PDA

View Full Version : Why did they slow down the grass at wimbledon?


Skanavis
02-26-2009, 07:12 PM
and do you agree with this decision?

paterson
02-26-2009, 09:08 PM
They slowed down the grass because the matches were often criticized as serving contests, the most boring brand of tennis known to man. With the power of modern racquets, the ball tended to skid low and move faster than the players could react. Thankfully, the courts have been slowed down. IMO, it was a good idea. The Federer-Nadal matches are more entertaining than those Sampras-Ivanisevic slugfests.

Blinkism
02-26-2009, 11:56 PM
That's right, and it's a good things they did (although one does miss a good serve and volleyer once in a while, no?)

Also, I think I heard something along the lines of this new type of grass is easier to re-grow and manage and that's why we see the courts at wimbledon are a little less worn-down as the tourney progress than in the past.

All in all, a decision approved by the average fan but probably not by hardcore purists

roddickfan90
02-27-2009, 05:36 AM
not a good enough reason to slow down the courts, if you want to watch a game of alot of rallys in, go to the french open

icedevil0289
02-27-2009, 05:46 AM
I wish they never slowed it down because it seems you can't really serve and volley anymore or atleast that much, which sucks imo.

Sentinel
02-27-2009, 05:51 AM
For details, pls read "ATP Conspiracy against Roger Federer" by TW Guru, 2nd Edition 2009.

coloskier
02-27-2009, 05:52 AM
It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.

icedevil0289
02-27-2009, 05:58 AM
It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.

I'm not sure about that. I think he would have still won a few wimbledons and ofcourse everything would probably stay the same. Fed did say that it was a lot easier to win on different surfaces than it was back then because the speeds are not so different.

welcome2petrkordaland
02-27-2009, 06:09 AM
from what i remember from a tennis documentary type program coupla years ago that the "slowing down of the grass" was not intentional at all. It was the result of improved technology when it comes to the packing down of the dirt before the grass is laid down. apparently, and agassi commented on this too, the ground/dirt is packed more than before, which does two things: it causes a truer bounce (less uneven bounces) and it causes the bounce to be higher than before. . . makes sense if you think about it.

i could be wrong but i don't think they were slowed down on purpose. the main issue AFAIK was getting a truer bounce. anyone remembe hearing anything about this?

King of Aces
02-27-2009, 06:16 AM
They slowed down the grass because the matches were often criticized as serving contests, the most boring brand of tennis known to man. With the power of modern racquets, the ball tended to skid low and move faster than the players could react. Thankfully, the courts have been slowed down. IMO, it was a good idea. The Federer-Nadal matches are more entertaining than those Sampras-Ivanisevic slugfests.

I completely agree.

JediMindTrick
02-27-2009, 06:19 AM
They slowed down the grass to allow Nadal to beat Federer, that's why it's called "green clay".

gj011
02-27-2009, 06:26 AM
They slowed down the grass to allow Nadal to beat Federer, that's why it's called "green clay".

And AO surface is now "blue clay". :roll:

If anyone profited from the "green clay" it was Federer who won 5 times in a row on it. One can argue that it would not be a case on the "fast grass".

Nadal_Freak
02-27-2009, 07:24 AM
The grass is not that slow. I wish it was slower but Nadal has to rely on holding on to his serve which seems to be most effective on grass (lefty slice is nasty). Nadal rarely gets broken on grass but is good enough to get a break in each set. Very similar to Sampras ironically.

saram
02-27-2009, 07:26 AM
They slowed it down to give us posters here at TW something to over-discuss every other month.....

ESP#1
02-27-2009, 07:45 AM
I thought i saw a report stating it was something to do with the grass they use now, and how it seems to not wear as fast but the downside is that it slows down the courts, i guess that makes sense, thicker grass causes slower courts,

but then i saw something saying how they use a ball with more felt also, so it makes play a bit slower, is this ball used because it helps with court maintenance also or are they really just trying to slow down the courts,

at the end of the day it really doesn't bother me, i enjoy the long rallies but i also wouldn't mind more variety in the game

tennis_hand
02-27-2009, 08:12 AM
slowing down is good, but it has been over done.

the balls they use have always been Slazenger, good and lasting balls but slightly slower than US Open Wilson balls which don't last well.

King of Aces
02-27-2009, 09:03 AM
And AO surface is now "blue clay"?? :roll:

If anyone profited from the "green clay" it was Federer who won 5 times in a row on it. One can argue that it would not be a case on the "fast grass".

Those are really good points.

Giggs The Red Devil
02-27-2009, 09:37 AM
They slowed down the grass because the matches were often criticized as serving contests, the most boring brand of tennis known to man. With the power of modern racquets, the ball tended to skid low and move faster than the players could react. Thankfully, the courts have been slowed down. IMO, it was a good idea. The Federer-Nadal matches are more entertaining than those Sampras-Ivanisevic slugfests.

How come a serving festival is more boring than baseball or cricket? Some of us enjoyed the diversity of the courts.

Accelerate wimbly grass now!

henryshli
02-27-2009, 09:38 AM
slower grass longer rallies allowing players like Nadal win Wimbledon......sigh.

cottontail
02-27-2009, 09:58 AM
from what i remember from a tennis documentary type program coupla years ago that the "slowing down of the grass" was not intentional at all. It was the result of improved technology when it comes to the packing down of the dirt before the grass is laid down. apparently, and agassi commented on this too, the ground/dirt is packed more than before, which does two things: it causes a truer bounce (less uneven bounces) and it causes the bounce to be higher than before. . . makes sense if you think about it.

i could be wrong but i don't think they were slowed down on purpose. the main issue AFAIK was getting a truer bounce. anyone remembe hearing anything about this?
I don't know about the documentary but what you said is correct according to what Wimbledon has been saying.

They tried to get rid of the bad bounces as much as posssible and to make the surface more durable. They started using 100% rye grass with a firmer subsurface in 2001.

Higher bounces are a by-product of the change.

http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/infosheets/grasscourts_general.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon05/news/story?id=2090997 (This article is from 2005)

It's mindboggling that some people actually seem serious when they call the current Wimbledon surface green clay and claim it was changed so that Nadal could win. :shock:

Those pepole don't know how the serve fest during the 1990 bored people and discouraged many people from attending Wimbledon (not that I personally disliked the situation).

zagor
02-27-2009, 10:03 AM
It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.

Hmm no,Kolja can play great on fast HC/carpet and Fed is very good at adapting to different conditions,he won his first slam playing S&V,something no one else can claim to have done these days.I'm sure Fed would have adapted to fast grass just fine.

tahiti
02-27-2009, 10:10 AM
I'm glad it's slower, but I never knew why, thanks for the info.

Definitely better for the tennis players. More spectators, bigger event, more prize money, more tennis for the spectactors. HALLALUJAH!!!!!!!

GameSampras
02-27-2009, 10:11 AM
I would have liked to of seen a Fed-Nadal Wimby final on legit fast grass. Nadal did win queens lets not forget.

NamRanger
02-27-2009, 10:31 AM
I would have liked to of seen a Fed-Nadal Wimby final on legit fast grass. Nadal did win queens lets not forget.


He was 2 pts from defeat against Karlovic, Djokovic had him on the ropes, Nishikori took a set off him, and he didn't do much to Roddick who was coming off a rotator cuff injury. He's good on legit fast grass, but I'd say he's much more prone to being upset (unlike at Wimbledon where he literally steamrolled everyone).

cottontail
02-27-2009, 10:43 AM
He was 2 pts from defeat against Karlovic, Djokovic had him on the ropes, Nishikori took a set off him, and he didn't do much to Roddick who was coming off a rotator cuff injury. He's good on legit fast grass, but I'd say he's much more prone to being upset (unlike at Wimbledon where he literally steamrolled everyone).
O. Rochus, Soderling and Safin all played a close match with Federer in Halle in 2005-2006, especially Rochus who I believe had 4 MPs. It's all about winning, no?

NamRanger
02-27-2009, 10:44 AM
O. Rochus, Soderling and Safin all played a close match with Federer in Halle in 2005-2006, especially Rochus who I believe had 4 MPs. It's all about winning, no?


Winning convincingly shows how good you are on the surface. Kuerten won 3 FOs, but he had to struggle his way there. Sure, he's a great claycourt player, but not as good as Borg or Nadal. He could have won more if he could stay healthy; he just couldn't.



Nadal is good on faster surfaces, no doubt. However, he's very prone to upsets on faster surfaces, where at Wimbledon (which is a more medium type speed now) he had no trouble outside of Gulbis and Federer.

ksbh
02-27-2009, 11:44 AM
Good point. Nadal would have held his own on fast grass against Federer. It'd be even with the better player winning on the day.

I would have liked to of seen a Fed-Nadal Wimby final on legit fast grass. Nadal did win queens lets not forget.

King of Aces
02-27-2009, 12:38 PM
How come a serving festival is more boring than baseball or cricket?

Did you ever go to a baseball game in the mid August heat to watch a no-hitter? Its pretty freaking boring!

I know nothing about cricket but its not all that popular here in the USA.

Nadal_Freak
02-27-2009, 01:02 PM
Winning convincingly shows how good you are on the surface. Kuerten won 3 FOs, but he had to struggle his way there. Sure, he's a great claycourt player, but not as good as Borg or Nadal. He could have won more if he could stay healthy; he just couldn't.



Nadal is good on faster surfaces, no doubt. However, he's very prone to upsets on faster surfaces, where at Wimbledon (which is a more medium type speed now) he had no trouble outside of Gulbis and Federer.

Have you ever thought it was the movement that gave Nadal more trouble on hardcourts then grass? Nadal moves very comfortably on grass but looks at times not comfortable on hardcourts.

Giggs The Red Devil
02-27-2009, 02:10 PM
Did you ever go to a baseball game in the mid August heat to watch a no-hitter? Its pretty freaking boring!

I know nothing about cricket but its not all that popular here in the USA.

Yeah, I would go watch a no-hitter and I would go watch a 0-0 football match.

My point was that I miss the diversity. I enjoyed watching the long rallies of Roland Garros and a month later the 3 shots rallies of Wimbledon. Wimbledon is still fast tho, but it can be faster.

devila
02-27-2009, 02:24 PM
Fed couldn't overpower and outstretch most opponents the last year and a 1/2, with his long gorilla arm. That's why hard running and 6 foot 3 inch skinny
guys can outsmart him if
Federer can't stretch hard to his forehand side and serve 10 aces.

NamRanger
02-27-2009, 02:39 PM
Have you ever thought it was the movement that gave Nadal more trouble on hardcourts then grass? Nadal moves very comfortably on grass but looks at times not comfortable on hardcourts.


A. Nadal looked perfectly fine at the AO
B. HCs skid more and are generally faster than Wimbledon
C. Nadal looked totally out of place at Queens. Hate to say it, but he did have a little bit of luck to win that title.



He's perfectly fine at Wimbledon. At Queens or other fast surfaces, his movement doesn't look so great.

Nadal_Freak
02-27-2009, 04:08 PM
A. Nadal looked perfectly fine at the AO
B. HCs skid more and are generally faster than Wimbledon
C. Nadal looked totally out of place at Queens. Hate to say it, but he did have a little bit of luck to win that title.



He's perfectly fine at Wimbledon. At Queens or other fast surfaces, his movement doesn't look so great.
Queen's comes right after the French Open. No time for Nadal to rest after 2 weeks of tennis. Beating Roddick in straight sets I would hardly call being lucky. Nadal is a beast on any type of grass. Sorry to burst your bubble. Hard courts at the Australian Open were very slow. Almost clay speed but Nadal still struggled. It is the SURFACE that hurts him the most. Not the speed.

fastdunn
02-27-2009, 04:20 PM
I don't know about the documentary but what you said is correct according to what Wimbledon has been saying.

They tried to get rid of the bad bounces as much as posssible and to make the surface more durable. They started using 100% rye grass with a firmer subsurface in 2001.

Higher bounces are a by-product of the change.
.


That was Wimbledon's "official" explanations but I wonder why

1. They increased sub-surface packing in 2003 (after they had two Serve and Volleyer finalists in 2002).

2. US Open hard court also got significantly slower from 2003 (at the same time frame Wimbledon got current slow).

rubberduckies
02-27-2009, 05:14 PM
He was 2 pts from defeat against Karlovic, Djokovic had him on the ropes, Nishikori took a set off him, and he didn't do much to Roddick who was coming off a rotator cuff injury. He's good on legit fast grass, but I'd say he's much more prone to being upset (unlike at Wimbledon where he literally steamrolled everyone).

Until 2008, Nadal was vulnerable to an upset on Wimbledon grass.
In 2007, he was pushed to 5 sets by Soderling and had to come from 2 sets to 0 down against Youzhny.
In 2006, he had to come from 2 sets to 0 down against Robert Kendrick.

It is much easier to be upset in a best of 3 format. If Wimbledon had been best of three, Nadal would've made a 2nd round exit in 2006 and a 4th round exit in 2007.

Spider
02-27-2009, 06:12 PM
They have slowed down this surface for many years now, and Fed was lucky and benefited the most out of it. A player like Sampras (in his prime) would beat Federer hands down on fast grass. :)

egn
02-27-2009, 06:59 PM
It was slowed down because of the constant whining of the clay court specialists, who, in fact, half the time never showed up to play Wimbledon because they thought they had no chance. Which was true. You don't see Roddick or Karlovic boycotting FO, why should claycourters be any different for Wimbledon? That is why you have 4 different Grand Slams. The true best player in the world is the one who can win on both slow AND fast courts. If you brought ALL of the courts on the ATP circuit back to the speed they were at 10 years ago, I think you would have a real shakeup in the top 10 rankings, and I'm not just talking about Nadal and Fed. Simon would not even be in the top 20, along with Davydenko. Murray, Verdasco, and Roddick would be higher, Nadal would be lower, but not by much. Fed might even drop more than Nadal.


Fed won Wimbledon in 2003 and the grass was still relatively fast..he beat Pete Sampras on wimby 2001 on fast grass. He used to S+V Fed would not drop he would have won more wimbys probably his game is better suited to fast grass especially against the field and Roddick would have made more Wimby finals I say. The grass was slowed down not on purpose they needed to make it more maintainable though I partially don't believe it cause it keeps slowing down each year. It also has to do with the modern game and the changes they want to make grass suited for the field.

CyBorg
02-27-2009, 09:49 PM
Aesthetics.

The old school grass court game requires chip-n-charge, subtlety, hitting the ball around your ankles, lobs, half-volleys, etc. The kind of stuff that is low on power in every way, that's right, except for the serve.

There were two objectives, I think:

- to lengthen the rallies, by making the service more returnable

- to emphasize the robust passive shot skills of today's stars by getting the ball to bounce more, such that guys can hit it right at the sweet spot

The effects are that guys are staying back, because of the truer bounce on the surface. There is also an impression that everyone is hitting the ball better, due to the way it bounces.

There's a marketing strategy here, a belief that this kind of aesthetic would bring in more fans. Did it succeed? I don't know.

NamRanger
02-27-2009, 11:05 PM
Queen's comes right after the French Open. No time for Nadal to rest after 2 weeks of tennis. Beating Roddick in straight sets I would hardly call being lucky. Nadal is a beast on any type of grass. Sorry to burst your bubble. Hard courts at the Australian Open were very slow. Almost clay speed but Nadal still struggled. It is the SURFACE that hurts him the most. Not the speed.


He beat Roddick straights, 7-5, 6-4 with Roddick coming off a rotator cuff injury, which visibly bothered him throughout the match. That shows that he's not that great on fast grass. Nadal was lucky against both Djokovic and Karlovic. He could have easily lost those matches had 2-3 points gone differently.


Again, you seem to love to leave out very important details.

Cesc Fabregas
02-27-2009, 11:21 PM
He beat Roddick straights, 7-5, 6-4 with Roddick coming off a rotator cuff injury, which visibly bothered him throughout the match. That shows that he's not that great on fast grass. Nadal was lucky against both Djokovic and Karlovic. He could have easily lost those matches had 2-3 points gone differently.


Again, you seem to love to leave out very important details.


Oh come on Nadal dominated Roddick in that match and Roddick never looked like winning.

nalbyvsfed
02-28-2009, 04:07 AM
im wondering why you cant serve and volley: alright the grass is slower. many players can serve harder than 10 years ago because of the racket technology. so i think grass still favours serve and volley game. the reason why nobody is doing it often, is because they're not good at it. my opinion, you can still serve + volley on every accurate first serve.

Satch
02-28-2009, 04:15 AM
im wondering why you cant serve and volley: alright the grass is slower. many players can serve harder than 10 years ago because of the racket technology. so i think grass still favours serve and volley game. the reason why nobody is doing it often, is because they're not good at it. my opinion, you can still serve + volley on every accurate first serve.

it's really hard to do S&V today when there are so many good returners in game...

Nadal_Freak
02-28-2009, 05:08 AM
Oh come on Nadal dominated Roddick in that match and Roddick never looked like winning.
Yeah I don't understand this lucky business. Making excuses for Nadal winning Queens. Nadal should've been too tired to win that but defies the odds because he is good on grass. The key to Nadal's success on grass is how well he holds on to his serve. He gets broken many more times on hardcourts. Like I said earier. His lefty slice serve is most effective on grass. It stays low and slides away from the opponent. Also the fact Nadal has improved his serve a ton since 2005 really helped. Roddick even mentioned that exactly after his match with Nadal at Queens.

TheTruth
02-28-2009, 05:22 AM
Oh come on Nadal dominated Roddick in that match and Roddick never looked like winning.

Total truth. Even one of the Macs admitted that. They said Roddick didn't have any belief he could win that match, and he didn't. Luck had nothing to do with it!

TheTruth
02-28-2009, 05:30 AM
The claycourters boycotted Wimbledon not because they didn't have a chance to win it, but because Wimbledon uses a different ranking system than other grand slams.

So if a claycourter was ranked #2, Wimbledon didn't rank them #2 but according to their past results. This put them at an unfair advantage as their real seeds were lowered making them vulnerable to the draw.

If one wants to be informed and not swayed by the spin google Spanish boycott Wimbledon.

The truth is there if one is really interested.

There was also the question of maintainence for the old grass, and the advent of today's baseliners that influenced the decision.

What is not true is that the system somehow was put in to aide Rafa, since the grass was installed in 2001 when Rafa was about 13 years old, a sole clay courter, and had not yet risen to prominence.

Many of the reasons given are nothing more than sour grapes.

Nadal_Freak
02-28-2009, 05:37 AM
The claycourters boycotted Wimbledon not because they didn't have a chance to win it, but because Wimbledon uses a different ranking system than other grand slams.

So if a claycourter was ranked #2, Wimbledon didn't rank them #2 but according to their past results. This put them at an unfair advantage as their real seeds were lowered making them vulnerable to the draw.

If one wants to be informed and not swayed by the spin google Spanish boycott Wimbledon.

The truth is there if one is really interested.

There was also the question of maintainence for the old grass, and the advent of today's baseliners that influenced the decision.

What is not true is that the system somehow was put in to aide Rafa, since the grass was installed in 2001 when Rafa was about 13 years old, a sole clay courter, and had not yet risen to prominence.

Many of the reasons given are nothing more than sour grapes.
Great post. I'm sick of all the sour grapes from Fed fans trying to discredit Nadal's achievements. How pathetic is that?

coloskier
02-28-2009, 07:50 AM
it's really hard to do S&V today when there are so many good returners in game...

The only reason why there are good returners is because they've slowed down the game and made the balls bounce higher. Take away the slow balls and the high bounce and serve returns become a lot less accurate.

coloskier
02-28-2009, 07:52 AM
The claycourters boycotted Wimbledon not because they didn't have a chance to win it, but because Wimbledon uses a different ranking system than other grand slams.

So if a claycourter was ranked #2, Wimbledon didn't rank them #2 but according to their past results. This put them at an unfair advantage as their real seeds were lowered making them vulnerable to the draw.

If one wants to be informed and not swayed by the spin google Spanish boycott Wimbledon.

The truth is there if one is really interested.

There was also the question of maintainence for the old grass, and the advent of today's baseliners that influenced the decision.

What is not true is that the system somehow was put in to aide Rafa, since the grass was installed in 2001 when Rafa was about 13 years old, a sole clay courter, and had not yet risen to prominence.

Many of the reasons given are nothing more than sour grapes.

Oh, I don't disagree with your top statement. That is true. But come on, you are tennis players. To win you have to beat everyone, no matter where you meet them in the draw.

zagor
02-28-2009, 08:03 AM
Yeah I don't understand this lucky business. Making excuses for Nadal winning Queens. Nadal should've been too tired to win that but defies the odds because he is good on grass. The key to Nadal's success on grass is how well he holds on to his serve. He gets broken many more times on hardcourts. Like I said earier. His lefty slice serve is most effective on grass. It stays low and slides away from the opponent. Also the fact Nadal has improved his serve a ton since 2005 really helped. Roddick even mentioned that exactly after his match with Nadal at Queens.

Yes,Queens is fast and low bouncing and Nadal won there fair and square.I think a big part of Nadal's success on grass is his movement regardless of the speed of the surface.

TennezSport
02-28-2009, 08:45 AM
We all know that they slowed the grass down by going to all rye (a crab grass), which is drier and tougher to stand up to the wear and tear. We all know that they now pound the courts instead of rolling like they used to to get a truer bounce. All good ideas to make the game fair forthe CCS players. However, my only gripe about Wimbly is that they open the balls a week before the tourny to slow the game down even more. I do not think that is necessary.

Open the ball fresh like they do at all of the other tournys and watch what will happen. The game would speed up significantly and the bounce would return to the old low bounce that skids through the court. TS would have little effect like the days of old and S&V would return. Then even with the new grass and surface Wimbly would be faster than the USO; watch the CCS players drop like flies. We would have some resemblance of the Wimbly of old, but with some ground play. But of course we know that will never happen

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

Blade0324
02-28-2009, 02:12 PM
They changed the speed of the grass at Wimby to make it a little bit more comparable with today's overall game. The game has evolved away from S&V tennis to a mostly baseline game. Faster lower bouncing surfaces, especially with the crappy bounces that used to occur much more with the old grass are not condusive to baseline play. Do I agree, yes and no. Yes because it has improved the tournament some. No because I think they should get rid of grass altogether.

NamRanger
02-28-2009, 03:32 PM
Oh come on Nadal dominated Roddick in that match and Roddick never looked like winning.


Dominated? Score was 7-5, 6-4, and Nadal barely did anything to a still injured Roddick.

tennis-hero
02-28-2009, 03:45 PM
Here is the story of Grass

Once long ago, there was tradition, there was Wimbledon, and there was fast Grass and Serve and Volley- whilst the green grass was fast, there were the great masters who brought the art of S&V to the kingdom and everyone rejoiced

the Clay court masters of the time despised the tradition of Wimbledon, hated the S&V, and worked together in a slow concentrated effort to destory everything that made wimbledon great- their ultimate aim to bring death to the dreaded Serve and Volley masters

but during the era of the great King Petros there could be no mutiny from the clay court pirates

then as all great legacies must end, King Petros lost his throne, and a new generation faught to the death to be crowned king, a new brave lad called Roger claimed the green fields of Wimbledon- and started his own legacy

but during the great wars of tribulation where Roger had faught against all comers to claim his stake as the new king, the pesky clay courters secretly installed new grass in the kingdom and slowly the once great masters who practiced Serve and Volley were killed off by a slower surface and by a higher bounce

even King Roger had to adapt to a baseline game in order to keep the kingdom in order, but ultimately it was to no avail- the evil clay courters gathered around their evil prince and during the great wars of wimbledon 2008 they claimed Wimbledon their own, and with the victory of a pure baseliner Nadal- the lands of Wimbledon became baseliner only

and everyone waits for a new S&V master to bring back the real tradition of Wimbledon

Nadal_Freak
02-28-2009, 04:45 PM
Dominated? Score was 7-5, 6-4, and Nadal barely did anything to a still injured Roddick.
Roddick got to the semis. I guess he wasn't that injured.

NamRanger
02-28-2009, 05:15 PM
Roddick got to the semis. I guess he wasn't that injured.


Well look who he played. He still struggled to get there too. My point is further backed up by his early exit at Wimbledon also. He wasn't playing well, was rusty, and probably still injured. Nadal still didn't totally dominate a Roddick who wasn't playing well at all, and was coming off injury. It would be one thing if he gave him a 6-2 beatdown, but he didn't. He's still very prone to upset on a fast surface.

Nadal_Freak
02-28-2009, 05:27 PM
Well look who he played. He still struggled to get there too. My point is further backed up by his early exit at Wimbledon also. He wasn't playing well, was rusty, and probably still injured. Nadal still didn't totally dominate a Roddick who wasn't playing well at all, and was coming off injury. It would be one thing if he gave him a 6-2 beatdown, but he didn't. He's still very prone to upset on a fast surface.
Well Tipsarevic almost beat Federer last year at the Australian Open. He is a dangerous player and got Roddick. Nadal had many break points against Roddick in that match. It was not really close despite the score. Nadal beat Djokovic as well. Quite an impressive win I would say. no?

NamRanger
02-28-2009, 06:37 PM
Well Tipsarevic almost beat Federer last year at the Australian Open. He is a dangerous player and got Roddick. Nadal had many break points against Roddick in that match. It was not really close despite the score. Nadal beat Djokovic as well. Quite an impressive win I would say. no?


Impressive, but Queens also shows that A. Nadal can play on fast surfaces and B. Wimbledon grass is significantly different from the other grass courts. Nadal struggled greatly, even against opponents like Nishikori. It wasn't a free win like most of his matches at Wimbledon was.



Roddick was playing like utter crap against Tipsarevic. Both me and you know that.

devila
02-28-2009, 09:58 PM
The tendinitis, muscle strain and bulging neck spinal disk came from neglect. I haven't seen Roddick play more than a few good matches since 2003. Nadal was down 15-40 6-5 in Queen's semifinal, then I quit watching the embarrassment. A downward spiral for Roddick, ever since he talked about eating delicious junk food (he unashamedly insulted himself about eating a lot before his 2006 US Open final. Loser idiot).