Why is it so difficult to be successful on both clay and grass?

Question

other than bjorn borg, no other player has the dominain performance on both clay and grass (6 french, 5 wimbledon),

all other tennis greats, include Pete, Roger and Rafa can only do "either or"? Whay is that? what is your take on this?

or, i guess the better question is: what Borg do it the others can't?

P.S. I do aware Agassi has a personal slam, however, it is a span of long career.

Answer 1

yep.......what robert said.

Answer 2

If winning on the surface is how you measure success, it will be hard.  There are other factors than just the surface to win on the court.  But I think Nadal has had success.  For someone who grew up on clay and IS the king of clay, he's done very well and has had better success than those labeled to be all court players.  For a clay courter to beat every heavy hitters and make it to the finals on grass twice, I think that's a very good success.  He would have won last year too if his knees didn't bother him towards the end.  He actually was ahead of Federer and about to close him out....but things happen.

Answer 3

"all other tennis greats....either or"

I disagree with that...

Keep in mind that Federer is the runner up to Nadal for the past 2 years at the French Open whereas Nadal is the runner up to Federer for the past 2 years at Wimbledon.  This shows that Roger and Rafa are capable of winning on both surfaces.

Also, Wimbledon courts are slowing down for the past couple of years and are not the fastest courts anymore...they need to speed the courts up!!!

Answer 4

Theyre total opposites. Ones a fast court and the other is a slow court. Most players have certain styles of play that fit certain courts and players have to work on their versatility to be able to be good on both. And Roger can play on clay but not as good as it takes to win the french so hes working on it. And its the same with Rafa. Hes great on clay and hes getting better on grass so he can win on a fast court too.

Answer 5

Because of the different speeds, like everyone else said. I just wanna say tho that if Rafa was not around Fed would have won alot of Roland Garross, and similary, if Fed wasn't around Rafa would have won a few Wimbledons too. People don't realise how good their game is on the other surface, its just that Fed is prob best player ever and Rafa is one of the greatest clay courters ever. So bad luck for them... but great viewing for us :)

Answer 6

It was  never a problem for the women at the top, don't know why the guys have such a problem with it !!!!

Answer 7

Clay tends to be dominated by players who are defensive, play from the baseline, and hit long strokes with a lot of topspin.  Grass suits the more aggressive-minded all-court players with shorter strokes and can attack the net.  Very few players these days can make the necessary adjustments to excel on both surfaces.

Answer 8

You go from the slowest surface to the fastest surface in one week.  No other sport has you change surfaces like that.  They are complete opposites.  Only the greats can be highly successful on all types of surfaces.

Answer 9

hm... i thought that cement/hard courts are the fastest...

Answer 10

Pete never made it to the finals, so you can't lump him in with the great Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal.  Pete was a one trick pony, primarily.

Agassi, too, did it, even if its over a span of a career, it's still impressive. Only a couple of people had a Golden Slam, so Andre Agassi gets all the kudos he deserves.  VERY few have one each Slam, so again, he gets very high marks for doing that.  People give Pete WAY too much credit. So what, he wracked up a bunch of trophies from mostly wimbledon. Now that grass is slowed down, he wouldn't be able to compete in todays' game.