PDA

View Full Version : Nadal will win Wimbledon


NoBadMojo
06-11-2007, 01:44 PM
I believe Nadal will win W this year and not face Fed in the finals. Nadal made it to the finals last year and it took 4 sets for Fed to beat him and one of the sets Nadal lost I believe was a tiebreaker set. Obviously Nadal has momentum. The ball bounces higher and truer at W these days which better supports the low risk baseline grinding and Fed can do lots of UE's and such....look for some other grinder to take out Fed earlier on and for Nadal to win it all. I'll be rooting for Fed, but I think people know how to beat him more now and he does too many UE's, misshits, frame balls etc which he can no longer get away with. The way to beat him is to make him hit a ton of balls....low risk tennis is the name of the game unfortunately these days.......
Nadal in the FO Final.....28UE's with 1/2 of them being in the first set.
Fed with 60 UE's and countless misshits and frameballs allowing Nadal to gain control of the points or hit outright winners. This on a perfect day for tennis with hardly any wind and I believe the Center Court at the FO to be in a pristine sort of condition..i realize Nadal directed lots of high bounders to the Fed backhand at the FO

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Grass is still grass and the ball still stays low.We will see how the grass plays out in the beginning.Federer takes wimbledon very serious, if he loses, it will be because someone was in the zone like Krajicek and i dont know if anyone can do that.

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Not going to happen. I hope he does though but a long shot.

edberg505
06-11-2007, 01:48 PM
Another one of these threads? Are you kidding? I wonder how many more will we see before the week is over.

SideSpinPDR
06-11-2007, 01:51 PM
Another one of these threads? Are you kidding? I wonder how many more will we see before the week is over.

Tons and tons more, but I hope Nadal wins Wimby, that'd be awesome. That being said, I think I'll put it in the signature.

SamaRafa
06-11-2007, 02:09 PM
Im with you mate Rafa 4 Wimby !!

r2473
06-11-2007, 02:11 PM
Fed is washed up. I heard that the local baker bageled him today. I doubt if he ever wins another set. Borg was encouraging him to retire (too old already).

drakulie
06-11-2007, 02:36 PM
I think people know how to beat him more now and he does too many UE's, misshits, frame balls etc which he can no longer get away with.

So let me get this straight. He was getting away with this before, but now he is not???


Nadal in the FO Final.....28UE's with 1/2 of them being in the first set.
Fed with 60 UE's and countless misshits and frameballs allowing Nadal to gain control of the points or hit outright winners.

How do you account for the fact that Fed hit more winners than Nadal? Does that mean Nadal had MORE "mishits" and "framed balls" than Fed allowing him to take over the point and hit outright winners?


Anyway, I agree Nadal will get to the finals for a second straight year, and Fed may be due for an upset.

NoBadMojo
06-11-2007, 02:39 PM
Grass is still grass and the ball still stays low..

ya think eh? wasnt so at the last couple W's.

Another one of these threads? Are you kidding? I wonder how many more will we see before the week is over.

nice contribution..why dont you post a list of things you allow people to discuss?

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 02:42 PM
Nadal will definitely lose in the quarters of Wimbledon or sooner this year. You can quote me on that. Federer will win Wimbledon dropping no more then 1 set again.

onkystomper
06-11-2007, 02:46 PM
no he won't

BreakPoint
06-11-2007, 02:59 PM
Nah...I think Robert Kendrick will take out Nadal in the first round. ;) LOL

edberg505
06-11-2007, 03:00 PM
ya think eh? wasnt so at the last couple W's.



nice contribution..why dont you post a list of things you allow people to discuss?

Hey, I don't have a problem with you discussing it. It's just that a thread identical to this one was put up yesterday.

FiveO
06-11-2007, 03:08 PM
Grass is still grass and the ball still stays low.We will see how the grass plays out in the beginning.Federer takes wimbledon very serious, if he loses, it will be because someone was in the zone like Krajicek and i dont know if anyone can do that.

Yeah, uh no, not when groundies, not just those from Nadal, are bouncing up to chest height which was what has been happening for the past couple of years.

When grass was grass, taking a lob off the bounce a player had doubts that the bounce would be high enough to hit an overhead off of.

It isn't just the grass change to rye. Whether it was by design, or whether in quest the "more uniform" playing surface by rolling it, combined with any dry spell the ground under that grass is more clay-like in its firmness. IOW its now nearly as hard as concrete under that thin layer of green. Result=much higher bounces than ever.

BigServer1
06-11-2007, 03:12 PM
ya think eh? wasnt so at the last couple W's.

That's true, but who won those last couple Wimbledons? As for last years final, Rafa got bageled in the first set, and Roger served for the 4th at 5-1, but got broken and won 6-3. There were two close sets in the middle, but it was bookended by absolute dominance.

TennisandMusic
06-11-2007, 03:16 PM
Yeah, uh no, not when groundies, not just those from Nadal, are bouncing up to chest height which was what has been happening for the past couple of years.

When grass was grass, taking a lob off the bounce a player had doubts that the bounce would be high enough to hit an overhead off of.

It isn't just the grass change to rye. Whether it was by design, or whether in quest the "more uniform" playing surface by rolling it, combined with any dry spell the ground under that grass is more clay-like in its firmness. IOW its now nearly as hard as concrete under that thin layer of green. Result=much higher bounces than ever.

I've played at Mission Hills (Roddick said it was as good as any grass court in the world, they played Davis Cup there) and there is no way the bouncing was nearly as high as ANY hard court and the feel of the ground was extremely plush compared to hard court. We played for four hours and could have kept going. Felt fresh as a daisy when we were done.

I'm not saying they are exactly the same as wimbledon's conditions obviously but grass IS still grass.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 03:17 PM
That's true, but who won those last couple Wimbledons? As for last years final, Rafa got bageled in the first set, and Roger served for the 4th at 5-1, but got broken and won 6-3. There were two close sets in the middle, but it was bookended by absolute dominance.

^^^ yeah, he must have been "mishitting and shanking" alot in that final to dominate two sets like that. According to the OP he was "gettting away with it" before. :roll:

TennisandMusic
06-11-2007, 03:17 PM
That's true, but who won those last couple Wimbledons? As for last years final, Rafa got bageled in the first set, and Roger served for the 4th at 5-1, but got broken and won 6-3. There were two close sets in the middle, but it was bookended by absolute dominance.

Nadal should have won the second set. He choked that one away. Assume he comes out not nearly as nervous. What then? Federer is obviously the huge favorite but Nadal is not incapable.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 03:18 PM
Federer played his worst tennis, his worst ever match with Nadal including all their clay court matches too, in last years Wimbledon final and still easily beat Nadal playing his best. If Nadal cant beat Federer playing like that he never will on grass.

Noveson
06-11-2007, 03:21 PM
Federer played his worst tennis, his worst ever match with Nadal including all their clay court matches too, in last years Wimbledon final and still easily beat Nadal playing his best. If Nadal cant beat Federer playing like that he never will on grass.

:lol: So he was playing worse on his favorite surface, than when he got killed on his worst surface? I don't think so.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 03:21 PM
That's true, but who won those last couple Wimbledons? As for last years final, Rafa got bageled in the first set, and Roger served for the 4th at 5-1, but got broken and won 6-3. There were two close sets in the middle, but it was bookended by absolute dominance.

Exactly. Roger played his 2nd crappiest match of the last 2 years, only behind his match with Murray in Cincinnati, and still dominated the match basically. There was more pressure on him then any match since Nadal being in the Wimbledon final was such a shock to begin with, and a loss to Nadal at Wimbledon would have been an embarassment at that point. So it explains his horrendous performance. If they played again on grass it would be much more lopsided, although it is extremely unlikely they would ever play on grass again.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 03:22 PM
:lol: So he was playing worse on his favorite surface, than when he got killed on his worst surface? I don't think so.

Yes absolutely. Federer can play pretty well and still maybe lose to Nadal on clay. Federer playing half decent would never lose even a set to Nadal on grass, no matter how Nadal played.

NoBadMojo
06-11-2007, 03:40 PM
Yeah, uh no, not when groundies, not just those from Nadal, are bouncing up to chest height which was what has been happening for the past couple of years.

When grass was grass, taking a lob off the bounce a player had doubts that the bounce would be high enough to hit an overhead off of.

It isn't just the grass change to rye. Whether it was by design, or whether in quest the "more uniform" playing surface by rolling it, combined with any dry spell the ground under that grass is more clay-like in its firmness. IOW its now nearly as hard as concrete under that thin layer of green. Result=much higher bounces than ever.


Exactly, and this goes back even farther than the last couple of years, and I think started when the Spaniards threatened to boycott W because Wimbledon didnt seed exactly according to the rankings (Translation: The Spaniards didnt know how to play on grass). so now the ball bounces much higher and uniformly than it used to.

I think this has been very bad for tennis, when the most prestigious tennis event now discourages all court play by setting up the surface so the western grippers can way more easily get under the ball to produce more of the same ole' stuff.

BigServer1
06-11-2007, 03:47 PM
Nadal should have won the second set. He choked that one away. Assume he comes out not nearly as nervous. What then? Federer is obviously the huge favorite but Nadal is not incapable.

Should have and did are two different things. Roger raised his level in that tiebreak when he had to. Roger should have converted match points in Rome 2006 and he should have converted more than 1 out of 17 BPs yesterday, but he didn't. Rafa raised his level when it mattered most, and if you credit Nadal for doing so at RG, you should credit Federer for doing so at Wimbly. Choking is a two way street, and usually a choke is the result of on guy raising his level. I never said that Nadal was incapable, and his play at last years Wimbly proved his ability to adapt. That doesn't change the fact that Fed won in 4 sets, one of which was a bagel, and another that wasn't that close (Fed served for the breadstick, but ended up winning it 6-3).

hoosierbr
06-11-2007, 03:53 PM
The AELTC, in one stroke (pardon the pun), has made it impossible for a Brit to win Wimbledon for the forseeable future by giving into the complaints that clay courters don't have a fair chance at Wimbledon. As if there aren't enough clay tournaments during the year as it is. Lest we forget Bjorn Borg wasn't exactly a grass specialist yet he managed to do just fine at SW19 because he put in the hard work and dedicated himself to learning how to play on grass at a time when the grass at Wimbledon was much quicker and, some have said, the clay at Roland Garros was slower.

BTW, Murray doesn't count. He's Scottish, remember?;)

As for Nadal winning Wimbledon I can't see it happening yet. Last year he got to the final on pure adrenalin. He should have lost in the second round like he did the year before. His second round match could be interesting. However, I've always said that like Sampras I think Fed will fail to match the 5 year mark set by Borg. Think someone like a Karlovic, Guccione maybe a Sam Querrey could pull a Krajicek and take down Roger.

On a side note, I don't agree that Fed's mishits and framing of balls is the biggest reason he's been more vunerable this year. I think, to a certain extent, he's peaked and the other guys are getting closer to him and paying attention to how others have managed to beat him. Fed has always shanked a lot of balls but he's managed to do ok.

fastdunn
06-11-2007, 04:45 PM
Grass is still grass and the ball still stays low.

"lower" than clay. Its bounce got "higher" lately though.

One common factor with clay, though, is that it is an organic bounce.

And by the end of 2nd week, baseline area loses lots of grasses and kinda
become like clay.... and .... everybody plays on the balded red area of the baseline...

tricky
06-11-2007, 04:47 PM
BTW, Wimbledon's using same surface as last year? So same bounce and speed and everything?

Tennis_Monk
06-11-2007, 04:50 PM
Nadal wont cut it this year. However i see some tough challenges for Federer. Given his mental state right now, someone could pick him up in early stages. Once he gets to 2 week, forget it. He will defend his championship.

AAAA
06-11-2007, 04:55 PM
Wimbledon did the right thing by slowing the grass courts down. People were bored stiff by the servefests of the 90s on fast grass and fast indoor courts. Blaming the clay courters is a whine.

FiveO
06-11-2007, 05:35 PM
BTW, Wimbledon's using same surface as last year? So same bounce and speed and everything?

Same surface. Weather will obviously be a contributing factor. Wetter weather things will be slightly lower and slightly quicker, drier and chest high groundies will be seen again.

Wimbledon did the right thing by slowing the grass courts down. People were bored stiff by the servefests of the 90s on fast grass and fast indoor courts. Blaming the clay courters is a whine.

The all-courters and serve and volleyers of the past never threatened to boycott RG....EVER. The whine is one-sided and with a decidedly non-English speaking accent. Make every surface the same medium-medium fast speed no matter their construction or historical demands and watch everyone play identically no matter the venue. Lab rats playing tennis on the same oversized ping-pong table. Or even better 64 first round encounters between Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon on steroids. Yeah, can't you just smell the excitement? Boredom is rarely the result of diversity and contrast it is the result of sameness and homogenization, one need look no further than the WTA save for Henin. Be careful what you wish for.

fastdunn
06-11-2007, 05:49 PM
I'm all for Wimbledon's slowing down their surfaces.

I just think they did it a bit too much.

Maybe 2001 grass was slow enough.

Watching everyone switching from S&V to baseliner from 2003
was a bit too much for me.

I think ATP will try to maintain current condition (tour in general)for a while.
Look what happens now. Great rivarly between Federer and Nadal.
More seedings and more familar players on quarter finals or higher.

This has been successful strateggy from ATP and they will maintain
it for while, IMHO.

However, when people get bored with baseline play, I think they
might change it back a little.

tennis_hand
06-11-2007, 06:06 PM
another troll thread.

AAAA
06-11-2007, 06:10 PM
The all-courters and serve and volleyers of the past never threatened to boycott RG....EVER. The whine is one-sided and with a decidedly non-English speaking accent. Make every surface the same medium-medium fast speed no matter their construction or historical demands and watch everyone play identically no matter the venue. Lab rats playing tennis on the same oversized ping-pong table. Or even better 64 first round encounters between Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon on steroids. Yeah, can't you just smell the excitement? Boredom is rarely the result of diversity and contrast it is the result of sameness and homogenization, one need look no further than the WTA save for Henin. Be careful what you wish for.

Like I said, it's a whine and it's a whine on this message board far more than the actual players were willing to state publicly at the time the changes were made. It's creative history reporting to say a bunch of clay courters forced the AELTC to change the courts just for them. The change was due far more to the way public perception was influenced by the newspapers in England.

On the fast grass courts of the 90s when Sampras and the other big s&v'ers in their prime faced a baseliner there was never any tough calls in my mind about the outcome. Apart from the anomaly of Agassi's lone title, a baseliner was at an inherent and often predictable match losing disadvantage against the top s&v players of the era.

Edit: corrected spelling error

AAAA
06-11-2007, 06:18 PM
I'm all for Wimbledon's slowing down their surfaces.

I just think they did it a bit too much.

Maybe 2001 grass was slow enough.



fastdunn, this must be the first post of yours that I agree with. Given the choice between too fast or too slow I'd pick too slow. It's extremely difficult to get the speed 'right' for any period of time because the variables the players are not always the same and will change more and more as the years go by.

prince
06-11-2007, 06:22 PM
i think nadal will be out no later than the 4th round.

hoosierbr
06-11-2007, 06:27 PM
On the fast grass courts of the 90s when Sampras and the other big s&v'ers in their prime faced a baseliner there was never any tough calls in my mind about the outcome. Apart from the anomaly of Agassi's lone title, a baseliner was at an inherent and often predictable match losing disadvantage against the top s&v players of the era.

The courts were just as fast and not as well kept in the 70's and 80's when Borg won his 5 titles. Don't recall many people calling him an anomaly.

There's no argument that the slowing down of the grass and indoor surfaces has been a huge blow to all-court and serve-and-volleyers making the sport very one-dimensional and a game of fitness, not skill. If that's a whine then just about everyone who knows tennis is a whiner. And if you think tennis better off because of it then fine.

NoBadMojo
06-11-2007, 06:29 PM
another troll thread.

you must be really proud of this contribution

Like I said, it's a whine

On the fast grass courts of the 90s when Sampras and the other big s&v'ers in their prime faced a baseliner there was never any tough calls in my mind about the outcome. Apart from the anomly of Agassi's lone title, a baseliner was at an inherent and often predictable match losing disadvantage against the top s&v players of the era.

right..that's what we're saying...the claycourters whined and threatened boycotting....> courts started bouncing higher..

as to the predictability of the old W, thats not a valid point compared to the predictability of a boring baseliner winning everywhere on tour now..talk about predictable! even fed, who is capable of playing all court style and serve/volley knows that he cant do it with any sort of regularity because of the conditons out there. now i would say he's actually a baseliner with skills. as for Sampras, maybe you dont undersand that he could play from the back court too and that some of us enjoy watching players hit all of the shots rather than some of the shots

excuse those of us wishing for some variety and something/anything other than brain numbing baseline exchanges where all the matches are the same except for the names of the players..maybe we enjoy watching two combatants with contrasting styles a la agassi/sampras etc rather than everyone with the same style. hey if people like their tennis boring, that's fine with me....they should quit whining about those of us who enjoy some variety in their tennis tho....

bagung
06-11-2007, 06:40 PM
nadal is getting used to the grass now than before, so as federer towards clay.
the current tennis world belongs to both of them... we are going to see more finals starring fed vs nadal...
someone to upset fed in the big W before the final? i doubt it, as nobody plays better in grass than fed... last year, he beats everyone in straight sets till the final against nadal. if and only if, there is anyone can beat fed in grass, it must be nadal.
when nadal lost in hamburg, he said if there is somone to stop his clay winning streaks, it must be roger federer....
the two of them is in different league than the rest of atp players...
safin used to be one of the biggest opponent to fed, but now, he is doing poorly... blake, roddick, davydenko is "lunch" for federer. djokovic is good, but he is too proud, he can give nadal a problem, but his playing style will not give fed a problems......

drakulie
06-11-2007, 06:47 PM
another troll thread.

You could say that again. Totally agree.

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2007, 07:21 PM
I prefer them speeding up the courts.I wanna see serve and volley but there arent any out there.Fed could do it if he chose to practice it but he doesnt.

Shaolin
06-11-2007, 08:01 PM
Fed could go in either direction, get depressed or get motivated from last Sunday. Personally I think hes gonna come to Wimbledon with a ****ed off and aggressive mentality, swinging like a dominatrix at a bachelor party. I feel bad for anyone that gets in his way over the fortnight.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
06-11-2007, 08:07 PM
Nadal will become human on a much faster suface in the comming months.

mileslong
06-11-2007, 08:25 PM
nadal will not even make it to the finals, he got a draw from heaven last year and odds are it wont happen again, remember he came one hair from losing in the first round to a qualifier. he hasnt come close to winning any other major and he hasnt changed anything about his game really and there are even more young guns this year than last.

BreakPoint
06-11-2007, 08:28 PM
remember he came one hair from losing in the first round to a qualifier.
Actually, that was the second round against Kendrick last year.

But if they meet again this year in the first round, well, see my post above. ;)

tennis_hand
06-11-2007, 09:17 PM
nadal will not even make it to the finals, he got a draw from heaven last year and odds are it wont happen again, remember he came one hair from losing in the first round to a qualifier. he hasnt come close to winning any other major and he hasnt changed anything about his game really and there are even more young guns this year than last.

and met Agassi. :p

fednad
06-11-2007, 09:42 PM
Anyway, I agree Nadal will get to the finals for a second straight year, and Fed may be due for an upset.

Drake, you really beliece so?
I mean both of them: First that Nadal will reach the Final and second that he will upset Fed there?
And if so, any reasons supporting your beliefs?

fastdunn
06-12-2007, 01:21 AM
fastdunn, this must be the first post of yours that I agree with. Given the choice between too fast or too slow I'd pick too slow. It's extremely difficult to get the speed 'right' for any period of time because the variables the players are not always the same and will change more and more as the years go by.

That is true. But I don't think I've ever witnessed this much change
in short period of time during my following of the game for about 20 years.

I don't think I've ever witnessed this large % of players changing their
playing style even in their mid-late career.

I think it was a bit too much and too quick. But in retrospect, I should
say ATP's strategy has been proving successful. I feel like business is
getting better in tennis. Huge Federer-Nadal thing. More familiar players
on all tournaments. More approachable pro-tennis to general public.
It's a success in terms of business.

kimizz
06-12-2007, 01:47 AM
Tomorrow is the first big challenge at grass for Nadal. Del Potro :eek: TBH even as a Nadal fan I dont see him winning...Those who saw the match between d-Potro and Johansson in the queens club knows what I mean. I think he lost like 2 points in hes serve in the first set!

Del Potro is the man to watch at Wimbledon(assmuming he doesnt get a draw like in FO) , I doubt he can reach beyond quarters since hes a young choker but definetly a potential top5 player in the future.

Scorch
06-12-2007, 01:52 AM
As far as I was aware there was actually very little serve volleying at Wimbledon in the 90s - it tended to just be serving!!

There were too many men's matches that did not provide much of a spectacle at all, too many aces and unreturnable serves. To the average viewer (who watched very little tennis outside of Wimbledon) tennis was becoming something of a joke.

I don't think for a second that Wimbledon's strategy was to appease clay courters - the courts are still not so slow that they give an out and out clay court baseliner a real advantage.

However I think that engineering the speed of a grass court is clearly a complex science and given the choice the AELTC would prefer the courts were slightly quicker.

p.s. Murray would surely benefit from the current speed of the courts and not a return to the ultra slick grass of the 90s.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 04:12 AM
The courts were just as fast and not as well kept in the 70's and 80's when Borg won his 5 titles. Don't recall many people calling him an anomaly.



borg s&v'ed at Wimbledon far more than Agassi ever did so his deliberate change to more s&v play supports what I said about baseline play being a losing disadvantage on the fast courts of the 90s and before.

War, Safin!
06-12-2007, 04:17 AM
It isn't just the grass change to rye. Whether it was by design, or whether in quest the "more uniform" playing surface by rolling it, combined with any dry spell the ground under that grass is more clay-like in its firmness. IOW its now nearly as hard as concrete under that thin layer of green. Result=much higher bounces than ever.
What about speed?
Does this affect speed of the ball after intial contact, i.e. off a big 1st-serve?

Andres
06-12-2007, 04:41 AM
What about speed?
Does this affect speed of the ball after intial contact, i.e. off a big 1st-serve?
Slows the ball down a little bit more than the regular grass, the bounce is way more consistant, doesn't skid as much, and it doesn't bounce as low as it should.

iplaybetter
06-12-2007, 04:45 AM
you are crazy if the grass has any speed nadal is dead fed has his fast or slow, on any grandslam exept the french

tennis-n-sc
06-12-2007, 04:48 AM
Roddick's chances of winning Wimby - slim. Nadal's chances of winning Wimby - slim and none. I also don't think he makes the finals. I look for Federer and Roddick, Haas, one of the Russians or possibly the angry Scot.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 04:49 AM
right..that's what we're saying...the claycourters whined and threatened boycotting....> courts started bouncing higher..


Some people can't accept that the general public found the servefests on grass courts and fast indoor courts during the 90s very boring. To deal with such a difficult reality some people have talked it off by saying the clay courters were responsible for the change. 'Mojo you yourself have stated in other threads that academy tennis and strings have played a big part in killing off the s&v style of play. Why not mention that also rather than just blaming the clay courters?



as to the predictability of the old W, thats not a valid point compared to the predictability of a boring baseliner winning everywhere on tour now..talk about predictable! even fed, who is capable of playing all court style and serve/volley knows that he cant do it with any sort of regularity because of the conditons out there. now i would say he's actually a baseliner with skills. as for Sampras, maybe you dont undersand that he could play from the back court too and that some of us enjoy watching players hit all of the shots rather than some of the shots


'BadMojo you are forever complaining about other posters twisting your arguments but what have you done here? I mentioned the predictability I felt was present in much of grass court tennis in the 90s. You on the other hand managed to turn it to a grass vs clay comparison.

Andres
06-12-2007, 04:52 AM
you are crazy if the grass has any speed nadal is dead fed has his fast or slow, on any grandslam exept the french

THIS POST SUCKS BECAUSE: (Place X where applies)
[_] This topic did not need a separate thread
[_] Fake/duplicate account
[_] It asks when and/or will Nadal become #1 in the world
[X] It is a Nadal v Federer thread where making sense is prohibited
[_] It assumes Federer will forever be on top of the tennis world
[_] It is a lame troll attempt
[_] It is a “Threaten to leave” thread
[_] It over hypes players that don’t deserve it
[X] Original Poster's grammar makes me suspect the post was written by 4 year old
[_] It claims Player X career is over after 1 bad loss
[_] It tries to determine the best player ever (on any surface) for the 200th time
[_] It compares Graf and Seles, in any way.
[_] It asks when or if a young player will ever reach their potential after a totally expected loss
[_] It is a serious discussion of a exhibition match
[_] It proclaims a 16-18 year old's career is finished after a couple of first round losses
[_] It has the word Gilbert in the subject line
[_] It discusses doubles when its not a Davis Cup weekend
[_] It is a serious discussion of a clay clown's chances at a clay event or in an individual match against a competent clay player
[_] It is the annual thread where people complain about clay courters not showing up and embarrassing themselves on grass
[_] It is the annual thread where people complain about Americans not showing up in Monte Carlo
[_] It speculates whether player X is on dope without any evidence
[_] It asks/assumes Safin is finished in tennis after a totally expected few first round loss to the local baker in the first round of small tournament X
[_] Use the damn search engine
[_] It accuses the loser of choking when he did nothing of the sort
[_] It talks about fake injuries and/or fake injury time outs
[_] Cramp are called an injury
[_] BROKEN CAPS LOCK
[_] It claims females can be competitive with males in any form of tennis
[_] Wrong forum, eejit.
[_] It was created by a 13 year old desperate for attention
[_] It contains advice to a top ten pro player from a 3.0 with a losing record
[_] It predicts the winner of a tournament final based on a 'feeling'
[_] It's a 'Hey I'm back' thread after a) you were banned for a damn good reason or b) no one noticed you were gone or missed you.
[_] It's a duplicate thread started by someone who can't scroll one inch down the first page.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 04:54 AM
excuse those of us wishing for some variety and something/anything other than brain numbing baseline exchanges where all the matches are the same except for the names of the players..maybe we enjoy watching two combatants with contrasting styles a la agassi/sampras etc rather than everyone with the same style. hey if people like their tennis boring, that's fine with me....they should quit whining about those of us who enjoy some variety in their tennis tho....

Sampras-Agassi is a contrast in styles but on grass and the USO I never thought Agassi was going to win hence my predictability comment.

FiveO
06-12-2007, 05:19 AM
During the "servefests" of the 90's:

1990- Brad Gilbert QF, Lendl SF, Won by Edberg who topped out at about 111 mph.
1991- Courier and Agassi QF, Edberg SF
1992- the "enormous" serving John McEnroe SF, Won by Agassi
1993- Agassi QF, Courier Finalist
1994- Chang and Ferreira QF
1995- Kafelnikov QF, Agassi SF
1996- Malivai Washington Finalist
1997- Keifer QF Woodbridge SF
1998- Korda and Sanguinetti QF
1999- Kuerten QF, Agassi Finalist

Were these guys going deep into Wimbledon draws during the '90's known or most identified with being huge servers?

Who is conspicuously absent?

Aside from Kuerten, there is no player with the majority of their successes on clay and no extreme gripped heavy topspinners. Those are the guys who threatened the boycott.

Eviscerator
06-12-2007, 05:43 AM
Yeah, uh no, not when groundies, not just those from Nadal, are bouncing up to chest height which was what has been happening for the past couple of years.

When grass was grass, taking a lob off the bounce a player had doubts that the bounce would be high enough to hit an overhead off of.
It isn't just the grass change to rye. Whether it was by design, or whether in quest the "more uniform" playing surface by rolling it, combined with any dry spell the ground under that grass is more clay-like in its firmness. IOW its now nearly as hard as concrete under that thin layer of green. Result=much higher bounces than ever.

Your entire post is accurate, and for those who have played on real grass courts the highlighted portion brings back the memories. Actually some private clubs still have courts like that and I enjoy them any chance I get.

Scorch
06-12-2007, 05:45 AM
Looking at who got to what stage does not paint the whole picture. There are 128 men in the draw and there are well over 100 matches played all with spectators.

Yes there were some players that reached later rounds and sometime won who are not known as the big servers of their time.

However I would want to see stats on aces, unreturnable serves, missed returns, length of rallies etc.

Does anyone remember Courier shouting out 'boring' during an ace fest barrage in a match against Kraijeck? Courier and others argued that it was ridiculous (although Kraijeck saif he needed to take a cold shower (?)) and I am sure I watched loads of games that contained 3 or 4 aces.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 05:53 AM
During the "servefests" of the 90's:

1990- Brad Gilbert QF, Lendl SF, Won by Edberg who topped out at about 111 mph.
1991- Courier and Agassi QF, Edberg SF
1992- the "enormous" serving John McEnroe SF, Won by Agassi
1993- Agassi QF, Courier Finalist
1994- Chang and Ferreira QF
1995- Kafelnikov QF, Agassi SF
1996- Malivai Washington Finalist
1997- Keifer QF Woodbridge SF
1998- Korda and Sanguinetti QF
1999- Kuerten QF, Agassi Finalist

Were these guys going deep into Wimbledon draws during the '90's known or most identified with being huge servers?

Who is conspicuously absent?

Aside from Kuerten, there is no player with the majority of their successes on clay and no extreme gripped heavy topspinners. Those are the guys who threatened the boycott.



On the fast grass courts of the 90s when Sampras and the other big s&v'ers in their prime faced a baseliner there was never any tough calls in my mind about the outcome. Apart from the anomaly of Agassi's lone title, a baseliner was at an inherent and often predictable match losing disadvantage against the top s&v players of the era.

None of the results you posted disagree with what I posted in post #33.

And here are the actual winners-finalists from the 90s rather than the earlier/previous round losers.

1990 W Edberg Becker 6 - 2 , 6 - 2 , 3 - 6 , 3 - 6 , 6 - 4
1991 W Stich Becker 6 - 4 , 7 - 6 , 6 - 4
1992 W Agassi Ivanisevic 6 - 7 , 6 - 4 , 6 - 4 , 1 - 6 , 6 - 4
1993 W Sampras Courier 7 - 6 , 7 - 6 , 3 - 6 , 6 - 3
1994 W Sampras Ivanisevic 7 - 6 , 7 - 6 , 6 - 0
1995 W Sampras Becker 6 - 7 , 6 - 2 , 6 - 4 , 6 - 2
1996 W Krajicek Washington 6 - 3 , 6 - 4 , 6 - 3
1997 W Sampras Pioline 6 - 4 , 6 - 2 , 6 - 4
1998 W Sampras Ivanisevic 6 - 7 , 7 - 6 , 6 - 4 , 3 - 6 , 6 - 2
1999 W Sampras Agassi 6 - 3 , 6 - 4 , 7 - 5
2000 W Sampras Rafter 6 - 7 , 7 - 6 , 6 - 4 , 6 - 2

As I said Agassi was the anomaly. As for Mac well he was apparently born in 1959 so in 1992 he was 32. Mac way way past his best by and was beaten in the SF by Agassi, the anomaly I was talking about.

Lots of big servers and great servers in the final as was predictable from my angle.

Regarding the threatened boycott, that was about seeding and not the court speed or bounce as you have tried to imply.

deucecourt
06-12-2007, 05:54 AM
Nadal getting to the Wimbledon Finals all depends on who is in his section of the draw. If guys like Berdych, Blake or big servers like Karlovic or Guccione are in his section he may get bounced early.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 05:57 AM
Nadal getting to the Wimbledon Finals all depends on who is in his section of the draw. If guys like Berdych, Blake or big servers like Karlovic or Guccione are in his section he may get bounced early.

I agree and if these match-ups take place it will be compelling viewing for me. Other people should boycott the event as TV spectators.

Duzza
06-12-2007, 06:07 AM
Not going to happen. I hope he does though but a long shot.

Nadal Freak you are a legend! Finally a Nadal fan who can admit things are the way they are. Can you please go tell your troll buddies to stay in their shells? This guy gets my vote for most truthful Nadal fan!

TheAeropro
06-12-2007, 06:22 AM
I think Nadal has at least as good a chance of winning Wimbledon as Fed does winning the FO. So, if he plays Wimbledon like he did last year, he has a decent shot. A four set loss to Fed in the finals with two tiebreak sets and a 5-7 set, the match could've gone either way.

NoBadMojo
06-12-2007, 06:25 AM
. 'Mojo you yourself have stated in other threads that academy tennis and strings have played a big part in killing off the s&v style of play. Why not mention that also rather than just blaming the clay courters?

'BadMojo you are forever complaining about other posters twisting your arguments but what have you done here? I mentioned the predictability I felt was present in much of grass court tennis in the 90s. You on the other hand managed to turn it to a grass vs clay comparison.

yes, academy tennis is a part of it, but this is a 'conversation' about Nadal and Wimbledon. Wimbledon is played on grass and the claycourters threatened to boycott Wimbledon..i was merely staying on topic

i was saying i prefer variety in styles and not talking about the predictability of grass court play. i was talking about the predictability of clay court play. personally i dont think serve and volley play is all that predictable and there are still big servers in the game...stepanek recently had 8 aces in a row and he isnt even considered a big server. you think grass court play was predictable in the 90's? that's fine...i wasnt arguoiung that you fel that..but this aint the 90's....i create the thread about upcoming wimbledon and how things are now

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 06:26 AM
I think Nadal has at least as good a chance of winning Wimbledon as Fed does winning the FO. So, if he plays Wimbledon like he did last year, he has a decent shot. A four set loss to Fed in the finals with two tiebreak sets and a 5-7 set, the match could've gone either way.

There was no 5-7 set. There was two tiebreak sets which they split, a 6-0 set for Fed, and a 6-3 set for Fed where he was up 5-1. Fed also played a garbage match, probably his worst match of all 11 he played vs Nadal including all their clay court matches, but since it was vs Nadal on grass he could play like garbage and still win decisively.

TheAeropro
06-12-2007, 06:28 AM
There was no 5-7 set. There was two tiebreak sets which they split, a 6-0 set for Fed, and a 6-3 set for Fed where he was up 5-1. Fed also played a garbage match, probably his worst match of all 11 he played vs Nadal including all their clay court matches, but since it was vs Nadal on grass he could play like garbage and still win decisively.

Fed almost always plays a garbage match against Nadal, so Nadal could easily win if he practiced on grass a bit more.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 06:32 AM
Fed almost always plays a garbage match against Nadal, so Nadal could easily win if he practiced on grass a bit more.

I dont agree he almost always plays a bad match vs Nadal. Often on clay he plays a very good match but loses anyway. This just recent French Open final was one of the few times he did play a bad match vs Nadal on clay. He did in the Wimbledon final since it was such a shock Nadal was in the Wimbledon final in the first place, and he wasnt mentally prepared for it I guess. I doubt he would play that badly again.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 06:34 AM
yes, academy tennis is a part of it, but this is a 'conversation' about Nadal and Wimbledon. Wimbledon is played on grass and the claycourters threatened to boycott Wimbledon..i was merely staying on topic


About the boycott as I said to FiveO, i think, it was about seeding and not court conditions. Maybe this link will change your recollections of the reason behind the boycott threat

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/2001/05/16/agassi_boycott_ap/

Ten_is
06-12-2007, 06:55 AM
There's no way Nadal will beat fed on grass. Nadal will lose to some lower ranked player.

NoBadMojo
06-12-2007, 06:56 AM
About the boycott as I said to FiveO, i think, it was about seeding and not court conditions. Maybe this link will change your recollections of the reason behind the boycott threat

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/2001/05/16/agassi_boycott_ap/

if you read my earlier post you will see that i said it was about the seedings (translation: they couldnt play on grass)...they dont seed based totally upon the rankings at W..they knew that certain claycourters <most of them> sucked on grass so they didnt seed them as high as what their rankings were or didnt seed them at all....the whiney claycourter babies cried about it and threatened to boycott..all they were trying to do was get into the second round with a bye rather than lose in the first round

Rabbit
06-12-2007, 07:12 AM
Nads makes the Quarters and then it's 1, 2, Bar-B-Q

I think Fed is going to tie Borg this year with 5 straight. The only guy I think who can stop Fed is Fed. If Roddick has two weeks playing in a tree, he could do it, but I don't think he will.

Is there a big serving dark horse out there? One never knows.

I remember the threatened boycott from the clay courters as being nothing more than sour grapes. They were upset that they didn't get "respect" in the seedings. However, when they did get their "respect", it was way more than they deserved as all were bounced in the 1st or 2nd round of the tournament with extreme prejudice.

The problem now is not the grass, it's the surface under the grass. It's way firmer than it used to be by all accounts.

Add to that the fact that all the attacking, all-court players are basically gone and what you have left is the metronome of baseliners mindlessly bashing the ball back and forth grunting and screaming like toddlers in day care.

FiveO
06-12-2007, 07:19 AM
About the boycott as I said to FiveO, i think, it was about seeding and not court conditions. Maybe this link will change your recollections of the reason behind the boycott threat

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/2001/05/16/agassi_boycott_ap/


I was well aware of what the stated reason for the boycott was. As a point of fact the extreme gripped claycourters had already been "boycotting" the event as individuals for years both prior to and after this sabre rattling.

For instance some RG finalists from the '90s who staged their own individual boycotts of Wimbledon. These are the number of RG's vs. Wimbledons they played during their careers:

Kuerten: 10 RG's to 5 W's

Moya and Gomez: 12 RG's to 7 W's a piece

Bruguera: 12 RG's to 4 Wimbledons

Corretja: 13 RG's to 4 Wimbledons

Muster: 14 RG's to 4 Wimbledons

Berasategui: 9 RG's to 1 Wimbledon

mileslong
06-12-2007, 07:34 AM
Fed almost always plays a garbage match against Nadal, so Nadal could easily win if he practiced on grass a bit more.

yeah nadal could beat fed easily if he just practiced more. jesus h does it get any more stupid than this? gosh you would think that he would just go out and practice more then wouldn't you? strange, he just must be lazy...

drakulie
06-12-2007, 08:46 AM
Drake, you really beliece so?
I mean both of them: First that Nadal will reach the Final and second that he will upset Fed there?
And if so, any reasons supporting your beliefs?

Right now, Nadal is playing the best tennis of any player. It just so happens that he along with every other top player on tour plays from the baseline. I don't see anyone out there outlasting him from the baseline. As for his serve, he could pop it up there in the 120+ range getting him some free points, and people don't credit him enough for being a decent volleyer or returner.

The way wimbledon plays today, I don't see why he, like every other baseliner who has had recent success there woulnd't be able to win it all.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2007, 09:46 AM
Like I said, it's a whine and it's a whine on this message board far more than the actual players were willing to state publicly at the time the changes were made.

Henman, Bjorkman, & Rusedski all stated publicly the grass was different at 2002 Wimbledon, & that they weren't pleased with it.

asapsports.com has interviews from that event

fastdunn
06-12-2007, 10:04 AM
We had great servers in 90's but we also had great returners.

I don't think it's fair to label 90's as "servefest". The serve has been
the dominating factor since people started serving overhead(from undehead).

Actually I'm not against making the whole tour as unifrom medium speed.
I just think it's a bit too slow and has killed S&Ver's careers.

NoBadMojo
06-12-2007, 10:51 AM
.
I just think it's a bit too slow and has killed S&Ver's careers.

it's not the speed of the courts that have killed serve and volley. in fact, many players who serve/volley take a bit off the serve <kick it more> in order for them to get close enough to the net to execute a decent first volley. case in points were edberg and then rafter who made their careers out of 110mph topspin/kicker serves. problem is, players got on to their serves <service returns got better> and first edberg had to learn to be better from the backcourt (ie fix the chicken wing forehand)....then rafter had to learn to stay back more (ie emprove both his forehand and backhand)..fed used to serve/volley more than he does now. it's been a trend for several years now.

i created another thread a couple weeks ago theorizing it's not the speed of the court that makes for all this one dimensional tennis, it's the height of the bounce..the higher the bounce, the more benefit for an extreme gripper, and the less chance for variety (all court play) let alone more serve/volley which really isnt even much of an option anymore

Moose Malloy
06-12-2007, 10:52 AM
We had great servers in 90's but we also had great returners.

I don't think it's fair to label 90's as "servefest". The serve has been
the dominating factor since people started serving overhead(from undehead).

Actually I'm not against making the whole tour as unifrom medium speed.
I just think it's a bit too slow and has killed S&Ver's careers.

Yeah, its funny I have an old SI(1971) where the writer blasts the Smith-Newcombe final as being incredibly boring, calling it just a bunch of big serving, while praising the creative womens game(Goolagong) Sound familar?

I think those who call the 90s serving fests may not have seen much of the 70s/80s. There was always a lot of very quick points(even Borg-Mac-Connors matches at Wimbledon finals have far less rallies than Fed vs Roddick)
That's the way grass is supposed to be. It may have been boring with Sampras, but it was also boring with Becker-Edberg(no rallies whatsover & a lot of unreturned serves) & apparently many thought it was boring long before that (Smith-Newcombe)
What's the point of even having grass anymore if just plays like a hardcourt?

chris1992
06-12-2007, 10:54 AM
only person who will beat federer at wimbledon apart from nadal would be a huge 6 ft 10, big serving machine, who is on his game, like karlovic.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 11:13 AM
Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon? ROTFL!!! Nadal couldnt even come close to beating Federer last year with Fed playing like that in the final, and with Nadal playing the grass court tennis of his life. Roddick even has a better chance to beat Federer then Nadal at Wimbledon.

hoosierbr
06-12-2007, 11:21 AM
borg s&v'ed at Wimbledon far more than Agassi ever did so his deliberate change to more s&v play supports what I said about baseline play being a losing disadvantage on the fast courts of the 90s and before.

Borg s&v more against certain players, like McEnroe, who were great at the net and gave Borg all kinds of headaches. As a rule he still stayed back and came to the net to finish many points off. He twice played Connors in the final and neither one was a s&v.

Agassi never took the time to work on his volley because he never really had to. His game was still good enough from the baseline to beat most of the great grass players when he was on.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2007, 11:27 AM
Borg s&v more against certain players, like McEnroe, who were great at the net and gave Borg all kinds of headaches. As a rule he still stayed back and came to the net to finish many points off. He twice played Connors in the final and neither one was a s&v.


I have all of Borg's W finals on tape, he S&Ved on virtually every 1st serve, regardless of opponent- Nastase, Mac, Tanner, Connors.

He even came in on some 2nds.

Borg's serve was his most important shot at Wimbledon(was one of the biggest servers of his time)

Even Connors SV quite a bit at W.

fastdunn
06-12-2007, 01:20 PM
i created another thread a couple weeks ago theorizing it's not the speed of the court that makes for all this one dimensional tennis, it's the height of the bounce..the higher the bounce, the more benefit for an extreme gripper, and the less chance for variety (all court play) let alone more serve/volley which really isnt even much of an option anymore

I've read that thread and I agree. Bounce as well as speed.
Also the ball has changed over many years. It's got slightly bigger
and heavier/lifeless (which Roddick refered as "water mellon" ball, AFAIK).

hoosierbr
06-12-2007, 02:10 PM
I have all of Borg's W finals on tape, he S&Ved on virtually every 1st serve, regardless of opponent- Nastase, Mac, Tanner, Connors.

He even came in on some 2nds.

Borg's serve was his most important shot at Wimbledon(was one of the biggest servers of his time)

Even Connors SV quite a bit at W.


He did s&v quite a bit, that's my point. But not on virtually on all 1st serves, that's an exaggeration. I have both the 1980 and 1981 finals against Mac and he didn't s&v on virtually all first serves because he when did he made too many volley errors.

Leading up to the finals he didn't have to s&v as much because he was so much better than the competition. When he got into the later rounds he s&v more to help sharpen his volleys.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2007, 02:21 PM
He did s&v quite a bit, that's my point. But not on virtually on all 1st serves, that's an exaggeration. I have both the 1980 and 1981 finals against Mac and he didn't s&v on virtually all first serves because he when did he made too many volley errors.


I jotted down how often he S&Ved, he came in on every 1st serve vs Nastase in '76, and almost every 1st serve vs Connors & Tanner in '77 & '79. I'll rewatch some of those Mac matches & give you the stats, I'll bet he came in on 90% of his 1st serves. Staying back on 1st serves vs one of the most agressive players of all time(Mac) would be rather stupid, & Borg was anything but.

Leading up to the finals he didn't have to s&v as much because he was so much better than the competition. When he got into the later rounds he s&v more to help sharpen his volleys.

No, this isn't true, he S&Ved a lot in all rounds(and he wasn't so much better than the competition, look at the scores vs Edmondson, Armitraj, Amaya etc. Borg couldn't afford to mess around, there were a lot better grasscourters back then-remember the AO was still on grass & the US Open wasn't far removed from grass either. S&V was still the dominant style of the tour, regardless of how Borg played. Plus the grass was even faster in the 1st week of W) Almost everyone in the draw in Wimbledon in the 70s S&Ved, it was the only way to win, esp with those racquets. I have a dvd of 17 year old Borg at '73 W S&Ving on every 1st & 2nd serve! he lost a close 5 setter in the QF, but the signs of his versaitility was already there.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:30 PM
I jotted down how often he S&Ved, he came in on every 1st serve vs Nastase in '76, and almost every 1st serve vs Connors & Tanner in '77 & '79. I'll rewatch some of those Mac matches & give you the stats, I'll bet he came in on 90% of his 1st serves. Staying back on 1st serves vs one of the most agressive players of all time(Mac) would be rather stupid, & Borg was anything but.



No, this isn't true, he S&Ved a lot in all rounds(and he wasn't so much better than the competition, look at the scores vs Edmondson, Armitraj, Amaya etc. Borg couldn't afford to mess around, there were a lot better grasscourters back then-remember the AO was still on grass & the US Open wasn't far removed from grass either. S&V was still the dominant style of the tour, regardless of how Borg played. Plus the grass was even faster in the 1st week of W) Almost everyone in the draw in Wimbledon in the 70s S&Ved, it was the only way to win, esp with those racquets. I have a dvd of 17 year old Borg at '73 W S&Ving on every 1st & 2nd serve! he lost a close 5 setter in the QF, but the signs of his versaitility was already there.

Moose. How can I send you a private message?

hoosierbr
06-12-2007, 02:40 PM
I jotted down how often he S&Ved, he came in on every 1st serve vs Nastase in '76, and almost every 1st serve vs Connors & Tanner in '77 & '79. I'll rewatch some of those Mac matches & give you the stats, I'll bet he came in on 90% of his 1st serves. Staying back on 1st serves vs one of the most agressive players of all time(Mac) would be rather stupid, & Borg was anything but.

No, this isn't true, he S&Ved a lot in all rounds(and he wasn't so much better than the competition, look at the scores vs Edmondson, Armitraj, Amaya etc. Borg couldn't afford to mess around, there were a lot better grasscourters back then-remember the AO was still on grass & the US Open wasn't far removed from grass either. S&V was still the dominant style of the tour, regardless of how Borg played. Plus the grass was even faster in the 1st week of W) Almost everyone in the draw in Wimbledon in the 70s S&Ved, it was the only way to win, esp with those racquets. I have a dvd of 17 year old Borg at '73 W S&Ving on every 1st & 2nd serve! he lost a close 5 setter in the QF, but the signs of his versaitility was already there.

We don't disagree that Borg s&v a lot at Wimbledon. Everybody did b/c that's what you were supposed to do. But then Borg proved you could stay back and be successful. Not all the time, it's not clay, but some of the time.

I'd be shocked if s&v 90% of the time against Mac in either 80 or 81 but if he did then he did. It didn't seem that way.

NoBadMojo
06-12-2007, 02:51 PM
We don't disagree that Borg s&v a lot at Wimbledon. Everybody did b/c that's what you were supposed to do. But then Borg proved you could stay back and be successful. Not all the time, it's not clay, but some of the time.

I'd be shocked if s&v 90% of the time against Mac in either 80 or 81 but if he did then he did. It didn't seem that way.

hey Randy...i would sub the words 'had to' for 'supposed to' in your post...shortening the points and taking as many balls in the air as possible was really about the only way to win W back then. if you stayed back and let the ball bounce you would have about a million errors and would get killed. i dont think pros do anything because they are supposed to..i think they do everything because they have to do it to win. Fed doesnt stay back these days because he is suppposed to..he stays back because he has to in order to win..can he play serve/volley? of course..he's a terrific serve/volleyer..

they're just adapting to the the conditions (surface, racquets, balls, strings, et al) out there and doing what it takes to win..in the case of a Max Myrni..the only chance he has to win is by playing s/v..but he's an anomoly

Moose Malloy
06-12-2007, 02:51 PM
But then Borg proved you could stay back and be successful.

Well, I think this was proven before Borg. Rosewall stayed back a lot as well, which surprised me(I saw his W finals with Newcombe & Connors recently, I had incorrectly assumed everyone S&Ved when 3 slams were on grass) And Connors had a much weaker serve than Borg, yet won the '74 W staying back quite a bit(but making his way to net eventually) So Borg may have took their cue, but was blessed with a much bigger serve than they had.

I guess Borg was the 1st to dominate W by not S&Ving exclusively(as in both 1st & 2nd serves) though he came more than anyone today does on any surface.

hoosierbr
06-12-2007, 03:02 PM
hey Randy...i would sub the words 'had to' for 'supposed to' in your post...shortening the points and taking as many balls in the air as possible was really about the only way to win W back then. if you stayed back and let the ball bounce you would have about a million errors and would get killed. i dont think pros do anything because they are supposed to..i think they do everything because they have to do it to win. Fed doesnt stay back these days because he is suppposed to..he stays back because he has to in order to win..can he play serve/volley? of course..he's a terrific serve/volleyer..

they're just adapting to the the conditions (surface, racquets, balls, strings, et al) out there and doing what it takes to win..in the case of a Max Myrni..the only chance he has to win is by playing s/v..but he's an anomoly

Hey, Ed. Not sure I agree with that. Moose pointed out that Connors stayed back quite a bit winning in '74. Borg stayed back some and won 5 in a row. Agassi stayed back most of the time and won in '92, reached the finals in '99 and was a semifinalist in 1995, 2000 and 2001 before the current grass was put down, around 2002 I think.

In fact, Mats Wilander talked about how in 1988 he really regretted s&v at Wimbledon because that's what you were supposed to do and he didn't believe in it and as a result lost confidence that he could win. He won 3 slams that year.

I think anyone with a big serve and fine net skills can still win Wimbledon s&v today. If Karlovic, Roddick or Guccione (some others too) had Edberg, Rafter, or even Henman net abilities they'd be tough to beat. Even for Fed.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 03:37 PM
Henman, Bjorkman, & Rusedski all stated publicly the grass was different at 2002 Wimbledon, & that they weren't pleased with it.

asapsports.com has interviews from that event

Moose you need to read what I wrote. People here have indeed moaned more than Henman, Rusedski and Bjorkman which was the point being made.

NoBadMojo
06-12-2007, 03:40 PM
Hey, Ed. Not sure I agree with that. Moose pointed out that Connors stayed back quite a bit winning in '74. Borg stayed back some and won 5 in a row. Agassi stayed back most of the time and won in '92, reached the finals in '99 and was a semifinalist in 1995, 2000 and 2001 before the current grass was put down, around 2002 I think.

In fact, Mats Wilander talked about how in 1988 he really regretted s&v at Wimbledon because that's what you were supposed to do and he didn't believe in it and as a result lost confidence that he could win. He won 3 slams that year.

I think anyone with a big serve and fine net skills can still win Wimbledon s&v today. If Karlovic, Roddick or Guccione (some others too) had Edberg, Rafter, or even Henman net abilities they'd be tough to beat. Even for Fed.

understand there are always exceptions, but do you think Borg developed the ability to serve/volley just for the heck of it, or because it gave him a better chance <the best chance> at W? ditto for him beefing up his serve. Wilander beefe up hos serve and used the sliced backhand much more to compete on faster courts. the realty is almost everyone played serve and volley to a large degree at W back then, and almost nobody does anymore..i dont think that is disputable. the courts dont even get much wear around the service line anymore....and what little wear comes from playing dubs...and sometimes they even stay back for dubs now

if you've ever played on a traditional grass court, i think you would agree that letting the ball bounce isnt <usually> the perscription for success. sometimes you even have trouble bouncing the ball as your pre serve routine as the ball doesnt even bounce up :0

Myrni has a big serve and serves well, nice hands and fine net skills, and moves well for a big guy and has a huge wingspan making him very hard to pass..i would rate his chances of winning W at pretty much zero. granted he doesnt have the best service return, but in the old days, guys like Myrni would be animals on their serve and then just look for a break chance or two on the return games and win that way. not any more. can you name someone you think can win W by playing serve/volley on even a semi regular basis? i cant. i really do think the service returns have gotten so good and passing shots so effortless that serve/volley on a reg basis is pretty much out of the question these days, and that's why it isnt done at that level....at 'our' level, i think it can be done more

so we disagree...it's nice to be able to disagree with a poster around here without getting jumped or insulted....and that sometimes it is possible to have reasoned discourse around here. appreciate it

hoosierbr
06-12-2007, 03:59 PM
Myrni has a big serve and serves well, nice hands and fine net skills, and moves well for a big guy and has a huge wingspan making him very hard to pass..i would rate his chances of winning W at pretty much zero. granted he doesnt have the best service return, but in the old days, guys like Myrni would be animals on their serve and then just look for a break chance or two on the return games and win that way. not any more. can you name someone you think can win W by playing serve/volley on even a semi regular basis? i cant. i really do think the service returns have gotten so good and passing shots so effortless that serve/volley on a reg basis is pretty much out of the question these days, and that's why it isnt done at that level....at 'our' level, i think it can be done more

We agree to disagree on this. That's cool.

With all respect and I cringe to hear myself say it (much less write it) but I think that if Roddick had fly net skills he could take a couple at SW19. He almost pulled off the upset against Fed in 2004 when Fed defended the first time. That was a hell of a match and one that Roddick may very well have won if the rain hadn't stopped it.

Also think that if Karlovic improved his volleys and developed any kind of return game he'd be in my Top 5 to win Wimby. Mario Ancic has the serve and good enough net and ground abilities to win I think. The mind is suspect though. Same for Gasquet who can win anywhere on any given day.

Henman, with his limited ground game, would have won Wimbledon if he had been born 10 years earlier and should have won in 2001, IMO. But the rain had a different say.

Would also throw up a healthy, 125 pound lighter Taylor Dent as a contender. Also a couple of young guns like Mahut and Guccione have a long way to go but have the skills to rush the net and claim the champion's cup.

FiveO
06-12-2007, 04:11 PM
Moose you need to read what I wrote. People here have indeed moaned more than Henman, Rusedski and Bjorkman which was the point being made.

The grass is always slower
By Sarah Holt
BBC Sport at Wimbledon


Tim Henman has complained that slower playing surfaces at Wimbledon are responsible for drawing the sting from his game.


The British number one bemoaned the grass was becoming "increasingly slow, heavy and high bouncing", after his arduous five-set victory against Jarkko Nieminen.

It is not the first time Henman or his fellow players have raised the issue.

Greg Rusedski claimed Wimbledon purposely slowed the courts in 2001 and this year American Taylor Dent agreed they have been getting slower each time he plays here.

Organisers started to use 100% perennial ryegrass seed in 2001 to provide a stronger grass more able to take the wear-and-tear of two weeks of continual usage.

"What Tim is saying is absolutely true," agrees John Lloyd, BBC Sport commentator and two-time Wimbledon mixed doubles champion.

"The courts have become slower and they are bouncing higher than they used to.

"When I was contesting Wimbledon 25 years ago, playing on grass was more like Russian roulette.


"You got a lot of bad bounces, quick-shot rallies and a lot of serve-and-volley. Even playing in the senior doubles now, I can tell it's changed, you have much longer to return the ball now.

"But I don't think it's a sinister reason. Wimbledon just changed the texture of the grass to make the courts more durable and that makes them slower because the grass is spongier."

None of this is good news for Henman of course, whose serve-and-volley game is supposed to be a perfect fit for grass.

The Briton was forced to change his tactics against Nieminen and admitted he served and volleyed "less than 20% of the time" in the final two sets against the Finn.

Faced with having to make difficult decisions to abandon his natural game, a time-machine might just be Henman's only hope of claiming an elusive Wimbledon crown.

"If the conditions were as they were 20 years ago, then Tim would have a better chance at Wimbledon," agreed Lloyd.

"His type of game benefits from the surface that existed back then - the spins, the slice approaches, the volleys would all work, it would even help his serve.

"Slower courts now mean he loses a slight advantage that he would have on quicker grass courts.

"Tim has to be at the top of his game to have any chance here and against Nieminen he looked so far below that."


Those that rise to the top in the new-age at Wimbledon are baseliners.

Reigning women's champion Maria Sharapova barely ventures to the net while big-hitters such as Andy Roddick and Marat Safin are now cutting a swathe through the field.

"We are moving in that direction," admitted Lloyd. "I think the serve-and-volley game is dying.

"You could probably count five serve-and-volleyers at Wimbledon but 15 years ago they made up 50% of the draw.

"The ball is bouncing so much truer now, it's almost like playing on a hard-court."

So if Henman is no longer able to make hay on Wimbledon's grass-courts, can the British public count on new hope Andy Murray to cut it?

"Andy doesn't have a traditional grass-court game, he's better on clay and hard-courts at the moment - or he thinks he is," says Lloyd.

"But he has a huge serve, he moves well round the court and, yes, I think he will be a very good grass-court player."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm

Mikael
06-12-2007, 04:23 PM
it's not the speed of the courts that have killed serve and volley. in fact, many players who serve/volley take a bit off the serve <kick it more> in order for them to get close enough to the net to execute a decent first volley. case in points were edberg and then rafter who made their careers out of 110mph topspin/kicker serves. problem is, players got on to their serves <service returns got better> and first edberg had to learn to be better from the backcourt (ie fix the chicken wing forehand)....then rafter had to learn to stay back more (ie emprove both his forehand and backhand)..fed used to serve/volley more than he does now. it's been a trend for several years now.

i created another thread a couple weeks ago theorizing it's not the speed of the court that makes for all this one dimensional tennis, it's the height of the bounce..the higher the bounce, the more benefit for an extreme gripper, and the less chance for variety (all court play) let alone more serve/volley which really isnt even much of an option anymore


You are spot on, finally someone thinking outside the box. We agree that it isn't court speed that has killed serve and volley. A lot of people don't get this. But, where I disagree with you is I think that the major factor here is equipment instead of height of bounce: new racquets and strings (luxilon, oversize racquets, etc...) make it much easier to handle serves and rip returns. On the other hand, the new technology doesn't make it that much easier to serve and volley, it might actually make it harder. So, the technological balance has shifted onto the counterpunchers and away from the serve and volleyers. Back when racquet and string technology made it much harder to handle serves, serve and volleyers were getting good results on clay from time to time - Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, etc.

AAAA
06-12-2007, 05:01 PM
The grass is always slower
By Sarah Holt
BBC Sport at Wimbledon

yadda, yadda, yadda




Like I said, it's a whine and it's a whine on this message board far more than the actual players were willing to state publicly at the time the changes were made.


I've highlighted in bold the important part. I've read moans this year about the grass, I read whines last year and the year before and possibly even before that too, so like I said forum posters, some of them, have moaned far more here than the players publicly.

NoBadMojo
06-12-2007, 05:03 PM
We agree to disagree on this. That's cool.

With all respect and I cringe to hear myself say it (much less write it) but .

i'm still cringing about the Roddick comment :0 Of the current crop of Americans, I believe Blake would have made the best serve/volleyer. he's certainly the most athletic of the lot I think, and it takes the better athletic skills to play all the shots rather than some of the shots. i'm really impressed with Amer Delic, but I think he is coming along too late and is a victim of the USTA program..terrific athlete. i also think Ginepri got pretty messed up by the USTA Program, and that he is more athletic than it appears, but lacked quality coaching

You are spot on, finally someone thinking outside the box. We agree that it isn't court speed that has killed serve and volley. A lot of people don't get this. But, where I disagree with you is I think that the major factor here is equipment instead of height of bounce: new racquets and strings (luxilon, oversize racquets, etc...) make it much easier to handle serves and rip returns. On the other hand, the new technology doesn't make it that much easier to serve and volley, it might actually make it harder. So, the technological balance has shifted onto the counterpunchers and away from the serve and volleyers. Back when racquet and string technology made it much harder to handle serves, serve and volleyers were getting good results on clay from time to time - Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, etc.

thanks..no argument here, but i was trying to limit myself to Wimbledon and the grass. indeed, poly is not the best string for touch and feel which is what you need to volley, and the lighter larger headed racquets benefit the return of serve more than the serve and also the baseline game. i think the third element is the academy tennis metaphor of developing a game around a weapon (the forehand)..so for me, it's 3 things, and i dont know which of the 3 contributes the most

-higher bounding surfaces
-racquets and strings
-academy tennis

The solution is for a another thread, but as I see it, is to change the racquet limits, but only for the pros. If it was my choice to make, I would limit the racquets for the pros to anything provided the length plus width of the racquet didnt exceed 36"..any material and any strings save for spaghetti type strings. eveything else could remain as is, and i think the current racquet limits are fine for amateurs.
I think this would cause the grips to go back to something less extreme, there would be less low/no risk tennis being played, a good server would be able to serve volley if he could volley, and there would be more high risk tennis being played..or at least moderate risk tennis...this would then trickle down from the pros to us hackers. i think something needs to be changed, because the game doesnt even resemble tennis so much at the pro level anymore...it's more like cycling....a fitness grind of mostly forehands with some backhands thrown in

fastdunn
06-12-2007, 05:13 PM
AAAA, it makes me wonder why you're annoyed by what some posters post.

This is just a message board. absolutely not public statments that world class pros make.

Theirs are 'whining' and "moaning' and yours are not ?

AAAA
06-12-2007, 05:32 PM
AAAA, it makes me wonder why you're annoyed by what some posters post.

This is just a message board. absolutely not public statments that world class pros make.

Theirs are 'whining' and "moaning' and yours are not ?

Fastdunn, on the basis of things I have read and heard on TV over the years regarding the slowing down of the courts not just wimbledon, it's clear to my mind that the clay courters are in no way the chief point of pressure forcing the changes in court speed. And this is my last post in this thread.