PDA

View Full Version : Is the 'best grass court player of all time' title now defunct?


The Gorilla
07-09-2007, 03:11 PM
Wimbledon is a hardcourt at it's fastest and on a hot day it plays like a claycourt, literally, so is there any distinction at all now between 'best hardcourt player' and 'best grass court player'?

logansc
07-09-2007, 03:14 PM
Probably not, Fed did better in Australia by not losing a set, the people that pushed him at Wimbledon this year by taking sets off of him have been dubbed "clay court specialists" in the past. Funny how that works.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 03:15 PM
Maybe but that **** has gotten so slow.Yesterday its the slowest i have seen it and produced alot of bounces.I thought last year it didnt react alot with the bounces.

fastdunn
07-09-2007, 03:39 PM
Well, we can still enjoy debating over GOAT on grass.
But I think it should be considered that the grass court has changed
significantly between 2001-2003 favoring more of baseliners.

Its speed and bounce might be like hard courts.
But it's still organic surface which may produce uncertain bounces
which is kinda like clay and seperate it from synthetic surfaces like hard courts
which has more honest(predictable) bounce. For example, Borg did well only
on organic surfaces. Nadal has pretty big margin of errors on his stroke mechanism
which should help him on organic surfaces with uncertain bounces, clay and grass.

I've read (from here TW) that some players like Bjorkman refered as "green clay" but
I'm not sure about the accuracy of that info.

Vision84
07-09-2007, 03:42 PM
Serve and volley is a rare treat now at Wimbledon so of course you can't compare the best now to players like Mcenroe, Borg or Sampras.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 03:44 PM
Well, i wished the surface was speeded up to see Fed come up more often.

fastdunn
07-09-2007, 03:55 PM
Well, I think 2000-2002 was good speed when both S&Ver's
and baseliners did well.

They over-did it, IMHO.

There was a debate over this on Tennis channel about couple of years
ago. The main defense over slow grass was that we have a great
champion like Federer. Now that Nadal's reaching finals, the issue
seems to get more attention.

lolsmash
07-09-2007, 03:58 PM
The fault in this argument is that you are saying GOAT of grass, not GOAT of fast grass of the 80's or clay-like grass of now. Grass is grass, regardless of the speed. When you say that someone is the best at something and not specify, you can't really go back and then say what you meant. You are not comparing the players of now to the players before because it does not matter. Grass is grass.

theballboy
07-09-2007, 04:00 PM
The fault in this argument is that you are saying GOAT of grass, not GOAT of fast grass of the 80's or clay-like grass of now. Grass is grass, regardless of the speed. When you say that someone is the best at something and not specify, you can't really go back and then say what you meant. You are not comparing the players of now to the players before because it does not matter. Grass is grass.

What the OP is saying is that grass is so disimilar to what is was before that comparing someone like Goran (who benefitted from fast grass) to someone like Nadal (who benefits from slow grass) serves no purpose, even if both reached multiple finals.

fastdunn
07-09-2007, 04:02 PM
grass is still grass. It just became harder to compare players of before
2001-2003 and after 2003.

tennis_hand
07-09-2007, 05:21 PM
Probably not, Fed did better in Australia by not losing a set, the people that pushed him at Wimbledon this year by taking sets off of him have been dubbed "clay court specialists" in the past. Funny how that works.

best argument.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-09-2007, 07:31 PM
I certainly can't comment on the details of each surface for I had not kept up with it in detail for the last few years, but I always thought and believed strongly that the four Grand Slams should represent the different surfaces of play in their original form, as close as can be to allow a tournament to be played upon them for a fortnight.

So for Wimbledon to try to slow the grass down to suit players now, and to make for longer matches instead of players trying to adjust to the surfaces that are being played upon, is a step in the wrong direction IMO. A few steps, and in some cases, a running game gone totally wrong. I think a player who completes a Grand Slam victory, taking all top tournies should have to earn it completely. Not the changed and in not all ways improved courts they've made. I think it's more special, and showing a greater versatility in player that way.

But no, I think there is hardly distinction between them anymore. There are some differences yes, and you can tell by match statistics, but overall, I think things are being pushed too much into a single line of how things should be, and who should win based on conditions.

heycal
07-09-2007, 07:36 PM
I certainly can't comment on the details of each surface for I had not kept up with it in detail for the last few years, but I always thought and believed strongly that the four Grand Slams should represent the different surfaces of play in their original form, as close as can be to allow a tournament to be played upon them for a fortnight.


Well, if we want the Grand Slams to represent their "original form", Australia and USO would go back to grass, and only Roland Garros would be different. Heck, the French was probably originally played on grass too.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-09-2007, 07:49 PM
Well, if we want the Grand Slams to represent their "original form", Australia and USO would go back to grass, and only Roland Garros would be different. Heck, the French was probably originally played on grass too.


Yes, and I know that, and more specifically I should have put in 'modern' form, so yes, crucify me if that is your wish and intention. *whirls and falls to the ground shot!* but my point is still the same. According to history almost all tennis was played on grass 'courts' but then we would go back to using our hands if being totally original. Sorry for the faux pas in not exactly dating original.

sondraj
07-09-2007, 07:51 PM
All this controversy over surfaces is ridiculous and I just see it as way for people to rip players accomplishment on those respective surfaces away.

I'm sure Fed isn't looking at his wimby 07 Grass court trophy any less because you all don't think it plays like grass anymoe

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-09-2007, 07:57 PM
That's your opinion certainly, but not all the comments on surfaces is used to rip someone's accomplishments. Not everyone is looking to rip this or that favourite player of certain persons who post often. Objectivity shows that clearly. I do not have a favourite in this age, so... not trying to slight one or another, but only giving my thoughts objectively having viewed a few eras. And 'all', all...curious use of a blanketing word.

heycal
07-09-2007, 08:08 PM
Yes, and I know that, and more specifically I should have put in 'modern' form, so yes, crucify me if that is your wish and intention. *whirls and falls to the ground shot!* but my point is still the same. According to history almost all tennis was played on grass 'courts' but then we would go back to using our hands if being totally original. Sorry for the faux pas in not exactly dating original.

Don't get your panties in a wad. I wasn't trying to "crucify" you, just pointing out to everyone that until relatively recently, AO and USO were grass too. The larger point implied by mention of this is that surfaces are always changing. In fact, didn't AO just announce that they are abandoning rebound ace next year?

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-09-2007, 08:11 PM
Don't get your panties in a wad. I wasn't trying to "crucify" you, just pointing out to everyone that until relatively recently, AO and USO were grass too. The larger point implied by mention of this is that surfaces are always changing. In fact, didn't AO just announce that they are abandoning rebound ace next year?

What last I said I wasn't even responding to you at all, but if you chose to take what I said personally, that's you.What I said was in response to Sondraj's post. Hadn't read yours at all. I remember your other posts elsewhere.

superman1
07-09-2007, 08:16 PM
I remember one point where the ball bounced up too high for even Nadal to handle. The French Open is the only specialist Slam, now. Wimbledon is like a new and improved hard court that doesn't hurt your joints.

heycal
07-09-2007, 08:32 PM
What last I said I wasn't even responding to you at all, but if you chose to take what I said personally, that's you.What I said was in response to Sondraj's post. Hadn't read yours at all. I remember your other posts elsewhere.

You quoted me directly in post #14, excerpting a quote with my name on it that you had obviously read, and addressed the specific issue raised in my post. Of course you were responding to me.

I then clearly quoted you and responded to your remarks. All this is somehow confusing to you?

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-09-2007, 08:54 PM
I said the post I was responding to even if I didn't click a quote link to paste it. I was responding to Sondraj at that time, as I said. None other. The next one down the thread, because I read again, before I post. You responded back to me after that. I had read what you wrote in the interim, but needed to say nothing more to you. I responded to someone else further down that made more sense to me. Accept it. If you don't want to, again, that's your choice.


You've followed me before, misquoting or either taking personally what I've said even if I wasn't speaking directly to you. I don't understand the reason, as I am not so special.

Its not confusing because I read your remarks, but found no reason to respond to them after a point (whatever point you chose to believe or that makes you feel better), or irrelevant rhetoric I had already responded to. Verstehen sie? Do you understand this time? I hope so, because juvenile one upsmanship has never been of interest to me.

You'll find something else to dispute with me personally about or will make something else up, but I've zero interest regarding it because its blatantly defensive and paranoid.

heycal
07-09-2007, 09:02 PM
I said the post I was responding to even if I didn't click a quote link to paste it. I was responding to Sondraj at that time, as I said. None other. The next one down the thread, because I read again, before I post. You responded back to me after that. I had read what you wrote in the interim, but needed to say nothing more to you. I responded to someone else further down that made more sense to me. Accept it. If you don't want to, again, that's your choice.


You've followed me before, misquoting or either taking personally what I've said even if I wasn't speaking directly to you. I don't understand the reason, as I am not so special.

Its not confusing because I read your remarks, but found no reason to respond to them after a point (whatever point you chose to believe or that makes you feel better), or irrelevant rhetoric I had already responded to. Verstehen sie? Do you understand this time? I hope so, because juvenile one upsmanship has never been of interest to me.

^
This is basically even more confusing gobbly gook... Look: Anyone who's following this thread can see clearly that you made a post about surfaces, I quoted you and responded to your point, then you quoted me and responded to my point, and so on.

It's pretty simple. Really don't know what you're yammering on and on about. Maybe someone else in this thread can set this guy straight on this issue, or maybe teach him to use the quote feature properly? I don't know what the problem is.

SoBad
07-09-2007, 09:11 PM
Yes, it is. Welcome to 21st century. Grass is for cows to chew.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-09-2007, 09:15 PM
^
This is basically even more confusing gobbly gook... Look: Anyone who's following this thread can see clearly that you made a post about surfaces, I quoted you and responded to your point, then you quoted me and responded to my point, and so on.

It's pretty simple. Really don't know what you're yammering on and on about. Maybe someone else in this thread can set this guy straight on this issue, or maybe teach him to use the quote feature properly? I don't know what the problem is.

You proved my point thank you. And no less, the alter ego you used to follow me on the other threads just appeared: Sobad. I don't have to say a thing else, you've played the same game you've done before just now:-) *bows* whatever you wish to believe or are trying to prove, whatever LOL

SoBad
07-09-2007, 09:19 PM
What did you call me? And why? Because I said cows chew grass haha??

heycal
07-09-2007, 09:20 PM
Our paranoid friend from Delaware seems to think we are the same person.

He also seems to be unable to accept that he quoted my post and responded to it even though it's there for all to see, clear as day.

Strange things are afoot in the First State.

SoBad
07-09-2007, 09:25 PM
DE is way cool, I was just in Rehoboth for a few days, I think I came back yesterday or the day before. I am losing track...:(

heycal
07-09-2007, 09:30 PM
DE is way cool, I was just in Rehoboth for a few days, I think I came back yesterday or the day before. I am losing track...:(

Definitely. Beach towns in DE are wonderful, if my dim memory of a trip to Rehobeth as a child is accurate.

SoBad
07-09-2007, 09:37 PM
Definitely. Beach towns in DE are wonderful, if my dim memory of a trip to Rehobeth as a child is accurate.

I agree that they are wonderful, and although I am a consenting adult, my recent memories of them are rather dim as well. They are wonderful though.

Shinpachi222
07-09-2007, 09:42 PM
The grass is thicker than it used to be. The grass title is still in the air.