Is the Grand Slam Easier or Harder Now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Apr 16, 2013.

  1. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540

    You know I was referring to the Masters/FO/W/USO which were the four biggest tournaments in that year.
     
    #51
  2. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Hoodjem,

    Trust me, it was a typo.

    I know it was 2001. This is what I meant to say. Roger beat Pete in 2001. I know it was the fourth round. What I meant is prior to 2001, he has never won a match at Wimbledon. He lost twice in first round and lost again in first round in 2002.
     
    #52
  3. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Ooooops! Sorry, I did not know that. I thought you meant the traditional GS tournaments.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
    #53
  4. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Okay, not a problem.
     
    #54
  5. droliver

    droliver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL U.S.A.
    I'm in the camp that it's harder to run the gauntlet now rather then before. The consensus of almost all players and commentators is that the depth and overall level of play in the field has improved.

    While some of the differences between surfaces has been blunted (in a good way IMO for quality of play), I find it inaccurate to submit that the guys are playing exactly the same on all surfaces. You can't watch the FO and Wimbledon back to back and make the argument that it's the same. The serve is still a bigger weapon on grass, points are shorter, positioning is different, players are attacking more (although not with serve and volley). FWIW grass court tennis is actually the most enjoyable surface to watch these days as you get incredible points, it's 1000% better then a 1990's ace-fest

    I don't think there's ever been a time where a player might have to negotiate the individual excellence of their peers that was harder then going through (Fed, Novak, Nadal, and Murray) to win a calender slam.
     
    #55
  6. Wuornos

    Wuornos Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    England
    Interesting question and there is a lot of discussion about surfaces.

    I would just like to say I agree with 'droliver' the quality of players also plays a part. With this element in mind I would say the standard in the mens game is so high now amongst the top handful of players that I would have to go with it being more difficult now. However in the Women's game, I think the standard is relatively low at the moment and therefore I think it is probably easier now.

    Just my humble opinion.

    Tim
     
    #56
  7. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    To be fair though, agassi, had some close calls at wimbledon too against some rather unknown opposition. So nadal playing close matches shows he is more vulnerable but it doesnt mean he cant squeak out one win 7-8 years.
     
    #57
  8. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,561
    fixed for ya
     
    #58
  9. vandre

    vandre Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,776
    Location:
    no man's land
    sorry man, but i don't see rafa winning on that surface even though agassi did. agassi has a totally different strike zone from rafa and that was huge reason why aa won wimbledon on the "fast grass". the thing is, not only was it fast but the ball skidded alot and stayed low. i could be wrong but i see rafa having problems with that. also the bounces are gonna be really raunchy as the area inside the court gets worn (assuming we're figuring that into the equation also) so rafa is going to have to deal with horrbile bounces and i could see that cause problems for his timing with the swing he has. i have no idea though how rafa's topspin would translate to the old grass. it'd be interesting to see.
     
    #59
  10. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,656
    Laver would have preferred hard court

    Laver won the Open era Calendar Grand Slam in 1969 with 3 Tournaments on Grass and one on clay. However, I think that it would have preferred to have 2 hardcourt, 1 grass and 1 clay. It would have made it easier for him to win the Grand Slam. Reason being was that he was the best hardcourt player of the time. There were a lot of grass court specialists in his time, hence it may have thinned out the field somewhat having hard court in the slams. Laver won around 30 hard court titles.
     
    #60
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,563
    Obviously easier. Just in the last 5-6 years alone we have already had THREE guys win 3 slams in a calendar year. Prior to that it was done what TWICE in 40 plus years?

    With these homogenized conditions, you can dominate year round and NEVER go to the net or have any type of game plan and precision planning. Good luck with that before, unless you were the cleanest ball striker in history like an Agassi
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2013
    #61
  12. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Good points.
     
    #62

Share This Page