Are Nadal and Federer's 7 Wimbledon Titles Valid?

[Bud]

If the surface can still do photosynthesis, then it is still grass.

Is it the fastest slam though. No. Not anymore. That goes to the US Open.

The numbers (break % and ace numbers) prove that incorrect. The Wimbledon grass is still the fastest surface of all 4 slams.

 

[namelessone]

Funny how some good claycourters like almagro,JCF,almagro are out in the first round on green clay. I guess grass grows only in Nadal's garden in Spain as the other spaniards seem to be struggling.

 

[Bud]

Funny how some good claycourters like almagro,JCF,almagro are out in the first round on green clay. I guess grass grows only in Nadal's garden in Spain as the other spaniards seem to be struggling.

Davydenko, Cilic and Blake (all good on fast hardcourt/carpet) also out in straight sets.

Perhaps some will also stop comparing grass to fast hardcourts, now as well.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The numbers (break % and ace numbers) prove that incorrect. The Wimbledon grass is still the fastest surface of all 4 slams.

No its not. US Open is the fastest. I've been to both slams, Wimbledon is around the corner from where I live, and I know it has slowed a lot. I don't need numbers to tell me that.

 

[Bud]

No its not. US Open is the fastest. I've been to both slams, Wimbledon is around the corner from where I live, and I know it has slowed a lot. I don't need numbers to tell me that.

So, you know more (based on visual observation) than stats and common sense numerical analysis?

The numbers don't lie... the USO is not faster than Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So, you know more (based on visual observation) than scientific stats and common sense numerical analysis?

The numbers don't lie.

The fact I've seen the matches, and I've seen when Sampras played, when Goran played, when Becker played, and then when Roger, Roddick, Rafa etc played, yes, I believe my own eyes.

It used to be clearly faster than the US Open. The Open's speed has not really changed, from the matches I've seen there past, but it now looks faster.

 

[Rippy]

So, you know more (based on visual observation) than stats and common sense numerical analysis?

The numbers don't lie... the USO is not faster than Wimbledon.

I don't think it's as simple as equating break percentages with speed of court. For sure, it gives an insight, but it's hardly definitive proof.

 

[Bud]

I don't think it's as simple as equating break percentages with speed of court. For sure, it gives an insight, but it's hardly definitive proof.

Break percentage AND total ace count.

There were more aces in the first 4 rounds only of Wimby 2009 than in the entire tournaments (7 rounds) of the other 3 GS tournaments in 2009.

2009 Wimbledon ace numbers:

First Round - 1535 aces
Second Round - 677 aces
Third Round - 444 aces
Fourth Round - 212 aces

2868 aces (for the first 4 rounds only!)

- -

2009 French Open ace numbers:

1822 aces (total for the entire tournament - 7 rounds)

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/sc.../stats_ms.html

- -

2009 Australian Open ace numbers:

2082 aces (total for the entire tournament - 7 rounds)

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/.../stats_ms.html

- -

2009 US Open ace numbers:

2469 aces (total for the entire tournament - 7 rounds)

http://2008.usopen.org/en_US/scores/.../stats_ms.html

 

[esm]

Since each of Federer's 6 Wimbledon titles (03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09) and Nadal's 1 title (2008 ) were won on this mysterious mythical Green Clay... are they truly valid grass court titles?

We all agree that the Wimbledon surface was comprised of the new grass mixture (100% rye vs. 70/30 Rye-red fescue) during the 2003 tournament (it was first used during either the 2001 or 2002 tournament)... and every tournament since.

Are the new grass characteristics (bounce height, court speed) closer to traditional grass or clay?

Feel free to post any scientific/empirical evidence references to validate/support your argument.

Discuss

WTF... :twisted:


you may as well totally write off Wimbeldon from now because they now have a roof (since 2009) - ie. totally playing environment once the roof is closed and air ventilation system kicks in........

things changes for the better (most times) - dont forget, the players are much stronger thesedays also.

 

[BreakPoint]

"Through contacts an opportunity arose to work at the AELTC and in July 2000, I was offered a position starting in April 2001. My role would be to assist maintaining all grass, red shale, clay and hard courts as well as assist in the day-to-day running of the facility."

So I was correct. He started working at Wimbledon in April 2001, just like I stated.

He started working at Wimbledon in April 2001. He said the new grass was already introduced. That could mean that the decision to change to the new grass mixture was introduced to the AELTC before he got there to be planted later that year (2001). I'm sure the decision to change the grass was made way ahead of time (before he got there). It doesn't mean they changed it right away as soon as they made the decision. He was not there to witnesses what mixture of grass they sowed in the fall of 2000.

"By the time I arrived, the AELTC had introduced 100 per cent perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) across the courts compared with the 70 per cent ryegrass and 30 per cent fescue mix of years gone by."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A0rtOBmijqVgJ%3Awww.agcsa.com.au%2Fstatic%2Fatm_articles%2Fhtml%2F5_6e.html+wimbledon+new+grass+2001&hl=en&gl=us

www.agcsa.com.au/static/atm_articles/html/5_6e.html

BP just refuses to ever admit he's incorrect regardless of the amount of irrefutable evidence placed before him.

And just like I stated, the advisers had introduced the new grass mixture to Wimbledon by the time he arrived, but NOTHING says that the new grass was sown in the fall of 2000. He was not there in the fall of 2000. Introduced does not mean already sown. They are not going to sow the new seeds immediately after a decision was made. They can't make the change until the following fall, so if the new grass was introduced to Wimbledon in early 2001, the first opportunity the could have sown the new grass seeds would have been in the fall of 2001, AFTER Wimbledon 2001.

 

[Jchurch]

He started working at Wimbledon in April 2001. He said the new grass was already introduced. That could mean that the decision to change to the new grass mixture was introduced to the AELTC before he got there to be planted later that year (2001). I'm sure the decision to change the grass was made way ahead of time (before he got there). It doesn't mean they changed it right away as soon as they made the decision. He was not there to witnesses what mixture of grass they sowed in the fall of 2000.

Don't you think that they would have said they decided to introduce the new grass instead of saying they that the new grass had already been introduced? It doesn't make sense for him to say that it had already been introduced by the time he got there unless it was already in use.

It would be like me saying I introduced a new kid to my family while he was still in the planning process

 

[Jchurch]

So I was correct.He started working at Wimbledon in April 2001, just like I stated.


And just like I stated, the advisers had introduced the new grass mixture to Wimbledon by the time he arrived, but NOTHING says that the new grass was sown in the fall of 2000. He was not there in the fall of 2000. Introduced does not mean already sown. They are not going to sow the new seeds immediately after a decision was made. They can't make the change until the following fall, so if the new grass was introduced to Wimbledon in early 2001, they first opportunity they could have sown the new grass seeds would have been in the fall of 2001, AFTER Wimbledon 2001.

So what does it mean that it was already introduced when he got there? Does it mean that it was just planned? Why wouldn't he just say that the new grass was sown post 2001 Wimbledon then? He was was there at that time.

I guess grass has its conspiracy in both the UK and the US :neutral:

 

[BreakPoint]

Don't you think that they would have said they decided to introduce the new grass instead of saying they that the new grass had already been introduced? It doesn't make sense for him to say that it had already been introduced by the time he got there unless it was already in use.

It would be like me saying I introduced a new kid to my family while he was still in the planning process

And if I said I introduced a cute girl to my friend does not mean that they are already married.

 

[BreakPoint]

So what does it mean that it was already introduced when he got there? Does it mean that it was just planned? Why wouldn't he just say that the new grass was sown post 2001 Wimbledon then? He was was there at that time.

I guess grass has its conspiracy in both the UK and the US :neutral:

All I know is that guy wasn't even working at Wimbledon until April 2001. If the new grass was indeed used for the 2001 tournament, they would have had to sow the new grass seeds in August/September 2000. He was not there. Therefore, he is not a credible eyewitness.

 

[Jchurch]

And if I said I introduced a cute girl to my friend does not mean that they are already married.

No but it would mean that she already existed and was in place

 

[BreakPoint]

No but it would mean that she already existed and was in place

But not to my friend.

Of course 100% rye grass existed elsewhere before they planted it at Wimbledon.

 

[Cyan]

Yes.....

10 char

 

[Bud]

Here's the current Wimbledon 2010 ace count:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=334995

 

[Tina]

"Through contacts an opportunity arose to work at the AELTC and in July 2000, I was offered a position starting in April 2001. My role would be to assist maintaining all grass, red shale, clay and hard courts as well as assist in the day-to-day running of the facility."

"By the time I arrived, the AELTC had introduced 100 per cent perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) across the courts compared with the 70 per cent ryegrass and 30 per cent fescue mix of years gone by."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A0rtOBmijqVgJ%3Awww.agcsa.com.au%2Fstatic%2Fatm_articles%2Fhtml%2F5_6e.html+wimbledon+new+grass+2001&hl=en&gl=us

www.agcsa.com.au/static/atm_articles/html/5_6e.html

BP just refuses to ever admit he's incorrect regardless of the amount of irrefutable evidence placed before him.

Thank you for the links, bud. I just wanted you to know no one is perfect in the world. Sometimes, I will let the argument go even if I am right Have a nice day. -Tina

 

[Lsmkenpo]

The difference isn't just a change in the grass, what made the most difference in speed was the ITF rule change to a bigger, slower,and higher bouncing ball on grass in 2002. This ball change alone was shown to slow the speed down 10 percent, that made a huge difference in play.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...es-of-balls-to-counter-power-game-670049.html