PDA

View Full Version : Nadal lost on grass first round yesterday.....


cknobman
06-11-2008, 06:24 AM
therefore I concur he stinks on grass and will lose 1st round at Wimbledon.

..you heard it here first. :wink:

drive
06-11-2008, 06:34 AM
it was a doubles match..

babbette
06-11-2008, 06:43 AM
he was teaming with an old player. he was just using him for pratice. :mrgreen> besides, Rafa has never done great in Queens doubles wise, or singles wise. Queens seems to be just his practise for Wimbledon, where he is amazing. First time he played Queens, he reached the finals of Wimbledon, and ever since then he hasn't stopped this ritual. the real test is in Wimbledon where players are there to play their best not just get practise for the real contest.

atm, he's 2-1 up on Bjorkman.

Rhino
06-11-2008, 06:45 AM
He wanted a warm-up match for the singles I think.

Also Spain are playing in Euro 2008 and Rafa wants to watch all the matches. There was a rumor going round that if Lopez/Mahut was a short match, the doubles would've been delayed until Spain finished playing Russia, because Nadal was watching the match.
Their match against Sweden on Saturday would interrupt the doubles final, so I doubt he planned to win it :)

Dijana Djokovic
06-11-2008, 07:24 AM
Dont worry.Novak will win Wimbledon this year.

cueboyzn
06-11-2008, 12:19 PM
Dont worry.Novak will win Wimbledon this year.


Maybe you should stop smoking your son's used overgrips...

simi
06-11-2008, 01:22 PM
Queens has not "slowed down" the grass like AELTC has. It still plays like grass. Wimbledon plays like a fast clay or slow hard court these past few years.

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 01:26 PM
Queens has not "slowed down" the grass like AELTC has. It still plays like grass. Wimbledon plays like a fast clay or slow hard court these past few years.
Ridiculous comment. I have to keep recycling my efforts to prove this theory wrong.
Well I put some more tedious work and got the US Open, Wimbledon, and Aussie Open stats here.
Wimbledon Breaking Percentage (Total) 17.337%
US Open Breaking Percentage (Total) 21.87%
Aussie Open Breaking Percentage (Total) 23.179%
Monte Carlo Breaking Percentage (Total) 29.22%
Roland Garros Breaking Percentage (Total) 24.132%
Hamburg Breaking Percentage (Total) 26.8%
Rome Breaking Percentage (Total) 23.34%

hoodjem
06-11-2008, 01:29 PM
Nadal F,

Please interpret for us your stats above.

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 01:31 PM
Nadal F,

Please interpret for us your stats above.
The stats show how hard it is to break on grass compared to the other tournaments. Maybe Queens is even faster but Wimbledon is also very fast and allows for many free points on serve.

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 01:33 PM
Ridiculous comment. I have to keep recycling my efforts to prove this theory wrong.


You are not taking into account bad bounces with your theory. Your theory fails. There are many different factors that affect service breaks, such as how the surface takes the ball, the footing of the player, etc.


If we are talking about in terms of pure speed, the USO is the fastest. Anyone with two eyes can see that.

feetofclay
06-11-2008, 01:36 PM
Nadal won his second round singles match 6-2 6-2

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 01:37 PM
You are not taking into account bad bounces with your theory. Your theory fails. There are many different factors that affect service breaks, such as how the surface takes the ball, the footing of the player, etc.


If we are talking about in terms of pure speed, the USO is the fastest. Anyone with two eyes can see that.
Bad bounces were much worse in the 90's. Grass now is actually not that bad. Clay also has bad bounces but it hasn't hurt the returners. I think you are overrating the effects of bad bounces. US Open isn't that fast. I got 2 eyes and I see players that grew up on hard courts and therefore are more comfortable going for their shots on hard courts than grass. Nadal and many clay courters are more disadvantaged on hardcourts than grass.

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 01:43 PM
Bad bounces were much worse in the 90's. Grass now is actually not that bad. Clay also has bad bounces but it hasn't hurt the returners. I think you are overrating the effects of bad bounces. US Open isn't that fast. I got 2 eyes and I see players that grew up on hard courts and therefore are more comfortable going for their shots on hard courts than grass. Nadal and many clay courters are more disadvantaged on hardcourts than grass.


Bad bounces exist on grass, skidding is there, and when the ball catches the line (which it frequently does on when serving) it does weird things. Take into account that it is much harder to move on grass quickly then it is on a HC, you can tell why it is much harder to return a big serve on grass then HC, where the more uniform bounce along with better footing helps alot.


The ball stays low on grass. It doesn't on clay. It doesn't skid. It kicks up, meaning it's much slower. The clay absorbs more of the pace of the ball then grass does.



The U.S. Open isn't fast? Get your eyes checked.

You are saying this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps


Isn't faster then this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3t7IgEAlW8


You've got to be kidding. By simple physics the U.S. Open is FASTER then Wimbledon. Wimbledon only PLAYS faster because the grass before made the ball stayed much lower and skidded. Wimbledon has more friction due to the grass and the grass itself absorbs more pace, resulting in lower ball speeds. The ball when it hits the surface at the U.S. Open ricochets off.

By your logic I can declare the AO surface the fastest because we were seeing record amount of aces and winners being hit. Federer had career high aces, so did Roddick. Kohlschrieber had to hit triple the amount of winners than he ever has. Tsonga hit ridiculous amounts of winners. Does that make the AO surface the fastest? Simple answer, NO.

simi
06-11-2008, 02:28 PM
After the Spanish Boycott ten years or so ago, AELTC has changed the seed formulation in a deliberate attempt to slow down the grass courts at Wimbledon. No secret in that. Henman has also complained about them opening the ball cans two weeks prior to the tournament started. Was he just lying?

It would be nice to see Rafa "pull a Borg". He is definitely being helped by the court surface. The present court surface suits his game much better than the grass ten or fifteen years ago.

wangs78
06-11-2008, 02:33 PM
The stats show how hard it is to break on grass compared to the other tournaments. Maybe Queens is even faster but Wimbledon is also very fast and allows for many free points on serve.

Does this mean that Nadal will break Fed 5 times instead of 6 times at Wimbledon?

The Pure One
06-11-2008, 02:43 PM
By your logic I can declare the AO surface the fastest because we were seeing record amount of aces and winners being hit. Federer had career high aces, so did Roddick. Kohlschrieber had to hit triple the amount of winners than he ever has. Tsonga hit ridiculous amounts of winners. Does that make the AO surface the fastest? Simple answer, NO.

Yes, the 2008 AO was on hard court. So yes, could be one of the fastest. At least more fater than R. Ace (used to be).

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 03:34 PM
Bad bounces exist on grass, skidding is there, and when the ball catches the line (which it frequently does on when serving) it does weird things. Take into account that it is much harder to move on grass quickly then it is on a HC, you can tell why it is much harder to return a big serve on grass then HC, where the more uniform bounce along with better footing helps alot.


The ball stays low on grass. It doesn't on clay. It doesn't skid. It kicks up, meaning it's much slower. The clay absorbs more of the pace of the ball then grass does.



The U.S. Open isn't fast? Get your eyes checked.

You are saying this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps


Isn't faster then this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3t7IgEAlW8


You've got to be kidding. By simple physics the U.S. Open is FASTER then Wimbledon. Wimbledon only PLAYS faster because the grass before made the ball stayed much lower and skidded. Wimbledon has more friction due to the grass and the grass itself absorbs more pace, resulting in lower ball speeds. The ball when it hits the surface at the U.S. Open ricochets off.

By your logic I can declare the AO surface the fastest because we were seeing record amount of aces and winners being hit. Federer had career high aces, so did Roddick. Kohlschrieber had to hit triple the amount of winners than he ever has. Tsonga hit ridiculous amounts of winners. Does that make the AO surface the fastest? Simple answer, NO.
One thing grass does though is make you play safer from the baseline. That is the difference between hard and grass as though you get more free points from your serve, you also have to take lower risk shots. That is the main difference I see between those 2 videos. Federer was also playing out of his mind in that 2005 US Open.

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 03:38 PM
I will wait till i see the draw.The grass will be greener and not bashed up like it was in the final.I doubt he loses in the first round but it wouldnt surprise me if he played a 5 set match along the way.

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 03:50 PM
One thing grass does though is make you play safer from the baseline. That is the difference between hard and grass as though you get more free points from your serve, you also have to take lower risk shots. That is the main difference I see between those 2 videos. Federer was also playing out of his mind in that 2005 US Open.


Makes you play safer from the baseline? Federer was ripping the CRAP out of the ball against Nadal, but the ball sat up and allowed Nadal time to get the ball back. Agassi had NO TIME to react to anything Federer hit at him. The grass takes topspin nicely now, which allows you plenty of time to react and slow the game down.


I'm sorry, you just need to be a little less biased in your analysis. It's obvious that you just want to make Nadal an ultra god like Bjorn Borg, when he's really not. Borg did a feat that nobody else has done, he won on both the slowest clay, and the fastest grass, back to back for consecutive years. It doesn't get much better then that.


ALTEC was stupid and listened to everyone and slowed the grass down to give clay court players a chance. I don't see the French Tennis Federation speeding up the courts at Roland Garros to give S&V or HC players a chance.

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 03:52 PM
Amen NamRamger.How i wish this thing was sped up.Thats what ticks me off.Learn how to play on other surfaces instead of toying with them!!!

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 03:55 PM
Makes you play safer from the baseline? Federer was ripping the CRAP out of the ball against Nadal, but the ball sat up and allowed Nadal time to get the ball back. Agassi had NO TIME to react to anything Federer hit at him. The grass takes topspin nicely now, which allows you plenty of time to react and slow the game down.


I'm sorry, you just need to be a little less biased in your analysis. It's obvious that you just want to make Nadal an ultra god like Bjorn Borg, when he's really not. Borg did a feat that nobody else has done, he won on both the slowest clay, and the fastest grass, back to back for consecutive years. It doesn't get much better then that.


ALTEC was stupid and listened to everyone and slowed the grass down to give clay court players a chance. I don't see the French Tennis Federation speeding up the courts at Roland Garros to give S&V or HC players a chance.
Nadal is much better defensively than Agassi. Nadal doesn't try to take everything early (which makes it look faster) and he is farther behind the baseline. Nadal makes the surface look slower because of his speed and height of the ball. It is easier for Fed to hit a flat shot than a shot with a lot of spin. Add the occasional bad bounce and it is even harder to take the ball early on Nadal for Fed on grass. Fed got a lot of free points on his serve including 22 aces. That is a lot against Nadal.

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 04:00 PM
Hey freak, 22 aces on grass is nothing new for Federer.Nadal is not gonna be playing defense on grass as much because its not clay although the surface still played slow for him.I am sure he wants it more slower because thats the only chance he stands at wimbledon against Fed if they somehow meet again.

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 04:01 PM
Nadal is much better defensively than Agassi. Nadal doesn't try to take everything early (which makes it look faster) and he is farther behind the baseline. Nadal makes the surface look slower because of his speed and height of the ball. It is easier for Fed to hit a flat shot than a shot with a lot of spin. Add the occasional bad bounce and it is even harder to take the ball early on Nadal for Fed on grass. Fed got a lot of free points on his serve including 22 aces. That is a lot against Nadal.


Tim Henman, who was a 4 time semi-finalist will be the first to tell you that ALTEC completely destroyed grass. Before, the kick serve was nowhere near as effective, and the ball cut through the surface better. Now, with ALTEC opening balls early, and the stiffer grass which allows cleaner and higher bounces, it's a shadow of it's former self. Wimbledon was the last tournament where S&V was a winning strategy. Clay court players ruined it by complaining that they couldn't compete there. ALTEC listened to them and ruined it.


Nadal's spin was obviously bothering Federer, on GRASS. How is it that Nadal's topspin is suddenly more effective on grass then it is on HCs? A little ridiculous no?



You are trying to run around the question here. Agassi had no time to react, period. No way would Nadal have any chance of getting to any of those balls that Federer was hitting at the U.S. Open, because it's going way too fast for him to handle. On this new grass, he has much more time because the ball has slowed down tremendously in years past.


Anyone with two eyes will tell you how fast the ball is moving between those two videos. It's PAINFULLY obvious that the U.S. Open has become much faster then Wimbledon. Every professional player will tell you that. John Mac will tell you, Tim Henman, anyone who has played on the old grass will tell you.

pound cat
06-11-2008, 04:04 PM
Nadal has be in TWO Wimbledon finals! And some people say he can't
play on grass? Unbelivable.




PS did you watch his singles match to-day? (Wed.) I did. He's still playing great.

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 04:07 PM
They say that because they want Wimbledon to be as fast as it used to be. They are biased just like you. I didn't dismiss that they slowed it down. Ivo Karlovic was complaining that the US Open was not fast enough last year. Fed was hitting lines in that video so I agree if Fed plays like that against Nadal, Nadal couldn't get to them. Nadal's topspin does work better on grass because the bounces are less predictable.

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 04:11 PM
They say that because they want Wimbledon to be as fast as it used to be. They are biased just like you. I didn't dismiss that they slowed it down. Ivo Karlovic was complaining that the US Open was not fast enough last year. Fed was hitting lines in that video so I agree if Fed plays like that against Nadal, Nadal couldn't get to them. Nadal's topspin does work better on grass because the bounces are less predictable.


Ivo Karlovic complaining the USO isn't fast enough? Are you kidding me? The surface is already the fastest outdoor court there is. The only courts faster then the USO right now are indoor courts, mainly carpet.



I am not biased. Grass should return to it's old roots. Did the French Tennis Federation all of a sudden used a different clay to make it easier for HC and Grass players to win the FO? No. ALTEC shouldn't have to adjust it's grass either.

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 04:17 PM
I could send these Nadal fans a tape of the final last year.That ball was sitting up so high for Nadal and the rallies resembled Roland Garros.Grass is up about 3 to 5 rallies and the point is over.There where points in the match where Nadal dictated the points which is a joke.Nobody dictates points on grass against Fed.

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 04:18 PM
Nadal has be in TWO Wimbledon finals! And some people say he can't
play on grass? Unbelivable.




PS did you watch his singles match to-day? (Wed.) I did. He's still playing great.



Hilarious. Put Nadal on true grass against Mac for one set and he (Mac) would toy with him. Literally.

TennisandMusic
06-11-2008, 04:25 PM
I could send these Nadal fans a tape of the final last year.That ball was sitting up so high for Nadal and the rallies resembled Roland Garros.Grass is up about 3 to 5 rallies and the point is over.There where points in the match where Nadal dictated the points which is a joke.Nobody dictates points on grass against Fed.

Sounds like you might have too much of an emotional attachment to somebody in particular...

I cannot believe the complete and utter disdain by some people towards Nadal...

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 04:35 PM
Plz, nobody is taking nothing from Nadal but some truths need to be told.You Nadal fans are the ones that seemed to be blinded by your FO wins.Nadal rules at the FO but anything more then that is absurd.The guy hasnt won anything besides that when it comes to GSs.

pound cat
06-11-2008, 04:37 PM
Hilarious. Put Nadal on true grass against Mac for one set and he (Mac) would toy with him. Literally.



You mean Mac could beat Federer in 5 sets like Fed beat Nadal did last year? Get serious.

Even Jonhny Mac would be laughing if he read your post.


And what does a 45 year old tennis player have to do with this discussion anyway?

NamRanger
06-11-2008, 04:39 PM
You mean Mac could beat Federer in 5 sets like Fed beat Nadal did last year? Get serious.

Even Jonhny Mac would be laughing if he read your post.


And what does a 45 year old tennis player have to do with this discussion anyway?



One set on real grass, Mac beat Nadal. He consistently has competitive sets against top 20 players.


Put Nadal against Sampras on real grass, it wouldn't even be close.

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Johny Mac is a big Nadal fan but he would tell u otherwise.The guy is so up and down with his remarks.I expect Mac to say that Nadal will win wimbledon.The guy makes sense half the time and the other times he is clueless.

pound cat
06-11-2008, 04:44 PM
Johny Mac is a big Nadal fan but he would tell u otherwise.The guy is so up and down with his remarks.I expect Mac to say that Nadal will win wimbledon.The guy makes sense half the time and the other times he is clueless.

Just like us on the message board. Only MacEnroe has a better undersatanding of tennis. LOL

ACE of Hearts
06-11-2008, 04:49 PM
I dont know about that even though he does ok with the broadcast.It seems like he wants Nadal to take that number 1 spot and i dont think thats happening.

jjk20
06-11-2008, 11:15 PM
I liken Nadal to the Williams at Wimbledon. more vulnerable in the earlier rounds than the later ones.

el sergento
06-12-2008, 12:15 AM
Agassi had no time to react, period. No way would Nadal have any chance of getting to any of those balls that Federer was hitting at the U.S. Open, because it's going way too fast for him to handle. On this new grass, he has much more time because the ball has slowed down tremendously in years past.


Anyone with two eyes will tell you how fast the ball is moving between those two videos. It's PAINFULLY obvious that the U.S. Open has become much faster then Wimbledon. Every professional player will tell you that. John Mac will tell you, Tim Henman, anyone who has played on the old grass will tell you.

I agree tha the USO is now faster than Wimby but comparing a 30+ yo Agassi to a 20 yo Nadal, regardless of surface, doesn't prove anything.

In the videos it's very obvious that Fed can't flatten out his shots as easily against Nadal because of the high bounce, whereas against Agassi he's hitting off lower flatter shots that he can unload off from the hips.

Also, bare in mind that Rafa's shots move in the air and are harder to time because they will vary depending on the amount of spin. Agassi's shot's are like clockwork and Fed was timing the ball perfectly.

So yeah, the USO is faster than Wimby but your vid's don't really demonstrate that.

el sergento
06-12-2008, 12:26 AM
Hilarious. Put Nadal on true grass against Mac for one set and he (Mac) would toy with him. Literally.

Yeah, time for a reality check. Mac never, ever had to face the high bounce Rafa produces. If Fed has trouble up high on his backhand Mac wouldn't stand a chance. Even on true grass Rafa's spin would still be very hard to play. It would be very hard for Mac to chip off that much topspin and charge the net.

simi
06-12-2008, 10:19 AM
Just for the record, it's "AELTC" (All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club), not "ALTEC".

ksbh
06-12-2008, 10:36 AM
Likewise, put prime Federer against prime Sampras on real grass and Federer doesn't stand a chance. So what's your point?! You're comparing 2 eras. We're talking Federer-Nadal and in my opinion, Nadal is a good matchup on grass against Federer. You Federer fans are in denial.

Put Nadal against Sampras on real grass, it wouldn't even be close.

Vision84
06-12-2008, 11:09 AM
Likewise, put prime Federer against prime Sampras on real grass and Federer doesn't stand a chance. So what's your point?! You're comparing 2 eras. We're talking Federer-Nadal and in my opinion, Nadal is a good matchup on grass against Federer. You Federer fans are in denial.

Thats not the issue. The issue is whether Nadal would be good competition on a real grass court. Wimbledon is to slow and high bouncing to be considered real grass.

ACE of Hearts
06-12-2008, 11:12 AM
Plz, a prime Fed could hang with a prime sampras on real grass.Fed has the weapons on grass against Pete not Nadal.

Nadal_Monfils
06-12-2008, 11:12 AM
How do Roddick and Gasquet seem to do so well on the "slow and high bouncing grass?" Everyone is just trying to underestimate Nadal's accomplishments at Wimbledon because they don't like him.

ucrctennis
06-12-2008, 11:28 AM
Likewise, put prime Federer against prime Sampras on real grass and Federer doesn't stand a chance. So what's your point?! You're comparing 2 eras. We're talking Federer-Nadal and in my opinion, Nadal is a good matchup on grass against Federer. You Federer fans are in denial.

:rolleyes:
It's not like Federer beat Sampras on real grass the only time they played. The match up between Nadal and Sampras would be much worse for Nadal than it would be for Federer.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 11:43 AM
Nadal's lefty serve would be quite good on any type of grass. Hard to break him. Face it Fed fans. Nadal is quite good on grass.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 12:03 PM
How do Roddick and Gasquet seem to do so well on the "slow and high bouncing grass?" Everyone is just trying to underestimate Nadal's accomplishments at Wimbledon because they don't like him.



Gasquet was never a great grass player in the first place. His best results have been on clay and slow HCs, as evidenced to his runs at tournaments like MC, Hamburg, and Toronto. He won two grass titles at Nottingham, one of the weakest tournaments. His game doesn't suit the grass in the first place outside of his tremendous backhand.



Roddick struggles on the grass much more then he did before. His serve was visibly less effective then it once was before. It's obvious in the past two years, it is much slower.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 12:06 PM
Clay is Gasquet's worst surface. Get that in your brain. Grass is his best.

Rhino
06-12-2008, 12:16 PM
prime Federer against prime Sampras on real grass and Federer doesn't stand a chance.

Right. How about 2001, Sampras reigning Wimbledon champ, against Federer who is 2 years away from winning his first slam.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 12:20 PM
Clay is Gasquet's worst surface. Get that in your brain. Grass is his best.



Outside of his one Wimbledon semi (which he shouldn't have been in, considering Roddick choked big time), he has been most consistent on clay. You are wrong. His most consistent clay tournament is at MC where he feels no pressure in Paris.



He has two grass titles playing against double specialists in the final, in an incredibly weak field. To think he's a grass specialist is absolutely hilarity. That's like saying Chang's best surface is clay because he won the FO, when in all reality his most consistent results came from American HCs. The value of Gasquet's two titles at Nottingham is insignificant, considering hardly anyone good plays in that tournament. He has done well at certain major tournaments, such as Monte Carlo(QF, SF), Hamburg (where he reached a final), and Toronto (Final). Sure it's nice to win titles, but it's much better to reach the finals or go deep in a major tournament like a Master Series tournament.

Mansewerz
06-12-2008, 12:21 PM
The stats show how hard it is to break on grass compared to the other tournaments. Maybe Queens is even faster but Wimbledon is also very fast and allows for many free points on serve.

Yet not too long ago you said you like Wimby much better because it gave clay courters an opportunity to win. You said you hated it when it was fast and like it now that it's slow. Hmmm.

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 12:22 PM
How do Roddick and Gasquet seem to do so well on the "slow and high bouncing grass?" Everyone is just trying to underestimate Nadal's accomplishments at Wimbledon because they don't like him.

I don't think it's a matter of not liking him. Some of them see him as a threat to Federer!

Mansewerz
06-12-2008, 12:23 PM
Nadal's lefty serve would be quite good on any type of grass. Hard to break him. Face it Fed fans. Nadal is quite good on grass.

Nadal would get anally raped on the old Wimby. His hardcourt record just emphasizes that even more. Now maybe in your mind he's quite good on grass, but in your mind Nadal is also the GOAT and the King of the world.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 12:25 PM
How do Roddick and Gasquet seem to do so well on the "slow and high bouncing grass?" Everyone is just trying to underestimate Nadal's accomplishments at Wimbledon because they don't like him.

I don't think it's a matter of not liking him. Some of them see him as a threat to Federer!


It's more of a matter of everyone thinking Nadal is so great on grass, when it's painfully obvious that if you put Nadal against a prime Henman (who was a second tier grass player) on pre 2002 grass, he would have gotten destroyed. Easily.


Put him against someone like Goran, Richard K, or Sampras, and they would have toyed with him.

Mansewerz
06-12-2008, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=TheTruth;2420669]


It's more of a matter of everyone thinking Nadal is so great on grass, when it's painfully obvious that if you put Nadal against a prime Henman (who was a second tier grass player) on pre 2002 grass, he would have gotten destroyed. Easily.


Put him against someone like Goran, Richard K, or Sampras, and they would have toyed with him.

How good was Krajicek? I know he won Wimby, but was his game graceful, or more all power type of game?

Rhino
06-12-2008, 12:38 PM
[QUOTE=NamRanger;2420677]

How good was Krajicek? I know he won Wimby, but was his game graceful, or more all power type of game?

He was to Sampras what Nadal is to Federer. He has a 6-4 record against Sampras.

Mansewerz
06-12-2008, 12:40 PM
[QUOTE=Mansewerz;2420695]

He was to Sampras what Nadal is to Federer. He has a 6-4 record against Sampras.

Oh, really? Tell me more, tell me more :razz:

dh003i
06-12-2008, 12:42 PM
Likewise, put prime Federer against prime Sampras on real grass and Federer doesn't stand a chance. So what's your point?! You're comparing 2 eras. We're talking Federer-Nadal and in my opinion, Nadal is a good matchup on grass against Federer. You Federer fans are in denial.

That's largely because they've ruined the grass at Wimbledon. Apparently, none of you Nadal fans can be honest, and admit that. The grass has been slowed down; it produces higher bounce. This is just a fact. Compare it now even to when Federer won his first Wimbledon. It's definitely slower and higher-bouncing.

On the grass of even a few years ago, there's no way Nadal would have taken Federer to 5 sets.

It has been slowed down and made to bounce higher so as to give clay-court players an advantage that they shouldn't have (ya know, because there's already what 1/3rd of the whole season being clay-court tennis).

dh003i
06-12-2008, 12:45 PM
Right. How about 2001, Sampras reigning Wimbledon champ, against Federer who is 2 years away from winning his first slam.

Yea, Federer would do fine against Sampras. I'm not saying he'd dominate him...I think the results would range from 40-60 to 60-40 on grass between them. But on HC, Federer would win the majority of their matches; and on clay, Sampras would hardly win any.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 12:51 PM
Yea, Federer would do fine against Sampras. I'm not saying he'd dominate him...I think the results would range from 40-60 to 60-40 on grass between them. But on HC, Federer would win the majority of their matches; and on clay, Sampras would hardly win any.


It depends on the HC. At the U.S. Open I'd call them even.

blackfrido
06-12-2008, 12:52 PM
he was teaming with an old player. he was just using him for pratice. :mrgreen> besides, Rafa has never done great in Queens doubles wise, or singles wise. Queens seems to be just his practise for Wimbledon, where he is amazing. First time he played Queens, he reached the finals of Wimbledon, and ever since then he hasn't stopped this ritual. the real test is in Wimbledon where players are there to play their best not just get practise for the real contest.

atm, he's 2-1 up on Bjorkman.

this is the old player you refered to;

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=H322

13 doubles titles

ksbh
06-12-2008, 12:57 PM
So now this is a Sampras Vs Federer discussion? Well, at least it'll keep you Federer lovers from belittling Nadal for a while, so why not!

2001- that same year, Hewitt thrashed Sampras in straight sets in the U.S Open and if that ain't enough George Bastl took Sampras down on grass the following year. If you don't get my point yet, it means Federer beating Sampras that year has nothing to do with a prime Sampras on grass. Try again.

Right. How about 2001, Sampras reigning Wimbledon champ, against Federer who is 2 years away from winning his first slam.

Nadal_Monfils
06-12-2008, 12:57 PM
That's largely because they've ruined the grass at Wimbledon. Apparently, none of you Nadal fans can be honest, and admit that. The grass has been slowed down; it produces higher bounce. This is just a fact. Compare it now even to when Federer won his first Wimbledon. It's definitely slower and higher-bouncing.

On the grass of even a few years ago, there's no way Nadal would have taken Federer to 5 sets.

It has been slowed down and made to bounce higher so as to give clay-court players an advantage that they shouldn't have (ya know, because there's already what 1/3rd of the whole season being clay-court tennis).

Yea the grass at Wimbledon is slower than before but it is still nowhere near the equivalent of a fast clay court or a slow hard court like some are proposing. Wimbledon is still a fast surface, just not as fast as it used to be.

Nadal_Monfils
06-12-2008, 12:58 PM
[QUOTE=TheTruth;2420669]


It's more of a matter of everyone thinking Nadal is so great on grass, when it's painfully obvious that if you put Nadal against a prime Henman (who was a second tier grass player) on pre 2002 grass, he would have gotten destroyed. Easily.


Put him against someone like Goran, Richard K, or Sampras, and they would have toyed with him.

How did Federer fare against Henman?

ksbh
06-12-2008, 01:03 PM
Right on target, TheTruth! Couldn't have said it any better myself.

I don't think it's a matter of not liking him. Some of them see him as a threat to Federer!

ksbh
06-12-2008, 01:05 PM
So tell me then, why aren't we seeing more clay-court players in the semi-finals and the finals of Wimbledon?!

You Federer fanboys need to take off your Federer tinted glasses and then maybe you'll see Nadal's performance at Wimbledon has more to do with his talent than the surface!

It has been slowed down and made to bounce higher so as to give clay-court players an advantage that they shouldn't have (ya know, because there's already what 1/3rd of the whole season being clay-court tennis).

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 01:45 PM
[QUOTE=NamRanger;2420677]

How did Federer fare against Henman?

That is so not my post! Somebody tampered with it. Not my words!

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 01:46 PM
So tell me then, why aren't we seeing more clay-court players in the semi-finals and the finals of Wimbledon?!

You Federer fanboys need to take off your Federer tinted glasses and then maybe you'll see Nadal's performance at Wimbledon has more to do with his talent than the surface!

Right on target, ksbh!

zagor
06-12-2008, 01:56 PM
So tell me then, why aren't we seeing more clay-court players in the semi-finals and the finals of Wimbledon?!

You Federer fanboys need to take off your Federer tinted glasses and then maybe you'll see Nadal's performance at Wimbledon has more to do with his talent than the surface!

I'll admit that,I don't how Nadal would do on 90s grass(I prefer to call it that way rather than "real" grass because believe it or not the All England Club decides which is the real grass not hardcore tennis fans)but he's great on today's grass at Wimbledon.Much more agressive from the baseline then on hardcourt(he stands closer to the baseline and the angles he makes with his groundies are really something else,Nadal's underrated as a shotmaker IMO),his serve is more of a weapon on grass and his netplay is also underrated IMO,his agility and movement are unmatched and movement is IMO much more important on natural surfaces(clay,grass)then on hardcourts and similar.One final may be a coincidence,two finals in a row? No way,atleast that's my opinion.

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 02:01 PM
[QUOTE=NamRanger;2420677]

How did Federer fare against Henman?

See? Look at post #67. Your words were attributed to NamRanger.

There's something fishy going on here!

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 06:56 PM
Nadal would get anally raped on the old Wimby. His hardcourt record just emphasizes that even more. Now maybe in your mind he's quite good on grass, but in your mind Nadal is also the GOAT and the King of the world.
Queen's is like the old Wimbledon. So far, Nadal has been quite good on it despite little preparation. Nadal's serve is more attackable on hardcourts due to the spin not being as effective. Grass exaggerates spin more.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 07:09 PM
Queen's is like the old Wimbledon. So far, Nadal has been quite good on it despite little preparation. Nadal's serve is more attackable on hardcourts due to the spin not being as effective. Grass exaggerates spin more.


He beat an ancient Bjorkman and was getting outplayed by a rookie who just happened to run out of gas. Yea, he's doing real well.

Nadal_Monfils
06-12-2008, 08:32 PM
[QUOTE=Nadal_Monfils;2420760]

See? Look at post #67. Your words were attributed to NamRanger.

There's something fishy going on here!

Yea these quotes are messed up.

NLBwell
06-12-2008, 08:49 PM
ALTEC was stupid and listened to everyone and slowed the grass down to give clay court players a chance. I don't see the French Tennis Federation speeding up the courts at Roland Garros to give S&V or HC players a chance.

The conditions at Roland Garros have been sped up tremendously compared to the old days. The courts are prepared to play faster, they don't soak the courts down nearly as much, and the balls are much lighter.

Clay is clay and grass is grass, but Hamburg is not Roland Garros and Queens is not Wimbledon. There are significant differences even between surfaces of the same type.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 08:56 PM
He beat an ancient Bjorkman and was getting outplayed by a rookie who just happened to run out of gas. Yea, he's doing real well.
Wrong and that rookie has some serious game if you watched the match. He has a great future. Nadal got unlucky in one game where he slipped twice on key points and got broken due to it. One time he hit a drop winner but slipped into the net to lose the point.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 09:17 PM
Wrong and that rookie has some serious game if you watched the match. He has a great future. Nadal got unlucky in one game where he slipped twice on key points and got broken due to it. One time he hit a drop winner but slipped into the net to lose the point.



He was getting thoroughly outplayed the second set. Stop being biased. It's painfully obvious that Nadal has struggled much more at Queens then Wimbledon for a reason. The grass there is much faster. It's much more similar to the grass that was used in the pre 2002 era of Wimbledon.


So what if he has some serious game? Nadal shouldn't be losing sets to a rookie on grass if he's so good on it according to you. Slipping is his own fault anyways, usually a result of bad footwork.


Kid doesn't even have a massive game that grass usually requires you to have to win. Imagine if Nadal ran into Roddick on this surface. Definitely would not have an advantage, especially the way he was playing today.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 09:24 PM
He was getting thoroughly outplayed the second set. Stop being biased. It's painfully obvious that Nadal has struggled much more at Queens then Wimbledon for a reason. The grass there is much faster. It's much more similar to the grass that was used in the pre 2002 era of Wimbledon.


So what if he has some serious game? Nadal shouldn't be losing sets to a rookie on grass if he's so good on it according to you. Slipping is his own fault anyways, usually a result of bad footwork.


Kid doesn't even have a massive game that grass usually requires you to have to win. Imagine if Nadal ran into Roddick on this surface. Definitely would not have an advantage, especially the way he was playing today.
They were on serve that second set. Nishikori has a massive forehand and even a thread dedicated to him in the Match Results forum. He obviously has some big game. No one is saying Nadal is unbeatable on grass but he is far better than you make him out to be. The grass was really slippery around the net I heard so it wasn't Nadal's fault. Just bad luck.

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 09:28 PM
They were on serve that second set. Nishikori has a massive forehand and even a thread dedicated to him in the Match Results forum. He obviously has some big game. No one is saying Nadal is unbeatable on grass but he is far better than you make him out to be. The grass was really slippery around the net I heard so it wasn't Nadal's fault. Just bad luck.


Nishikori doesn't have a huge forehand. A huge forehand is Gonzalez, Federer, or Roddick (whenever he chooses to hit it huge). Nishikori's forehand is something more akin to Ferrer's forehand. Pretty good, but nothing that can truly overwhelm you.


He doesn't have a big game, he plays smart. He uses the angles and pace against you. Nadal gave it to him, and he punished Nadal.


I don't believe Nadal would be successful at all on the old Wimbledon grass. Maybe a QF at best. Put him up against the likes of a prime Henman, Rafter, Sampras, Krajicek, or Goran and he would get murdered. The match wouldn't even be close. Heck, I'm sure Stitch would have made him look stupid too.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 09:33 PM
Nishikori doesn't have a huge forehand. A huge forehand is Gonzalez, Federer, or Roddick (whenever he chooses to hit it huge). Nishikori's forehand is something more akin to Ferrer's forehand. Pretty good, but nothing that can truly overwhelm you.


He doesn't have a big game, he plays smart. He uses the angles and pace against you. Nadal gave it to him, and he punished Nadal.


I don't believe Nadal would be successful at all on the old Wimbledon grass. Maybe a QF at best. Put him up against the likes of a prime Henman, Rafter, Sampras, Krajicek, or Goran and he would get murdered. The match wouldn't even be close. Heck, I'm sure Stitch would have made him look stupid too.
Nadal could take out Henman and Rafter. Krajicek and Sampras were unbelievable in their primes. Ivanisevic is one-dimensional and very beatable. It would probably come down to a few points in tiebreaks but Nadal is capable of beating him. Similar to playing Karlovic, which we'll see tomorrow. ;) I don't know why you don't get that Nadal is quite good on grass. Players can't take the ball on the rise as easily and put pressure on Nadal like they can on hardcourts.

mraznman
06-12-2008, 09:40 PM
Maybe you should stop smoking your son's used overgrips...

hahaha good one =]

NamRanger
06-12-2008, 09:41 PM
Nadal could take out Henman and Rafter. Krajicek and Sampras were unbelievable in their primes. Ivanisevic is one-dimensional and very beatable. It would probably come down to a few points in tiebreaks but Nadal is capable of beating him. Similar to playing Karlovic, which we'll see tomorrow. ;) I don't know why you don't get that Nadal is quite good on grass. Players can't take the ball on the rise as easily and put pressure on Nadal like they can on hardcourts.


LOL, Nadal could take out Ivanisevic? Ivanisevic would MURDER Nadal on an old grass. And you are calling Goran one-dimensional? He's a one surface specialist, sure, but he's FAR from one-dimensional.


Nadal could beat Rafter on grass with Rafter in his prime? Yea right. You've got to be kidding me. Henman at his best could beat Nadal solidly on grass, and he's nowhere near as good as Rafter. Let's not even get into if he played someone like Sampras, Edberg, or Krajicek.


Heck, Agassi would beat Nadal down on the old grass. And please don't even try and give me that crap that Nadal beat Agassi in 2006, because it was obvious Agassi was well outside of his prime and his back was limiting his movement and power game severely.


Nadal does not have the grip to sustain the low bouncing balls. His return game is terrible. His serve is not strong enough to compete. There is no way on God's Green Earth that he would have a chance against any of these grass court specialists on their turf. There's a reason for his success, and that is because of the slower grass and higher bounce. You take those two things away and he's a fish out of water.


You THOROUGHLY underestimate how good these players were.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Cx0zj5Dzk&feature=related


This shows what Goran was capable of. Granted Edberg was no longer a dominate force on the tour, he was still a solid player nonetheless, and a threat on indoor surfaces.

Nadal_Freak
06-12-2008, 10:33 PM
Nadal only got broken once in 2 matches on grass so far and that one time was some bad luck like mentioned earlier. You underestimate how tough it is to break Nadal on grass. Nadal's holding rate is much higher on grass than hardcourts. Rafter and Henman never won Wimbledon. I don't see how you think those players you mentioned can break Nadal on grass. It would come down to tiebreaks even more often on the old grass. Nadal has no problem with low bouncing balls. He likes using the slice nowadays anyways. The things that hurt Nadal the most on hardcourts are limited on grass. Nadal hates when players take time away from him. Much tougher to do on grass due to untrue bounces. Federer still can do it as he is amazing and possibly the best grass courter of all-time. Nadal now vs. Agassi in 1992 would definitely be entertaining. Agassi has complained about how tough it is taking the ball early on Nadal's serve due to the lefty spin. Especially on grass. Nadal likes when players come to the net. His passing shots are underrated.

NamRanger
06-13-2008, 06:05 AM
Nadal only got broken once in 2 matches on grass so far and that one time was some bad luck like mentioned earlier. You underestimate how tough it is to break Nadal on grass. Nadal's holding rate is much higher on grass than hardcourts. Rafter and Henman never won Wimbledon. I don't see how you think those players you mentioned can break Nadal on grass. It would come down to tiebreaks even more often on the old grass. Nadal has no problem with low bouncing balls. He likes using the slice nowadays anyways. The things that hurt Nadal the most on hardcourts are limited on grass. Nadal hates when players take time away from him. Much tougher to do on grass due to untrue bounces. Federer still can do it as he is amazing and possibly the best grass courter of all-time. Nadal now vs. Agassi in 1992 would definitely be entertaining. Agassi has complained about how tough it is taking the ball early on Nadal's serve due to the lefty spin. Especially on grass. Nadal likes when players come to the net. His passing shots are underrated.


Today is very evident of Nadal's weakness on a true grass surface. Karlovic is giving him all sorts of trouble and he's nowhere near as good as the guys I listed. You seriously think Nadal could beat Rafter on old grass? Dream on dude.



On old grass, Nadal has no chance to even hit his balls because of how low the ball bounces. He has no chance of touching it. Guys like Henman, Rafter, and Stitch would be ontop of the net to take care of his weak return. Sure he'd win a few points, but he really has no chance of beating these players on their best surface and on his worse.


BTW Henman was a 4 time semi-finalist, and Rafter a 2 time finalist, both who made it deep at Wimbledon in an incredibly difficult era of grass tennis. Most of the time they ran into guys like Sampras or Goran, and ended up losing.

cknobman
06-13-2008, 06:37 AM
Nadal_Freak you better hope Nadal gets lucky and pulls a rabbit out of his @ss so he wins against Ivo or your gonna be eating some serious crow.

3rd set right now, cross your fingers.

Nadal_Freak
06-13-2008, 12:26 PM
Nadal_Freak you better hope Nadal gets lucky and pulls a rabbit out of his @ss so he wins against Ivo or your gonna be eating some serious crow.

3rd set right now, cross your fingers.
Nadal won and didn't get broke the whole match. It came down to luck a little bit but there was no evidence that Nadal was bothered by the low ball. He was bothered by Karlovic's serve which so is Federer.

cknobman
06-13-2008, 12:38 PM
Nadal won and didn't get broke the whole match. It came down to luck a little bit but there was no evidence that Nadal was bothered by the low ball. He was bothered by Karlovic's serve which so is Federer.

Ill be the first to admit that the only thing Karlovic has is a serve. Everything else is very subpar by pro standards.

He had somthing like 35 aces and still couldnt win the match. Lol. Im hoping for a Nadal/Djoker final in what could be a mini preview of things to come at Wimby this year.

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 12:41 PM
He beat an ancient Bjorkman and was getting outplayed by a rookie who just happened to run out of gas. Yea, he's doing
real well.

Yep, the same ancient Bjorkman Fed played in the Wimbledon semi's 2006, and the r64 last year's Oz. And believe it or not, people were saying Bjorkman was a "viable" candidate since he was a serve and volleyer!

2007 Australian Open
Australia Hard R64 Federer 6-2 6-3 6-2
Stats
2006 Wimbledon
England Grass S Federer 6-2 6-0 6-2
Stats

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 12:46 PM
Nadal could take out Henman and Rafter. Krajicek and Sampras were unbelievable in their primes. Ivanisevic is one-dimensional and very beatable. It would probably come down to a few points in tiebreaks but Nadal is capable of beating him. Similar to playing Karlovic, which we'll see tomorrow. ;) I don't know why you don't get that Nadal is quite good on grass. Players can't take the ball on the rise as easily and put pressure on Nadal like they can on hardcourts.

The grass isn't the same. The players aren't the same. We don't know how Nadal would have fared, but we do know how a young Fed fared. There is no argument. Oh, and Kei has serious game. He beat James Blake a seasoned pro last year. Some people just want to rile you up. Nadal is good on grass. His past results prove that. But, isn't it funny how Fed's three FO finals mean something, while Nadal's two straight Wimby finals mean nothing? Can we say double standards at its worst?

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 12:48 PM
Nadal won and didn't get broke the whole match. It came down to luck a little bit but there was no evidence that Nadal was bothered by the low ball. He was bothered by Karlovic's serve which so is Federer.

Look at the bright side. At least you didn't have to eat crow. Pass the plate, please!

markgimmer
06-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Tomorrow, bee prepared ********s, Roddick will destroy Rafa

markgimmer
06-13-2008, 01:49 PM
I 'll wait for nadal_freak tomorrow, *******, let's see primate face in GREEN SURFACE

Eviscerator
06-13-2008, 02:01 PM
The stats show how hard it is to break on grass compared to the other tournaments. Maybe Queens is even faster but Wimbledon is also very fast and allows for many free points on serve.



Not only have the courts been slowed, but the under surface was changed to allow higher bouncing balls. So even rallies and passing shots are made easier for semi western grips to hit cleanly. While Nadal should be commended for his adaptation to the grass from clay, he would not do as well with pre 2001 grass and under surface. Don't forget 2001 was the year Hewitt won on grass and started the ascension of baseline players to the top of the tourney.

Eviscerator
06-13-2008, 02:05 PM
You THOROUGHLY underestimate how good these players were.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Cx0zj5Dzk&feature=related


This shows what Goran was capable of. Granted Edberg was no longer a dominate force on the tour, he was still a solid player nonetheless, and a threat on indoor surfaces.


Nice video clip

DavidGarcia
06-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Please do not compare current ATP players with the old back players. Tennis has changed too much!

I reckon that a top 50 current player would have been no problems top 5 in the 80's and 90's playing current tennis.

If you have been playing tennis during the years I am sure you remember those days in which a good serve and volley would have given you the point. The new generation (at least at my club) just return my serve like it was going at much lower speed but the the speed is the same than 5-10 years ago. The different is that tennis is a much more demanding game than 10 years ago and now you need to have a good serve, good return, good goundies, good voleys, good mover, mentally strong......come on let's face......these guys return serves (and getting winners) from serves which would have been aces few years ago.

Try to play these days with an old continental grip and tell me then how you get on with the young guns. :-)

Heyford Price
06-13-2008, 02:32 PM
I 'll wait for nadal_freak tomorrow, *******, let's see primate face in GREEN SURFACE

Oh yes, I'm with you man!!!!!! :twisted:

Tony Sideway
06-13-2008, 02:40 PM
I 'll wait for nadal_freak tomorrow, *******, let's see primate face in GREEN SURFACE

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NamRanger
06-13-2008, 02:52 PM
Please do not compare current ATP players with the old back players. Tennis has changed too much!

I reckon that a top 50 current player would have been no problems top 5 in the 80's and 90's playing current tennis.

If you have been playing tennis during the years I am sure you remember those days in which a good serve and volley would have given you the point. The new generation (at least at my club) just return my serve like it was going at much lower speed but the the speed is the same than 5-10 years ago. The different is that tennis is a much more demanding game than 10 years ago and now you need to have a good serve, good return, good goundies, good voleys, good mover, mentally strong......come on let's face......these guys return serves (and getting winners) from serves which would have been aces few years ago.

Try to play these days with an old continental grip and tell me then how you get on with the young guns. :-)


Mac can still compete with guys in the top 50 well into his old age, and you think guys like Goran and Sampras, who were modern day age players also, couldn't compete if they were in their primes? Are you on crack?

DavidGarcia
06-13-2008, 02:58 PM
Mac can still compete with guys in the top 50 well into his old age, and you think guys like Goran and Sampras, who were modern day age players also, couldn't compete if they were in their primes? Are you on crack?

When was the last time that you watched Mac playing live mate?

I watched him few times in Belfast and trust me he is no near current ATP tennis at all.

I've been in few ATP tournies & the RG twice so comparing old legends with current atp players is insane.

Sampras would not be one number in this era and Goran would not win any mayor slams. Saying the opposite is really been in crack.

simi
06-13-2008, 03:42 PM
When was the last time that you watched Mac playing live mate?

I watched him few times in Belfast and trust me he is no near current ATP tennis at all.

Then, that is a sad commentary for the state of the ATP today. Didn't Mac win a tournament in San Jose just the other year, (2006)? Sure, it was in doubles, but he proved he could hold his own, and more, on the current ATP.

NamRanger
06-13-2008, 04:21 PM
When was the last time that you watched Mac playing live mate?

I watched him few times in Belfast and trust me he is no near current ATP tennis at all.

I've been in few ATP tournies & the RG twice so comparing old legends with current atp players is insane.

Sampras would not be one number in this era and Goran would not win any mayor slams. Saying the opposite is really been in crack.




So is that why Mac was torturing poor Ancic in an exhibition? Or he was returning Roddick's serve with EASE in a doubles exhibition?


Or the fact that Mac won a title in 2006? Come on now. Be realistic.

DavidGarcia
06-13-2008, 04:25 PM
Then, that is a sad commentary for the state of the ATP today. Didn't Mac win a tournament in San Jose just the other year, (2006)? Sure, it was in doubles, but he proved he could hold his own, and more, on the current ATP.

Doubles is not singles, you can rely on a good partner.

I've watched live the 90's and the current ATP tennis and I am more impressed with today's players. But then again this is my personal opion and I am sure that many of you would disagree.

PS, Mac does not get to win too often in the black tour........in fact, he lost the 2 matches which I went to see him.

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2008, 10:05 AM
Tomorrow, bee prepared ********s, Roddick will destroy Rafa
Time to eat crow. ;)

Tomaz Bellucci
06-14-2008, 02:54 PM
Time to eat crow. ;)

Let's see tomorrow, jerk

Tomaz Bellucci
06-14-2008, 02:55 PM
Nadal is humble, not like you freak! :)

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2008, 03:02 PM
Let's see tomorrow, jerk
The point I was making is Nadal is very capable of winning on grass courts. Even the fast ones. I guess Queen's is now green clay as well since you haters were saying that about Wimbledon to discredit Nadal's victory. Sounds like you haters are the ones being the jerk.

Tomaz Bellucci
06-14-2008, 03:07 PM
The point I was making is Nadal is very capable of winning on grass courts. Even the fast ones. I guess Queen's is now green clay as well since you haters were saying that about Wimbledon to discredit Nadal's victory. Sounds like you haters are the ones being the jerk.

Wrong!!!!
Have you ever put your feet on today's Wimby grass? IS VERY SLOWER COMPARES TO TEN YEARS AGO. You can't deny that, not a chance.
"You haters": stupid comment, you don't know me at all.
Arrogant users like you makes things noisy and ba:evil:d...

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2008, 03:11 PM
Wrong!!!!
Have you ever put your feet on today's Wimby grass? IS VERY SLOWER COMPARES TO TEN YEARS AGO. You can't deny that, not a chance.
"You haters": stupid comment, you don't know me at all.
Arrogant users like you makes things noisy and ba:evil:d...
Yet statisically it is faster than the US Open. It has more to do with how comfortable Nadal is on grass than the speed difference between grass and hardcourts. Obviously Nadal prefers clay the most but grass is his second best surface as the movement is similar in feel to clay.
Wimbledon Breaking Percentage (Total) 17.337%
US Open Breaking Percentage (Total) 21.87%
Aussie Open Breaking Percentage (Total) 23.179%

Tomaz Bellucci
06-14-2008, 03:13 PM
And buddy, look what i put in another thread (I believe nole will win, but I wish Rafa would win)

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2008, 03:16 PM
And buddy, look what i put in another thread (I believe nole will win, but I wish Rafa would win)
You're obviously not a Nadal fan if you agree with the idea that Wimbledon is green clay. It is so much faster and Roddick would go down in the first week.

Tomaz Bellucci
06-14-2008, 03:21 PM
You're obviously not a Nadal fan if you agree with the idea that Wimbledon is green clay. It is so much faster and Roddick would go down in the first week.

What?
Green clay? Who told this crap?
NO, I said is slower than in previous years!
That's all.
And man, it's obvious that people that don't like Rafa want to quit value to his finals saying that... I'm not!!!!!!! There are current conditions, nothing else! Not Rafa's problem!

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2008, 03:26 PM
What?
Green clay? Who told this crap?
NO, I said is slower than in previous years!
That's all.
And man, it's obvious that people that don't like Rafa want to quit value to his finals saying that... I'm not!!!!!!! There are current conditions, nothing else! Not Rafa's problem!
Why are you on my case than? I never said that Wimbledon now is the same as it was in the 90's. US Open might be slower as well. People just don't want to give credit to Nadal's all-around game so the court automatically becomes slower if he does well.

Tomaz Bellucci
06-14-2008, 03:30 PM
Cause when you want, you are a very nice person... but almost always you are "fighting" against anti-Rafa users... not the way, that's all...

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2008, 03:33 PM
Cause when you want, you are a very nice person... but almost always you are "fighting" against anti-Rafa users... not the way, that's all...
I call it discussing but yeah some try to pick fights with me. I just try to be logical and some others don't like to be that way. Anti-Rafa fans usually are the ones guilty of that.

Turning Pro
06-15-2008, 09:03 AM
Nadal is the REAL DEAL on grass. It's very fast at Queens so therefore no excuses on the Wimbledons finals. End.

Duzza
06-16-2008, 02:33 AM
Cause when you want, you are a very nice person... but almost always you are "fighting" against anti-Rafa users... not the way, that's all...
Hey Tomaz are you really THE Thomaz Belluci?!?!?!

crazylevity
06-16-2008, 09:42 AM
Yet statisically it is faster than the US Open. It has more to do with how comfortable Nadal is on grass than the speed difference between grass and hardcourts. Obviously Nadal prefers clay the most but grass is his second best surface as the movement is similar in feel to clay.
Wimbledon Breaking Percentage (Total) 17.337%
US Open Breaking Percentage (Total) 21.87%
Aussie Open Breaking Percentage (Total) 23.179%

Please stop posting your statistics. The reasoning behind it is highly inaccurate and fallacious. Breaking percentages are NOT explained by surface speed alone. The bounce on grass is more irregular and unpredictable, and even if it is slower than Decoturf it can still be harder to return good serves.

Nadal_Freak
06-16-2008, 10:35 AM
Please stop posting your statistics. The reasoning behind it is highly inaccurate and fallacious. Breaking percentages are NOT explained by surface speed alone. The bounce on grass is more irregular and unpredictable, and even if it is slower than Decoturf it can still be harder to return good serves.
Clay is also irregular and unpredictable but the stats show a much higher breaker percentage. Quit being a ******* and accept that Wimbledon is still fast.

crazylevity
06-16-2008, 11:42 AM
Clay is also irregular and unpredictable but the stats show a much higher breaker percentage. Quit being a ******* and accept that Wimbledon is still fast.

Where in my post was I being a "*******" as you say?

Anyone who has played on clay and grass will know the simple difference. Even though clay is also irregular and unpredictable, the bounce is so much higher that there is time to adjust the swing and still time the stroke properly. This is not the case on grass, where, even if slower, the ball tends to slip and slide more than sit up.

There is much more than speed than explains breaking percentages, that's all I'm saying. As someone who critiques research methodology, I have plenty of other issues with your "statistics", such as sampling methods, calculations, how you standardize your deviations, etc.

Bottom line: Breaking percentages are NOT definitive proof of court speed. That is all. Nothing to do with Federer or Nadal.

Morrissey
06-16-2008, 11:54 AM
Let's see tomorrow, jerk

Let's see you say that under your main handle instead of the new one you created for you to say things like that. BTW, Nadal totally outplayed Roddick so time to be quiet. Freak didn't say anything bad.

Morrissey
06-16-2008, 11:56 AM
Lastly, who cares if he lost the doubles? He won the singles beating Karlovic, Roddick and Joker. That matters most.

stormholloway
06-16-2008, 11:58 AM
The U.S. Open isn't fast? Get your eyes checked.

You are saying this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps


Isn't faster then this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3t7IgEAlW8

Showing videos of two different matches does little, or nothing, to help your case. Nadal hits with tremendous topspin and Agassi is a flatter hitter. Regardless, these are two different matches.

You've got to be kidding. By simple physics the U.S. Open is FASTER then Wimbledon. Wimbledon only PLAYS faster because the grass before made the ball stayed much lower and skidded. Wimbledon has more friction due to the grass and the grass itself absorbs more pace, resulting in lower ball speeds. The ball when it hits the surface at the U.S. Open ricochets off.

By simple physics that you can't are won't explain. Does grass have more friction? Rub your face on a US Open hard court then on the grass and see which has more friction. If the grass itself absorbs more pace then why was the old grass so much faster than current US Open hard courts? The speed is slower because of the type of grass and the intense rolling of the ground.

By your logic I can declare the AO surface the fastest because we were seeing record amount of aces and winners being hit. Federer had career high aces, so did Roddick. Kohlschrieber had to hit triple the amount of winners than he ever has. Tsonga hit ridiculous amounts of winners. Does that make the AO surface the fastest? Simple answer, NO.

There's so much unnecessary attitude in your post. You're not in a position to talk about logic considering your talk above. Logic is showing two videos and using that as conclusive evidence? Logic is mentioning 'simple physics' which you haven't explained nor even properly referenced?

People complain about the slowness of Wimbledon because it's a matter of relativity. It's been significantly slowed down, but it's still grass. It doesn't appear slower than the US Open to me. I play on that surface and I've watched the US Open up close. Wimbledon still appears faster to me. My anecdotal evidence is still more relevant than your two videos.

Nadal_Freak
06-16-2008, 12:36 PM
Where in my post was I being a "*******" as you say?

Anyone who has played on clay and grass will know the simple difference. Even though clay is also irregular and unpredictable, the bounce is so much higher that there is time to adjust the swing and still time the stroke properly. This is not the case on grass, where, even if slower, the ball tends to slip and slide more than sit up.

There is much more than speed than explains breaking percentages, that's all I'm saying. As someone who critiques research methodology, I have plenty of other issues with your "statistics", such as sampling methods, calculations, how you standardize your deviations, etc.

Bottom line: Breaking percentages are NOT definitive proof of court speed. That is all. Nothing to do with Federer or Nadal.
Yes there is deviation but not much considering there is 2 weeks of tennis playing and over 100 matches of 3 to 5 sets to go by. I don't think it can deviate to 3% with that much data. I also don't think the bounces are that bad. Also you can block a return back on grass and not get punished for it unlike hard courts. It's not an exact science but you get a pretty good idea on the court speed by these statistics. Nadal's serve is more vulnerable on hard courts than grass of being attacked. Therefore, I think Nadal prefers grass much more with his lefty slice. It's not this theory that Wimbledon is green clay bs. Nadal proved me right by winning possibly the fastest grass court tournament. (Queen's)

veroniquem
06-16-2008, 12:42 PM
Hey Tomaz are you really THE Thomaz Belluci?!?!?!
Somehow I doubt it...