The Greatest Hard Court Player of the open era for you

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Ivanisevic was a wild card for that tournament and Roddick was the heavy favorite to win that match but lost. Ivanisevic's serve was even a shadow of its 92-96 self in 2001. Ultimately if anything it is telling Ivanisevic could win a Wimbledon at the start of the Federer generation (Hewitt, Roddick, etc...)grass era while WAY past his prime, but couldnt do it during the Sampras era.

The only reason Ivanisevic won Wimbledon in 2001 was because Federer took out Sampras in the 4th round. I would love to know who would beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and take the title, as sure as hell not Ivanisevic who had a mental block and choked a lot of the time against the American.

Even Pete himself said that he was playing good enough to win the title, he was serving nothing worse than in the previous editions, Federer just kept himself in the match and didn't choke in the end like Ivanisevic.

Btw LOOOL at Roddick being the "heavy favorite" to beat Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001. Where did you got that info from? Your a**?

[veroniquem]

My favorite was Agassi (especially on outdoor hard) but Federer is certainly the most consistent and the one with the best results. # of titles on hard court:

1- Federer: 51 (slams: 9)
2- Agassi: 46 (6)
3- Connors: 43 (3)
4- Sampras: 36 (7)
5- Lendl: 29 (5)
6- Edberg: 23 (2)
7/8- McEnroe/Djokovic: 22 (4)
9- Chang: 22 (0)
10- Roddick: 20 (1)

One has to remark though that at the time of Connors/Lendl there were not that many events on hard: lots of grass, clay, carpet. The extensive use of hard is relatively recent. Even AO/USO were played on grass (or clay) for a number of years in open era. Also AO was not a popular slam for a while, a lot of top players skipped it.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

You mean clay courters like Andy Roddick who he played in 3 of his Wimbledon finals .

Wait so if Roddick reached 3 Wimbledon finals after 2001 maybe the surface isn't that slow after all? What do you define as "real grass" - grass that Sampras won his Wimbledons on?

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

The only reason Ivanisevic won Wimbledon in 2001 was because Federer took out Sampras in the 4th round. I would love to know who would beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and take the title, as sure as hell not Ivanisevic who had a mental block and choked a lot of the time against the American.

Even Pete himself said that he was playing good enough to win the title, he was serving nothing worse than in the previous editions, Federer just kept himself in the match and didn't choke in the end like Ivanisevic.

Btw LOOOL at Roddick being the "heavy favorite" to beat Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001. Where did you got that info from? Your a**?

You do understand that Goran was actually an underdog in that match right? I wouldn't say he was a heavy underdog, but Roddick was considered a favorite by sheer virtue of ranking and form going in.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

You do understand that Goran was actually an underdog in that match right? I wouldn't say he was a heavy underdog, but Roddick was considered a favorite by sheer virtue of ranking and form going in.

I never said he wasn't. But it's blasphemy to claim that Roddick was the "heavy favorite to win" as 2001 was his first full year on the tour, Andy was still a kiddo at the time and Ivanisevic despite being in a slump still had that giant serve to give him a shot in the match, especially given Roddick's mediocre return.

[90's Clay]

Tough to say.. Numbers wise its Fed.. But Sampras and Connors have a say in this as well.

Both had better competition IMO throughout their primes. You can also take into account, Feds main HC opposition was Roddick for a long time. Good player, but even he was destroyed by an old Sampras and Agassi on the hards.

Nadal didn't really come into his own until 2009 or so as far as hardcourts were concerned.. Prior to that he couldn't even make a slam semis.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Wait so if Roddick reached 3 Wimbledon finals after 2001 maybe the surface isn't that slow after all? What do you define as "real grass" - grass that Sampras won his Wimbledons on?

Wimbledon grass was one kind of grass from 1877 to 2000.They changed it to a much much slower and higher bouncing grass, benefitting clay courters like Nadal and Djokovic and letting Federer win without a real volley.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

The only reason Ivanisevic won Wimbledon in 2001 was because Federer took out Sampras in the 4th round. I would love to know who would beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and take the title, as sure as hell not Ivanisevic who had a mental block and choked a lot of the time against the American.

Even Pete himself said that he was playing good enough to win the title, he was serving nothing worse than in the previous editions, Federer just kept himself in the match and didn't choke in the end like Ivanisevic.

Btw LOOOL at Roddick being the "heavy favorite" to beat Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001. Where did you got that info from? Your a**?

Pete playing good enough at wimbledon that year? He almost went out to some bum in an earlier round.. Doubt Pete was going to win it that year. His grass game clearly hit a dead end by 2001

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by kiki

Wimbledon grass was one kind of grass from 1877 to 2000.They changed it to a much much slower and higher bouncing grass, benefitting clay courters like Nadal and Djokovic and letting Federer win without a real volley.

You think that Federer was happy about the speed of Wimbledon? He would love the grass courts to be as fast as they were in the 90's as it would give him a far better shot at Nadal/Djokovic at Wimbledon. His great serve would be even harder to return.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

You think that Federer was happy about the speed of Wimbledon? He would love the grass courts to be as fast as they were in the 90's as it would give him a far better shot at Nadal/Djokovic at Wimbledon. His great serve would be even harder to return.

Federer has only lost to Nadal once at Wimbledon as it is, and that was during a year long strech he couldnt beat Nadal on any surface. Change to a faster court and Nadal probably doesnt have as big a lead to choke, and ends up winning in 5 sets the normal way rather than choking badly and still winning in 5 sets anyway. Federer has never lost to or even played Djokovic at Wimbledon to date so WTF is that about. As for his other losses:

2010- Overpowered by Berdych. Would have been even moreso on a faster court.

2011- Overpowered by Tsonga in last 3 sets. Would have been even moreso on a faster court.

On the other hand he might well have lost one or both the 2004 and 2009 Wimbledon finals to Roddick on a faster court. Federer's serve isnt that overpowering and relies more on placement and disguise anyway, but the much faster Roddick serve would have gained much more by the fast grass, especialy when this forum seems to think Roddick had an Ivanisevic level serve on grass. We also might have had alot more serve and volley players if we were in an era of faster grass, and while Federer might have been a good one, he never was going to be the most comfortable at net.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

You think that Federer was happy about the speed of Wimbledon? He would love the grass courts to be as fast as they were in the 90's as it would give him a far better shot at Nadal/Djokovic at Wimbledon. His great serve would be even harder to return.

I agree.On old grass, and against true grass courters, Nadal and Djokovic would be happy to make a semifinal in their whole career.Fed would win a couple of titles, though.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

The only reason Ivanisevic won Wimbledon in 2001 was because Federer took out Sampras in the 4th round,

Did you watch that tournament? It was the greatest tennis tournament I've ever seen. Sampras nearly lost to Barry Cowan in the second round, and he wasn't playing all that well at the time, while Goran had rolled back the clock to the mid-1990s during the tournament.

Goran was the underdog in 6 matches in a row at 2001 Wimbledon. He wasn't expected to beat Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman nor Rafter, yet he went through them all and served a record number of aces for a Wimbledon tournament. Against Roddick, Goran was in control on serve and once he won the first set tiebreak, the result never seemed in doubt. Roddick's big serve looked powderpuff in comparison and had commentators shocked. It was hilarious how John Lloyd kept predicting Goran would lose and he would win every time. Goran beating Rusedski was the funniest of all.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete playing good enough at wimbledon that year? He almost went out to some bum in an earlier round.. Doubt Pete was going to win it that year. His grass game clearly hit a dead end by 2001

Sampras being forced to 5 sets isn't really an indication of his form at Wimbledon, he wasn't really that dominant from start to finish.

In 1993 he played a tough 4-setter against Neil Borwick in the 1st round, in the quarters he was pushed to 5 by a dead-wrist Agassi.

In 1995 he lost sets to Braasch, Palmer, Matsuoka in the first couple of rounds (was pushed to 5 sets in the SF by Ivanisevic)

In 1996 he lost sets to Reneberg and Kucera before being handed a straight set beatdown by Krajicek.

In 1997 he was pushed to a 5-setter by Kodra in the 4th round

In 1999 he was being killed by Philippoussis before Mark caught an injury.

In 2000 he lost sets to Kucera, Gimelstob and was forced into a tough 4-setter against Jan-Michael Gambill.


So once again, I don't see how this one 5-setter is a proof of him not playing well enough to win the championships, given that he won the other 2 matches fairly easily, in fact he led 6-3 6-2 in that match when he was pushed to 5 sets, one can assume he lost focus after winning so easily.

[Mustard]

Best hardcourt player of the open era has to be Federer, by the way.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Federer has only lost to Nadal once at Wimbledon as it is, and that was during a year long strech he couldnt beat Nadal on any surface. Change to a faster court and Nadal probably doesnt have as big a lead to choke, and ends up winning in 5 sets the normal way rather than choking badly and still winning in 5 sets anyway. Federer has never lost to or even played Djokovic at Wimbledon to date so WTF is that about. As for his other losses:

Ok so there's only exception of a non-serve-and-volleyer winning Wimbledon in a 20 year span of 1982-2001 (which is Agassi - an aggressive baseliner) but you assume a grinder like Nadal would make the final and beat Federer in 5 sets. Jesus. The speed of grass wouldn't just change the pattern of the final, it would change the pattern of each round, you're so sure that Nadal would have a walk in the part in the first 6 rounds given that there are tons of guys with a better serve than him on the tour?

I never said that Federer would struggle against Djokovic at Wimbledon, I just claimed that if he was to play him at Wimbledon, I'd favor his chances even moreso if it was on old grass.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

2010- Overpowered by Berdych. Would have been even moreso on a faster court.

2011- Overpowered by Tsonga in last 3 sets. Would have been even moreso on a faster court.

You can't assume that Berdych/Tsonga would overpower Federer "even moreso" on the 90's grass just because it's faster. Don't forget that it would also benefit Federer who has a tremendous serve and it would be twice as difficult to break.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

On the other hand he might well have lost one or both the 2004 and 2009 Wimbledon finals to Roddick on a faster court. Federer's serve isnt that overpowering and relies more on placement and disguise anyway, but the much faster Roddick serve would have gained much more by the fast grass, especialy when this forum seems to think Roddick had an Ivanisevic level serve on grass. We also might have had alot more serve and volley players if we were in an era of faster grass, and while Federer might have been a good one, he never was going to be the most comfortable at net.

This is way too hypothetical. As I wrote before, Roddick's serve would be more devastating on grass but Fed's would get more pop on it as well.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Did you watch that tournament? It was the greatest tennis tournament I've ever seen. Sampras nearly lost to Barry Cowan in the second round, and he wasn't playing all that well at the time, while Goran had rolled back the clock to the mid-1990s during the tournament.

Goran was the underdog in 6 matches in a row at 2001 Wimbledon. He wasn't expected to beat Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman nor Rafter, yet he went through them all and served a record number of aces for a Wimbledon tournament. Against Roddick, Goran was in control on serve and once he won the first set tiebreak, the result never seemed in doubt. Roddick's big serve looked powderpuff in comparison and had commentators shocked. It was hilarious how John Lloyd kept predicting Goran would lose and he would win every time. Goran beating Rusedski was the funniest of all.

Sampras wasn't playing "all that well" at Wimbledon quite a few times yet he's won almost every edition in an 8 year time span. Let's assume Sampras beats Federer in the 4th round, who takes him out in the tournament? Henman in the quarters? Ivanisevic in the semis? Or Rafter in the final? You know it would take a major upset for that to happen.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Sampras wasn't playing "all that well" at Wimbledon quite a few times yet he's won almost every edition in an 8 year time span.

Uh? Because he dropped some sets? Sampras in 2001 was playing worse than he had in years. Even before he lost to Federer, people were saying Sampras wasn't playing as good and wouldn't be surprised if he didn't win the tournament. Of course, when Federer beat him, it was still a shock anyway because Sampras had lost at Wimbledon, and that was a very rare thing.

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Let's assume Sampras beats Federer in the 4th round, who takes him out in the tournament? Henman in the quarters? Ivanisevic in the semis? Or Rafter in the final? You know it would take a major upset for that to happen.

All were capable, but probably Ivanisevic in the semi finals. He has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon before, you know.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Ok so there's only exception of a non-serve-and-volleyer winning Wimbledon in a 20 year span of 1982-2001 (which is Agassi - an aggressive baseliner) but you assume a grinder like Nadal would make the final and beat Federer in 5 sets. Jesus. The speed of grass wouldn't just change the pattern of the final, it would change the pattern of each round, you're so sure that Nadal would have a walk in the part in the first 6 rounds given that there are tons of guys with a better serve than him on the tour?

Since the grass field at the time was was a terrible one with almost no threats whatsoever (actually has been that way for the entire Federer era on grass) yeah I dont see any issue with Nadal coasting to the final that year, no matter what kind of grass it is. The few big servers with decent games like Roddick who would have benefited form the faster grass were playing some worthless ball at the time.

As for comparing Agassi to Nadal, Nadal's athleticsm and overall movement is light years beyond Agassi's, and that is a big factor on grass too. Nadal is the 2nd best grass courter of the Federer era, and Agassi only about the 6th best of the Sampras era, so if you think Agassi > Nadal on grass (even the hypothetical only old grass) then that is already telling in itself, and helps prove my point even further.

I never said that Federer would struggled against Djokovic at Wimbledon, I just claimed that if he was to play him at Wimbledon, I'd favor his chances even moreso if it was on old grass.

They have never played at Wimbledon so it is irrelevant. We all know before 2010 Federer would have always spanked Djokovic at Wimbledon if they met anyway. Mention Djokovic when he actually plays Federer at Wimbledon.

You can't assume that Berdych/Tsonga would overpower Federer "even moreso" on the 90's grass just because it's faster. Don't forget that it would also benefit Federer who has a tremendous serve and it would be twice as difficult to break.

Federer's ground game was crap those years. Nothing would have saved him. Berdych and Tsonga were serving atleast as big and hitting off the ground much bigger those years, so how on earth would a faster court have helped Federer in those matches.

This is way too hypothetical. As I wrote before, Roddick's serve would be more devastating on grass but Fed's would get more pop on it as well.

Roddick's serve is a speed serve. Federer's is a precision serve. It isnt hard to figure whose would benefit more from faster grass.

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

So Goran isn't tough competition? Even as big of a headcase he was he's still stronger on grass than the vast majority of opponents Federer faced. Guys like Richard K, Agassi, and Rafter were also tough. Not to mention dangerous floaters/specialists like Henman who were capable of beating very good players on grass.

Sampras: Rafter, Agassi, Henman, Kracijek, Ivansevic, Martin.
Federer: Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt.

Yes Sampras had announced grass courters except for Agassi....yet they couldn't push Sampras most of the time. They **** their pants when they faced Sampras. I can't call that competition but I can say they were better grass courters than Federer competition.

Federer at least was pushed very hard from Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt. Except for Roddick....they didn't bend over for him. They pushed him because the grass surface was slower. If it was still fast....Federer would never lose to any of them except Roddick playing the match of his life.

Federer grass court prowness and ability on grass is 10 percent better than Sampras. Just unfair that the slowed grass gives Federer crappier competition better chance than Sampras competitors had.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Uh? Because he dropped some sets? Sampras in 2001 was playing worse than he had in years. Even before he lost to Federer, people were saying Sampras wasn't playing as good and wouldn't be surprised if he didn't win the tournament. Of course, when Federer beat him, it was still a shock anyway because Sampras had lost at Wimbledon, and that was a very rare thing.

Fair enough, I still don't see who would beat a "slumping Sampras" at Wimbledon that year.

Originally Posted by Mustard

All were capable, but probably Ivanisevic in the semi finals. He has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon before, you know.

Listen, I was a huge fan of Ivanisevic but he's the last man who could beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001. I've seen him choke too many times against him to think otherwise. Btw that 1 victory Ivanisevic had over Sampras at Wimbledon was a long way back in 1992 when Sampras wasn't as much "pistol" as he would become in the next couple of years.

If somebody was to take out Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 it would have to be someone new who Sampras hadn't built a mental advantage on. Federer was just the man.