Out of 70 tournaments on the tennis tour only five of them are played on grass. Three of those tournaments are held in Britain and the other two are held in Germany and Holland.

The history of tennis should really dictate which surface is the most dominant, shouldn't it? Unfortunately, that's not the case - and it has been like this for many, many years.

Wimbledon is unique, and it's not just because it is the tennis equivalent of the Holy Grail. Most players who find themselves on the hallowed turf at SW19 have never played a competitive match on the green surface. When Jan Kodes won Wimbledon in 1973, the Czech was presented with a grass court when he triumphantly returned home. It was the first such surface to be in place in his own country.

When tennis was invented in the 19th century it was a form of garden-party activity that was not too demanding yet fun. A genteel sport to be enjoyed on a long summer's day. How things have changed!

It has been debated endlessly over the years whether grass-court tennis should simply be ended. In typically British fashion, the inventors of the grass-court game were the same people who created the surface that would eventually take over and supercede grass. English Brothers Willie and Ernest Renshaw were playing in Cannes, where the grass courts would wear down quickly due to the weather, so they decided to break up and crush terracotta pots to make what became clay courts.

Nowadays, two of the three Grand Slams that were originally played on grass - the Australian and US Opens - are of course played on hard courts. It is only a minute percentage of tennis players that train and are basically brought up on grass. Technology, surely, would be able to find a way making sure that grass-court surfaces were sustainable not just in northern Europe. It can't be that difficult!

It has taken Rafael Nadal a comparatively short time to adapt his game to grass when all he had ever played on as a child was clay and hard courts. Is it too difficult to change now? No, but whether players would be in favour of it we don't know yet. It would be a shame if Wimbledon eventually became the only tournament in the world to remind us of where this game originated. Talk about grass roots!

It cannot be argued that grass-court tennis is boring. For a while, the strong serve and volley players were powering their way to titles, but the unique battle between serve and volleyers and the baseline exponents is fascinating. It also depends on demand. Would tennis fans go to watch more tournaments if they were presented on grass? I think they would.

Wimbledon will never change - and that is a good thing - but going back and trying to reintroduce a game that many see as outdated is going to be difficult. I have used the word ''unique'' and perhaps the likes of Queens before Wimbledon only exist because of Wimbledon. It kind of makes sure that these tornaments are safe because not many players with genuine aspirations of winning Wimbledon would like to go into the tornament having not warmed up beforehand to adapt to the differences.

I personally would like to see more grass-court tournaments, but I do not think that it will happen and Wimbledon will remain what it is - a historical reminder of where this great game came from and, ultimately, still the one everyone wants to win.