Is Wimbledon being dominated by clay courters ?
- Thread starter fastdunn
- Start date
Taram_Nifas
Rookie
I think, the terms "Clay Courter" and "Grass Courter" are being slightly overused. Or maybe some players just have enough game to transcend such titles.
Lleytian3
Semi-Pro
Quoting from the great john mcenore, and even he would say this if he heard you say this
you cannot be serious!
I aint a federer worshiper, i dont even like federer, but excuse me if i am wrong, what part of federer's game is not great.
if you need something to back this up, every single tournement fed goes into he is not only the favorite to win, he is expected to win because he is so good.
to criticize fed's volleys is stupid, cuz federer is so good at the net, why do u think he repeatdly stated he wanted to win wimbledon serving and volleying
Woah, I'm not dissing Fed or anything; he's one of my few favorite players left in the game. I'm just saying that his technique on the forehand side could be better. He drops his wrist too much and doesn't seem to move into the volley as much as he does on the backhand side. There are quite a few players with much better fh volleys. I believe JMac himself has commented on this.
I'm sure you have Roddick in mind when it comes down to being great at volleying right?
hell maybe Roger should beg Andy to teach him how to hit proper volleys:roll::lol:
federerfanatic
Banned
Clay is Federer's worst surface. That is why he doesnt win on clay and wins on everything else. Fastdunn is the only one who has this delusion he is a "clay courter" doing well on other surfaces. He is a dominant player on all non-clay surfaces still doing well on clay.
Well Federer doesn't win on clay because of Nadal (possibly the most dominate clay-courter ever).
Hypothetically, if Nadal didn't exist, Federer would be dominate on all surfaces.
look, the wimbledon of today is NOT the wimbledon of pre-2002. the grass is much firmer and plays much more like a fast hard court than a grass court. there is a reason that federer served/volleyed throughout the match when he beat sampras in 2001 yet rarely does it now (except for a change of pace). as such, players like nadal/nalbandian/newitt have had great success at wimbledon since 2002. it wouldn't surprise me if nadal does win wimbledon one of these years without having to alter his game. it wouldn't be close to the same level of achievement as a baseliner like agassi or borg winning wimbledon. the grass courts were so much quicker back then.
federerfanatic
Banned
I dont remember the last time Federer lost to the likes of Volandri on hard courts, let alone in lopsided straight sets(losing to Murray or Canas is totally different then someone like Volandri). Federer's only loss to Gasquet in 6 matches was to on clay. I also dont think you would see Federer losing in straight sets at a grand slam to a diminished has been great like Kuerten anywhere but the French Open, as happened in 2004. You also would not see Federer losing 6 out of 7 matches to Nadal on any surface except clay. Yes clay is Federer's worst surface, and to call him a "clay courter" is a joke, but keep in mind the source of this thread.
You are right that Federer would be somewhat dominant on clay but for Nadal, but that is more because of the lack of relative quality of the clay court field then Federer being so exceptional on clay.
Swingin Richard
Rookie
Feds net game was brutal in the RG final
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Yeah he could but if he does that, he'd end up losing almost everytime. Yes, I've seen him as a serve and volleyer in his early career and it just didn't work...
Similar threads
