Originally Posted by rod99
the wimbledon of pre-2002 is not even close to the wimbledon of 2002 on. the speed difference was huge.
1) if the grass had always been the speed of pre-2002 then someone like nadal would have had very little change of winning wimbledon multiple times (a fluke might have happened).
2) if the grass had always been the speed of 2002+ then guys like agassi and lendl would have won multiple wimbledons and a guy like sampras would have had much lesser success.
this. roddick wouldn't have been a lock to make the second week unless he served out of his mind because his weaknesses would have been exposed on the fast grass. what hasn't been mentioned here but is a big part of the reason why agassi won in 92 was his ability to hit off the rise. it robbed the s&v-ers of time to get to net and like the late great arthur ashe said "the low, skidding ball off the grass didn't bother agassi much". did you see lendl's face during the men's final this past year? it's like he was thinking "i could have won on this stuff". while i'm not sure sampras would have gone home empty handed more often i think it would have made the great baseliners of the 80s and 90s (lendl, agassi, wilander and courier) more successful at wimbledon.