogenised by the tennis overlords in order to produce longer matches and favour the same set of players, steadily stripping the sport of any diversity in style. It’s a viewpoint that’s gained some prominent advocates in recent years, including Roger Federer and Alexander Zverev. But is there any merit to what they’re saying? And, should anybody really care?
To answer this, it might help to look at the overall trajectory of tennis courts, starting from their origin. Tennis began as a game played by monks on indoor wooden floors. Eventually, the sport was adopted by players who went outside, and they would soon discover the merits of playing on grass, christening it “lawn tennis”. This would quickly become the most popular way of playing. Clay courts were the next to be invented, offering several advantages over grass. Clay was cheaper, lasted longer, required less maintenance, and killed knees more slowly. It was also a very interesting colour.
Sometime in the mid-20th century, when the world realised that plastic was good for virtually everything, acrylic hardcourts entered use. These quickly exploded in popularity, being the cheapest and easiest to maintain of the lot. In the 80s, the invention of the carpet surface (the fastest and lowest bouncing of them all), allowed for indoor tournaments. By the end of the century, the professional tour had a good mix of the four surface types with further variations in each category, such as the composition of grass and manufacturer of hard court. Hard courts’ popularity had even filtered through to the majors, with two grand slams featuring them.
Since the early 2000s, though, the tournament calendar has seen a series of high-profile changes to surfaces. In 2001, the composition of Wimbledon’s grass was changed to a more durable variety, which has led to slower, higher-bouncing shots. Similarly, the hardcourt brand used by the Australian Open has changed to promote slower shots. Injury-related reasons led to carpet courts being entirely killed off by 2009. Clay and hardcourt now represent the vast majority of tournaments being played.
The change in surfaces has also affected the dominant playstyle. Ubiquitous in the prior decades, serve-and-volley tennis has nearly vanished in favour of a more defensive baseline style. We now see much longer rallies, ending in error more often than in the past. It makes sense that Roger Federer dislikes the slowing down of courts, as they hinder his favoured attacking style of tennis.
But surface homogenisation isn’t the only reason for the great tennis style shift. Players are fitter, racquets are lighter and more powerful, and balls are fluffier and therefore slower. All of these changes have made baseline play more viable; serves are returned at far greater speeds than they once were.
Furthermore, quite a few different parties benefit from the homogenisation of surfaces. Firstly, players benefit as their tournament training becomes less varied throughout a year — it’s easier to adapt to the next surface on the calendar if they’re all somewhat similar. Given the physical demands of the modern game, surface homogenisation provides a pretty large boost to player welfare.
From the perspective of tennis associations and tournament organisers, the longer rallies provided by slower, homogenised courts mean that matches last significantly longer. When there are more minutes on offer, the price of broadcasting rights can be increased. Additionally, tennis finals are easier to market when they feature big tennis stars. Tennis stars are only made by winning many tennis finals. Therefore, having the same players in the running at all four Grand Slams allows for better publicity, compared to if single surface specialists dominated these tournaments.
At the end of the day, surface homogenisation is neither insignificant nor a crisis. The factors shaping the way tennis is played extend far beyond just the surfaces of the courts, and decrying the way the game has evolved over the last few decades as some sort of capitalistic conspiracy to rig the game in favour of big baseliners would be meritless, fruitless, and ultimately pointless. But even if the evolution of the game is natural, it can be critiqued. The homogenisation of court surfaces does lead to tennis losing some of its flavour and unpredictability, and the sport is richer when a variety of playstyles are feasible.
