PDA

View Full Version : The true Wimbledon 'G.O.A.T'...


War, Safin!
07-10-2007, 04:08 AM
...accolade cannot be handed over to Roger Federer....even if he wins 5 more back-to-back titles.

That accolade needs to be applied to Pete Sampras and then Bjorn Borg.
Why?
'Cos they propsered on a true grass-court surface against true, multi-faceted opposition (i.e. big servers, baseliners, serve-n-volleyers, fellow Slam-winners, etc)

'Nuff said.



Disclaimer: I am NOT a Federer troll or anti-Federer poster

fps
07-10-2007, 05:09 AM
You can't blame Federer for the surfaces he plays on. Fed's played plenty of big servers and beaten them, and beat a slam winner and crazy baseliner in the final this year. The idea of a "greatest of all time" is dumb in the first place, but discounting fed from contention because of things beyond his control is dumber!

8PAQ
07-10-2007, 05:30 AM
...accolade cannot be handed over to Roger Federer....even if he wins 5 more back-to-back titles.

That accolade needs to be applied to Pete Sampras and then Bjorn Borg.
Why?
'Cos they propsered on a true grass-court surface against true, multi-faceted opposition (i.e. big servers, baseliners, serve-n-volleyers, fellow Slam-winners, etc)

'Nuff said.



What if 19 year old Fed were to beat 29 year old defending Wimbledon champion Sampras? Say in 2001 when the grass was still very fast, and what if Fed had to SV on almost every point to do it? Oh wait a minute, he did do that.

'Nuff said.

chaognosis
07-10-2007, 05:44 AM
Or perhaps the true "Wimbledon G.O.A.T." was Laurie Doherty, who, along with his brother Reggie, became tennis's first great international star. Laurie won more combined singles (five) and doubles (eight) titles than any other man, and he was also probably the greatest of all British players -- though some critics would argue in favor of Fred Perry. Before the inevitable arguments begin about the "weak competition" and "inferior athleticism" of the Doherty era, be assured that "Little Do" faced some formidable foes: most famously his brother (though the two hated playing against one another), but also Arthur Gore, Frank Riseley, and a young Norman Brookes.

War, Safin!
07-10-2007, 06:17 AM
What if 19 year old Fed were to beat 29 year old defending Wimbledon champion Sampras? Say in 2001 when the grass was still very fast, and what if Fed had to SV on almost every point to do it? Oh wait a minute, he did do that.

'Nuff said.
Ah-ha.....but hang on 8PAQ - did he S&V exclusively? I don't remember - let me go back and watch the match and I'll get back to you.

Secondly, while I'm here...was the grass really still that fast in 2001? If so, it would imply that serve-n-volleyers were still comfortable at the net.
But a cursory glance at the lack of rough patches between the net and the service-line during the final would suggest that, No, they werent that comfortable, hence, the rye-grass was being used that year.
Furthermore, if Federer's S&V-ing was that good, he wouldn't have been dropped by Tim Henman in the next round.
Conclusion: Federer played out-of-his skin against Sampras that afternoon (same as Safin did at the US Open in 2000)

Third, Federer did beat Sampras on grass at Wimbledon. Once.
So what?
Sampras got beaten a week earlier by Lleyton Hewitt - on the faster turf at Queens.
For the SECOND year running, I might add.
Conclusion: the Sampras aura of invincibility on grass was diminshed a year before Federer came along.

fps
07-10-2007, 06:27 AM
[QUOTE=War, Safin!;1580083]
Third, Federer did beat Sampras on grass at Wimbledon. Once.
So what?
[QUOTE]

So there's actually some evidence to support the opposing view to yours, while you have nothing results-wise to back you up.

War, Safin!
07-10-2007, 06:42 AM
Third, Federer did beat Sampras on grass at Wimbledon. Once.
So what?


So there's actually some evidence to support the opposing view to yours, while you have nothing results-wise to back you up.
Oh yes I do! ;)

I have the 7 Slams on true, non-rye-grass and a further 5 the decade before to back up my thread claim.
:-D

harleywilson
07-10-2007, 06:44 AM
I don't see why there is a debate. Sampras is right now with Borg and Federer tied for second

slice bh compliment
07-10-2007, 06:47 AM
Looking forward to the day the dust settles in this thread.......Can't wait to wear my Willie Renshaw jersey to the club this weekend.

Incidentally, he won six in a row....back before electricity.

War, Safin!
07-10-2007, 06:50 AM
Looking forward to the day the dust settles in this thread.......Can't wait to wear my Willie Renshaw jersey to the club this weekend.

Incidentally, he won six in a row....back before electricity.
I'm sure the level of playing, physical atheticism and competitiveness was amazingly high back then too.

fps
07-10-2007, 06:56 AM
Oh yes I do! ;)

I have the 7 Slams on true, non-rye-grass and a further 5 the decade before to back up my thread claim.
:-D

If they play on rye grass for the next 100 years then people will say THAT'S the real grass, not what Sampras was playing on. It's still grass! Why are so many people obsessed with trying to prove something utterly unprovable, and stick one guy at the top and crap on everyone else? It's just wrong-headed! They're both great and you can't conclusively call on better. BUT when they DID play, once, Federer won. If they had played ten times maybe Sampras would have won the majority, maybe Fed, but there's no evidence.

Rybo
07-10-2007, 07:01 AM
The idea of a "greatest of all time" is dumb in the first place

ding ding ding

RedWeb
07-10-2007, 07:04 AM
Lets not forget that ole Willie had to only play one match to win the title as the former champion only had to play in the finals match the next year. Man, this board would have fun "crushing" that setup seeing what they said about Fed after he got one walkover.

chaognosis
07-10-2007, 07:48 AM
Lets not forget that ole Willie had to only play one match to win the title as the former champion only had to play in the finals match the next year. Man, this board would have fun "crushing" that setup seeing what they said about Fed after he got one walkover.

Tony Wilding, one of the greatest pre-WWI players, famously spoke out against the challenge-round format. As the defending champion, Wilding felt that he was put at a disadvantage, because he wasn't allowed to get any competitive match play under his belt before facing the winner of the all-comers final. I think it can be argued either way.

MoFed
07-10-2007, 08:01 AM
It is ridiculous to try to minimize Roger's accomplishments by saying his competition is not versitile enough.

big server=Andy Roddick
baseliners=Lleyton Hewitt
serve-n-volleyers=Tim Henman
Former Champions=Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin

Roger didn't slow down the courts at Wimby, the organizers did. To think that he would honestly want the courts slowed is crazy. I bet he'd prefer to have the courts speeded up. He came awfully close to losing Sunday on this slower court, which probably wouldn't have happened on the faster court.

TheNatural
07-10-2007, 08:44 AM
It takes more than 1 great match be a champion on the real grass. Too bad he couldnt win the next match versus Henman.

What if 19 year old Fed were to beat 29 year old defending Wimbledon champion Sampras? Say in 2001 when the grass was still very fast, and what if Fed had to SV on almost every point to do it? Oh wait a minute, he did do that.

'Nuff said.

fps
07-10-2007, 08:48 AM
So what now then, Henman's better than both of them? This thread's going dumber and dumberer...

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2007, 08:51 AM
Fed in 2001 was still finding himself, he was just hanging around.2004 was when the Fed express train rolled on and noticed his talent at striking the ball.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
07-10-2007, 09:02 AM
...accolade cannot be handed over to Roger Federer....even if he wins 5 more back-to-back titles.

That accolade needs to be applied to Pete Sampras and then Bjorn Borg.
Why?
'Cos they propsered on a true grass-court surface against true, multi-faceted opposition (i.e. big servers, baseliners, serve-n-volleyers, fellow Slam-winners, etc)

'Nuff said.



Disclaimer: I am NOT a Federer troll or anti-Federer poster
yeah ofcourse, boohoo, keep denying federer, he is the goat...***!

drakulie
07-10-2007, 09:20 AM
Ah-ha.....but hang on 8PAQ - did he S&V exclusively? I don't remember - let me go back and watch the match and I'll get back to you.

Secondly, while I'm here...was the grass really still that fast in 2001?

The answers to both questions is Yes. Fed S & V on nearly every first serve, and many second serves. And yes, the court was still fast.

8PAQ
07-10-2007, 09:44 AM
I think it is pretty safe to assume that since 19 year old Fed was able to successfully SV on fast grass therefore a much more mentally tough and well rounded prime Federer would do even better on the same surface. Maybe he would not be winning Wimbledon without dropping more than one set but I think he would still be winning them.

Also if we watch 2003 Wimbledon you will note that he was SV quite often. Even thou the grass was already slower. He lost only one set in 2003.

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2007, 09:45 AM
The grass in 2003 playes a little quicker then the crap i saw on sunday.There wasnt so many crazy high bounces.

superstition
07-10-2007, 09:48 AM
Navratilova, for the ladies' game. For the men, it's more difficult to say. I don't think the number of titles is the only measurement that matters. And, comparing a player like Federer who wins on slow high bouncing grass with a big graphite racquet and poly/gut hybrid stringing to players like Tilden and Laver is a lot like comparing apples and oranges. The first year that Wimbledon was played with 100% rye, two baseliners were in the final (Nalbandian and Hewitt, I recall).

8PAQ
07-10-2007, 09:49 AM
The grass in 2003 playes a little quicker then the crap i saw on sunday.There wasnt so many crazy high bounces.

Yep and Fed destroyed in straights two big servers in the semi and in the final.

Now Fed has even better ground game and mental side. I am sure he would do just fine against 90s players.

The Gorilla
07-10-2007, 11:24 AM
fed seved and volleyed on all his first serves and almost none of his second serves that day.

fastdunn
07-10-2007, 11:57 AM
What if 19 year old Fed were to beat 29 year old defending Wimbledon champion Sampras? Say in 2001 when the grass was still very fast, and what if Fed had to SV on almost every point to do it? Oh wait a minute, he did do that.

'Nuff said.

AFAIK, they changed the type of grass(reye) in 2001.
Major changes were done from 2001 and finsished in 2003.
I personally do not see difference since 2003 although I can not
be 100% sure since I never played on Wimbledon myself. :)

Federer S&Ved most of his 1st serves but did NOT S&Ved most of his 2nd serves.
In 2001, many of baseliners did S&Ved on their 1st serves on grass anyway.
As far as I recall, Federer always played 90% baseline game even on carpet since he debuted(in 1998?)
which is kinda odd if he was good at S&V.


Federer already told that he realized he S&Ved whenever he got panic.
That's when he realized he can win safely on grass with his superior baseline game.
The timing of changes in WImbledon between 2001-2003 cetrianly helped him, IMHO.
See ? If you want Federer type of success, you need some luck.

drakulie
07-10-2007, 12:19 PM
fed seved and volleyed on all his first serves and almost none of his second serves that day.

Wrong. He served and vollyed quite a bit on the second serve.

lolsmash
07-10-2007, 12:21 PM
I will post this because I did not read any of the other posts but...


WIMBLEDON IS STILL WIMBLEDON REGARDLESS OF THE GRASS/SURFACE.

If they change the surface and make it faster at the US Open every year and someone wins there every year for 10 years straight, then they are the best at US Open because they won 10 straight. What you are saying is that he won't be because someone will have won on a more consistent US Open surface.

When they say Wimbledon, you think of grass, and then you think that grass is a fast, skidding surface. Well, grass is still grass regardless of how fast it is. It may not play like "true" grass, but it is still grass. Wimbledon is still Wimbledon regardless of how the grass plays or if it changes to another surface.

A Pure Drive is still a Pure Drive regardless of the paintjob or technology right?

ACE of Hearts
07-10-2007, 12:24 PM
Thats such bull.The balls bounce too much on this surface, its not suppose to have alot of big bounces.Its also slower unless they where using heavy balls on sunday.

fastdunn
07-10-2007, 12:29 PM
Wimbledon initially denied any changes in condition (or no comment).

And then sometime this year(? was it last year ?) officially admitted they have changed it.

However, they asserted the speed is same but admitted the bounce
is different( truer ) explaining how they achived it (extra hardening of
"clay" layer underneath the grass).

War, Safin!
07-10-2007, 12:36 PM
Wimbledon initially denied any changes in condition (or no comment).

And then sometime this year(? was it last year ?) officially admitted they have changed it.

However, they asserted the speed is same but admitted the bounce
is different( truer ) explaining how they achived it (extra hardening of
"clay" layer underneath the grass).

Given the way in which the Wimbledon authorities conduct themselves these days, it's safe to say they are 'shady'.

fastdunn
07-10-2007, 12:49 PM
My conclusion on what happened since 2001-2003:

ATP successfully engineered great rivalry like Federer vs Nadal.
We will see more rivarlies in the near futures (like Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Connors)
between a few top players on all slams.

In the future, the management techniques of ATP will be studied
in business schools as a successful case just like they study hugely successful
NBA of 1990's.

Mad iX
07-10-2007, 04:08 PM
What if 19 year old Fed were to beat 29 year old defending Wimbledon champion Sampras? Say in 2001 when the grass was still very fast, and what if Fed had to SV on almost every point to do it? Oh wait a minute, he did do that.

'Nuff said.

Ahem, 4-time defending champ. Give Sampras some credit. :p

If Federer wins 10 Wimbledons ... it would be difficult to not give him the GOAT on grass title. Especially when clay courters are prospering on the high bouncing surface and he's still destroying most of them.
He just wont be the S&V GOAT, which probably wasn't going to happen anyway.

slice bh compliment
07-11-2007, 12:44 PM
Much as I love my Willie Renshaw jersey, I'm going to have to go with Lottie Dodd. She won five AND has a hip hop song by Slick Rick about her.

Lottie Doddy.
Ah Lottie Doddy
We like to Party
She don't cause trouble She don't both nobody
She's just a tennis playa on the mike
And when she rock upon the mic she rock the mic RIGHT!

Sorry, Messrs Renshaw, Borg, Sampras and Federer....and Martina, BJK et al. You can't top that kind of street cred.

kaiotic
07-12-2007, 08:32 PM
Pete was one shy of 8 straight. thanks to Richard Krajcick?

that should put things in persepctive.


look, Fed may not fare too well against the likes of big Server & volleyers like Rusedski, Goran, Rafter (a sick spin server and a good volleyer), Becker, The Scud (who is no less talented than the top ten today, and can kill you when he's on), Stich....

we need more S&vers to mix it up.. ATp is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz baseline all day long. WTF!

caulcano
07-13-2007, 12:46 AM
Pete was one shy of 8 straight. thanks to Richard Krajcick?

that should put things in persepctive.


look, Fed may not fare too well against the likes of big Server & volleyers like Rusedski, Goran, Rafter (a sick spin server and a good volleyer), Becker, The Scud (who is no less talented than the top ten today, and can kill you when he's on), Stich....

we need more S&vers to mix it up.. ATp is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz baseline all day long. WTF!

We need a GS for the S&V'ers, which Wimbledon was.

Wimbledon needs to change the surface OR change the balls so they fly faster & bounce less. So

Bassus
07-13-2007, 07:12 PM
...accolade cannot be handed over to Roger Federer....even if he wins 5 more back-to-back titles.

That accolade needs to be applied to Pete Sampras and then Bjorn Borg.
Why?
'Cos they propsered on a true grass-court surface against true, multi-faceted opposition (i.e. big servers, baseliners, serve-n-volleyers, fellow Slam-winners, etc)

'Nuff said.



Disclaimer: I am NOT a Federer troll or anti-Federer poster



No, that honor rightly belongs to Sampras as of now because he won 7 Wimbledons. I'm a big Federer fan, but 7 > 5. I'd like to see Federer at least tie Sampras at Wimbledon, but until he does, then Sampras is the greatest champion there.

NadalForever
07-13-2007, 07:17 PM
Federer had a walkover at this year's Wimbledon so he still only has 4 Wimbledons in a row.

Eviscerator
07-13-2007, 07:25 PM
They had started to slow it down a little for the 2001 tourney, but it was not until the next year that they really slowed it down. Look at who won as a result.

Bassus
07-13-2007, 08:48 PM
Federer had a walkover at this year's Wimbledon so he still only has 4 Wimbledons in a row.


I take it that's a joke, right?

Federer has no control over the weather (if he did, then he would have created damp conditions for the French final), or the scheduling of play, or the health of opponents.

He did catch a break with the Haas walkover, but then again, one could say it left him rusty for the Ferrero match. Nadal was unlucky in having to play so much, but then again, he had easy quarterfinal and semifinal matches. Nadal was pretty much in the final the moment Baghdatis failed to take control of Djokovic.

Tennis_Monk
07-14-2007, 05:03 AM
...accolade cannot be handed over to Roger Federer....even if he wins 5 more back-to-back titles.

That accolade needs to be applied to Pete Sampras and then Bjorn Borg.
Why?
'Cos they propsered on a true grass-court surface against true, multi-faceted opposition (i.e. big servers, baseliners, serve-n-volleyers, fellow Slam-winners, etc)

'Nuff said.



Disclaimer: I am NOT a Federer troll or anti-Federer poster

Flawed post. Not well thought of at all. Possible disguise ?

What is true grass court?. I can extend your argument and say that modern racquets are not true racquets. They should use Wood. So sampras should have used wood racquets and win 6 wimbledons.

Time changes and things change. Thats way of life. One should learn to accept that.

Sampras and Federer have their place in History. Thinking one is any less than other (at this time) is actually insulting one of the players.

keithchircop
07-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Federer had a walkover at this year's Wimbledon so he still only has 4 Wimbledons in a row.

You're pathetic.

NadalForever
07-14-2007, 12:04 PM
You're pathetic.

All the Federer fans are pathetic because they are satisfied with Federer winning by a walkover.

keithchircop
07-14-2007, 12:07 PM
I'm not a fed fan but i can see how pathetic you are, and so can everybody else.

NadalForever
07-14-2007, 12:10 PM
I'm not a fed fan but i can see how pathetic you are, and so can everybody else.

Nice try. You ain't fooling me. You must be a Federer fan.

keithchircop
07-14-2007, 12:12 PM
Nice try. You ain't fooling me. You must be a Federer fan.

i'm not, but i hate trolls.

federerGOAT
07-14-2007, 12:18 PM
The GOAT should be Federer no doubt. He can serve and volley if he wants to. His serve is just as good as Sampras's and he has better touch at the net. None of the serve and volleyers from the 90s come close to Fed.

keithchircop
07-14-2007, 12:20 PM
from one extreme to the other.

anointedone
07-14-2007, 12:25 PM
Federer had a walkover at this year's Wimbledon so he still only has 4 Wimbledons in a row.

His walkover was vs Tommy Haas, who he hasnt lost to since January 2001 now. So what are you getting at with that?

War, Safin!
07-15-2007, 11:03 AM
Flawed post. Not well thought of at all. Possible disguise ?

What is true grass court?. I can extend your argument and say that modern racquets are not true racquets. They should use Wood. So sampras should have used wood racquets and win 6 wimbledons.

Time changes and things change. Thats way of life. One should learn to accept that.

Sampras and Federer have their place in History. Thinking one is any less than other (at this time) is actually insulting one of the players.
Okay - maybe I rushed my initial post, but can we agree that 'grass isn't grass' in 2007?
Playing on grass, by and large, requires speed of foot and ability to serve-n-volley - that's always been the tradition set by guys in the 70s onwards.
Either using a Donnay Borg Allwood, a Dunlop Maxply Fort..or a Wilson Prostaff.

So, if all of a sudden (say, the last 5 years or so), this isn't the cae, then by that logic, the guys who win on grass now can't be considered 'true grass-court technicians' cos they are using racquets designed for power-tennis, from the baseline ala clay-court tennis?




Feel free to pick apart that post. ;-)

Andres
07-15-2007, 12:28 PM
Federer had a walkover at this year's Wimbledon so he still only has 4 Wimbledons in a row.You make me sad :(

Fries-N-Gravy
07-15-2007, 12:32 PM
if the grass was still fast, he wouldn't have been taken to 4 or 5 sets in the last two finals.

Grass is Grass. maybe it got slower. it is the grass now. or by your logic, nothing should change, nothing should evolve, we should all be living in caves because gas does not fuel true fire, and cooked food is fake food, the wheel is the instrument of the devil, etc.

people stopped S&V because it is very difficult and discouraging. people realized they had to stop being afraid of the other guy's serve and they went for more on the returns on faith. when people got good at returning, SVers realized it was easier to stay back. then people realized with everyone staying back they could just block the serve and no one has been brave enough or good enough to S&V. I think the key is a serve as good as the sampras serve and even that sometimes wasn't good enough.

tomzo22
07-15-2007, 12:39 PM
tim henman
nuff said

Fries-N-Gravy
07-15-2007, 12:42 PM
^ hasn't won that much lately, much less wimbledon. its not the surface its the players and the game. humans have gotten bigger and stronger, that seems to be something people can't deal with and its apparently the racquet/string technology and the grass that is the culprit. henman was never going to win wimbledon even on frozen grass.

Tennis_Monk
07-15-2007, 02:04 PM
Okay - maybe I rushed my initial post, but can we agree that 'grass isn't grass' in 2007?
Playing on grass, by and large, requires speed of foot and ability to serve-n-volley - that's always been the tradition set by guys in the 70s onwards.
Either using a Donnay Borg Allwood, a Dunlop Maxply Fort..or a Wilson Prostaff.

So, if all of a sudden (say, the last 5 years or so), this isn't the cae, then by that logic, the guys who win on grass now can't be considered 'true grass-court technicians' cos they are using racquets designed for power-tennis, from the baseline ala clay-court tennis?




Feel free to pick apart that post. ;-)


I wouldnt try to pick it apart. All i would say is the same thing i stated before.
what is true grass? who defines it?.

Just because ppl r winning from baselines doesnt mean grass is slow.

playing in 70's is not same as playing in 2007. Game has changed. Players (atleast some of them) have gotten better used to conditions.

Are we trying to say Hewitt and Rafael Nadal are slow players and dont have foot speed?[requires speed of foot and ability to serve-n-volley].

You have seen Rafael Volleying a lot in the final. havent you?

War, Safin!
07-16-2007, 03:59 AM
I wouldnt try to pick it apart. All i would say is the same thing i stated before.
what is true grass? who defines it?.

Just because ppl r winning from baselines doesnt mean grass is slow.

playing in 70's is not same as playing in 2007. Game has changed. Players (atleast some of them) have gotten better used to conditions.

Are we trying to say Hewitt and Rafael Nadal are slow players and dont have foot speed? [requires speed of foot and ability to serve-n-volley].

You have seen Rafael Volleying a lot in the final. havent you?
Okay - I can't argue this point any further - I guess the quotes and opinions from the professionals who play at Wimbledon and openly state that 'grass is slower these days', will have to suffice. :roll:

War, Safin!
07-16-2007, 04:04 AM
I'll leave you with a quiz-question:
How many players have won the Wimbledon men's singles Slam from 1976-2002 employing a baseline-playing game?

Actually, here's another:
How many players have won the Wimbledon men's singles Slam from 2003-2007 employing a baseline-playing game?


No more clues.

slice bh compliment
07-16-2007, 04:37 AM
I'll leave you with a quiz-question:
How many players have won the Wimbledon men's singles Slam from 1976-2002 employing a baseline-playing game?

Actually, here's another:
How many players have won the Wimbledon men's singles Slam from 2003-2007 employing a baseline-playing game?


No more clues.

I'm a sucker for trivia. Especially the subjective kind.

76-02:
I'd say Borg played some baseline and some s&v.
Jimmy Connors won in 82, he mostly came in on serves, but had to stay back and pass Mac a lot, too.
92, Andre from the baseline.
02, Hewitt and Nalbandian both stayed back a lot.
So my answer is somewhere between 2.5 and 4.

03 to 07: Federer. A lot of attacking. A lot of defending, too.