The respective merits of the different surfaces in tennis, particularly clay and grass, is always a contentious issue. The contrast between these two is always highlighted because the professional touring circuits head straight from the clay court demands of the French Open at Roland Garros to the British grass court season. There could not, in fact, be a greater contrast.

Clay offers a high bounce and a slower version of the game, as well as the ability to slide and skid in pursuit of the ball. Clay needs only a mat pulled across it to wipe it clean and as an artificial surface it is more resilient to the vagaries of climate and weather extremes. As for grass, it is much easier on the eye for a start, as well as being an altogether faster surface with a lower bounce. It also tends to wear under the onslaught of the shoes and the shots of well-built athletes.

Clay is more user-friendly in poor weather since it is feasible for play to continue in damp or drizzle. It will even survive the occasional drastic method of drying it out, such as setting fire to the court. In further contrast, it also benefits from watering between sets.

Roland Garros has always been famous for its red clay, but the other three Grand Slams were once played on grass. The US Open dug up its turf in 1975, while the Australian Open abandoned grass when the move was made from Kooyong to the new national tennis centre in Melbourne Park in 1987. Now the professional season for grass in Britain is, in essence, no more than a month, with other pre-Wimbledon tournaments taking place in Germany and Holland.

The siren call of doom merchants - or realists as they prefer to be termed - that grass is an anachronism is not a new thing by any means. As long ago as 1982, under a headline The End Is Nigh, British Davis Cup player and number one Buster Mottram predicted. "It is inevitable that grass will eventually disappear." Former British Davis Cup player and captain David Lloyd was urging Wimbledon, ten years after Mottram's outburst, that the problem of grass needed to be addressed if Wimbledon was to retain its leading place in the sport.

The lack of tournaments on grass compared to 30 years ago has led to more specialisation among players and the decline of serve and volleyers to whom the surface is meat and drink. Once the people able to win Grand Slams on clay and grass were plentiful - names like John Newcombe, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova spring to mind, as well as that of Fred Perry - but in recent years the only man to have consistently overcome the demands of Roland Garros and Wimbledon within the space of a month was Bjorn Borg, and his career ended in burn-out at the age of 26.

The inability of grass to recover quickly, without the aid of warm-air machines, from even a slight shower has led to a call for a roof to be erected over Centre Court, as well as the new Number One court. These calls were resisted by the All England Club, though the then chairman, John Curry, did concede in 1993, when building plans for the new Number One were going forward, that a switch from grass had been considered before being rejected.

It may one day transpire that a suitably good-looking and effective surface of artificial grass will replace the lovely turf of Wimbledon, or that another surface suitable for every tennis court in the world will be developed and adopted. Until then, as the French would have it, vive le différence.