tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
who are these scrubs, the best player on grass is federer
Best player on Grass?
- Thread starter Atennisone
- Start date
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
It should be added that Murray’s victory over Fed in the Olympic gold medal match was the most comprehensive victory over Fed on grass I’ve ever seen.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It should be added that the performance of Federer in the Olympic Gold medal match was the worst from Fed I've ever seen on grass.
EloQuent
Legend
Worse than Halle18?
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Dishonest. I just pointed out Agassi's opinion, in no part did I say I agree with him. In fact, you strategically cutt my original message. If you read my whole message, I explicitly said that "An Olympic Gold Medal in singles is not as relevant as a GS". But you strategically cut my original message and only included one sentence of it.
The objective criterion is very clear:
Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams.
Olympics are not part of the Slams, so Nadal wins in the comparison with Murray on grass. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals, so he has better Grand Slam achievements than Murray.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
OK second worst.
MajesticTennisManiac
Rookie
Sport
G.O.A.T.
I never said so. I think Olympics are important, but less important than Grand Slam achievements.
beard
Legend
Haven't you learnt in school that statistic is science of large numbers? In tennis, two matches show nothing...
As if I say Novak-Fed 2-1, Novak is greater than Federer...
But, if two players play 30, 40, or 50 matches, than we can talk and analyse...
My opinion is that minimum matches for objective h2h analysis is 20, maaaaybe 15. The more, the better, its good known in statistics...
Sport
G.O.A.T.
So we cannot make an analysis of Nadal's H2H with Federer at RG because they played each other less than 15 times? Disagree with your criterion. Any H2H is worth of discussion.
The H2H of Murray over Djokovic on grass does not indicate that Murray is better than Djokovic on the surface, because Djokovic has better Grand Slam achievements on grass. But it does indicante that Murray is a bad matchup for the Serbian.
Last edited:
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic has the nicer trophy cabinet. But who is the more gifted grass player is an open question. Who knows, if Murray didn't end up needing back surgery in 2013 and hip surgery in 2018, he very well may have snatched one or more Wimbledon titles from Noel. Or not. Nobody knows. He's the one who ought to have been Noel's main grass competition in that period, but instead it ended being aulderer and oldal. On ttw, it's a law that such matters are conclusively settled by whipping out the good ol' abacus and counting slam titles, but we sometimes underestimate the extent of dumb chance.
Last edited:
MajesticTennisManiac
Rookie
Ok so when Grand Slam achievements are same, Olympics come into play then.
So Murray >>> Nadal on grass
This would be fair. And not just because of Olympics, Murray also has what 4 or 5 Queens titles?
The best player on grass is Pete Sampras.
The most successful player on grass in Roger Federer.
The better player between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic is Djokovic, unless you choose 2 over 4. Novak may lose some battles, but he wins the war - want it or not.
But Sir Andy is still a very special/great/respectful player. If you list out all the time he lost to Fedalovic, you'll see how unlucky he is.
The most successful player on grass in Roger Federer.
The better player between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic is Djokovic, unless you choose 2 over 4. Novak may lose some battles, but he wins the war - want it or not.
But Sir Andy is still a very special/great/respectful player. If you list out all the time he lost to Fedalovic, you'll see how unlucky he is.
What is the difference between best and successful, I never got that. Doesn't success prove how good you are, isn't that the point of having tournaments? You think that if Pete and Fed were in equal era that Pete would win more titles on grass?The best player on grass is Pete Sampras.
The most successful player on grass in Roger Federer.
The better player between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic is Djokovic, unless you choose 2 over 4. Novak may lose some battles, but he wins the war - want it or not.
But Sir Andy is still a very special/great/respectful player. If you list out all the time he lost to Fedalovic, you'll see how unlucky he is.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Worst ever performance on grass on BO5 then
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is ahead of Nadal right now on grass. Whoever won the Wimbledon 18 match would've been the better grass player, given how close they were on grass.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Remember mythical peak Clayray?
1. Roger's never won ANYTHING on fast grass.
2. Traditionally, Grass always comes with S&V. Pete is the iconic S&Ver while Fedr's never won anything with S&V. Even his first Wimby can be considered partial S&V compared to the traditional S&V.
3. Roger has a trail (set by Pete himself), a lighthouse to follow while Pete had not, as he said:" When I reached 14 I thought it would last forever...".
4. Eye-test.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Better than SStack upset?
And of course 1999-2000-2002 grasscourt showings were worse, I presume you're not counting them.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
NatF
Bionic Poster
Worst I've seen, not seen all his early grass matches. I was mainly thinking post 2003, though I think even 2001 Fed does better tbh. And I think he was better against Stak yeah, maybe Falla in 2010 for the first two sets comes close as well.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Meh it's Djokovic without a doubt. Beckerovic in particular is way better.
Actually you bring some very good points, many of those reasons is why Federer is actually considered the goat. Rafa and Nole have a goal, Fed never had a goal and also had always the pressure of history or playing for records. He also played with more traditional courts and style. And Fed had younger all time greats demotivating him, other greats didn't have that.1. Roger's never won ANYTHING on fast grass.
2. Traditionally, Grass always comes with S&V. Pete is the iconic S&Ver while Fedr's never won anything with S&V. Even his first Wimby can be considered partial S&V compared to the traditional S&V.
3. Roger has a trail (set by Pete himself), a lighthouse to follow while Pete had not, as he said:" When I reached 14 I thought it would last forever...".
4. Eye-test.
Also, eye test, yes.
Deon Sanders
Legend
And exhibition match a few weeks after the real title was contested and won in as convincing of a 4 sets as you can get...
Is not a comprehensive victory
Andrew would have traded all his career wins including the exhibition gold for that SW18 2012 title at the time of occuring
Djokovic2015
Semi-Pro
Djokovic has the nicer trophy cabinet. But who is the more gifted grass player is an open question. Who knows, if Murray didn't end up needing back surgery in 2013 and hip surgery in 2018, he very well may have snatched one or more Wimbledon titles from Noel. Or not. Nobody knows. He's the one who ought to have been Noel's main grass competition in that period, but instead it ended being aulderer and oldal. On ttw, it's a law that such matters are conclusively settled by whipping out the good ol' abacus and counting slam titles, but we sometimes underestimate the extent of dumb chance.
Technically speaking the motion of the ball on net cords (like all shots) can be mathematically deduced as to what side it will land on based on physics parameters such as entrance velocity, angle of impact, spin rotation, angular momentum etc and so it IS in one's control, but beyond the realm of the practical expectation of what players can deduce/react to/implement.
The final evolution of tennis though would be a player with mathematical genius level understanding of ball motion dynamics and the physical tools/reaction time to actually implement the edges this would provide in real time.
Yes, but mathematicians don't have the ability to do that in real time, that's the problem. I doubt if even mathematicians can do it even when they have time. Give mathematician a video of Fed hitting a forehand then stop the video. I doubt they have enough information for them to be able to calculate the future trajectory of the ball.
So, I wouldn't define that as anyone having control, not even in theory.
Djokovic2015
Semi-Pro
I would agree, but two caveats
A) A mathematician doesn't have an innate understanding of tennis to the degree to understand what type of initial conditions are imparted on a ball from an initial stroke. If you provided a mathematician with all of the initial variables (initial velocity, angular momentum, angle of incidence etc), they would absolutely be able to calculate the future trajectory of the ball.
B) The average mathematician would not be able to do that calculation in real time because the average mathematician while learned in that craft, is not of genius level intellect to be able to process that calculation with such speed
I would slightly disagree with this statement. I think for sure its not anyone having control in practice, but I do think it is possible in theory.
What it would take is for someone to simultaneously have 3 things:
1)A genius level intellect on the level of the greatest in history with a disposition towards mathematics, who understands motion dynamics at such a deep level that they can perform these calculations in real time.
2)An application of that genius towards tennis combined with years of practice and repetition to develop an innate understanding of what initial conditions are imparted by what strokes in order to be able to use those to perform the real time calculations.
3)Physical gifts on par with the greatest in history specifically in regards to hand-eye coordination and reaction time to be able to make use of real time calculations and apply them in a practical manner.
This type of person does not exist in the world (nor ever has or likely ever will), but its not impossible to conceive of in theory.
I do think that sports in general over the last 10 years has seen an explosion in the use of analytics and mathematics to try to reduce the sport down to a science rather than an art and that ultimately as time goes on, we will get closer and closer to seeing players capable of implementing at least some form of this.
To draw a parallel something similar has happened in Poker. Over the last 10 years, dominant players who relied on reads/body language/tells have given way to mathematically sound theoretical players dominating the game to the point that at the highest levels of the game, humans are attempting to solve the game mathematically. Now a physical sport will always be harder to this with because the mathematically optimal solution might not be physically possible and so there is a slower progression, but people have referred to tennis as "chess at 60 MPH" for a reason because of the tactical component of the game that has mathematical solutions.
In any case this is all a digression from the point of this topic, so I'll stop now but it was just an interesting thought that I had and wanted to share.
But we can't predict it to that decree that you can say player will ever have "control" over the net chord, that was my point. We don't have the technology to provide mathematicians all the angles, wind, humidity and so on. Even if you put the ball in a machine there will never be enough data to predict a net chord.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity 'V' in relation to the trajectory 'T' in which 'G' gravity, of course, remains a constant. It's not complicated.
I didn't say it's mathematical problem, it's mathematicians not having enough technology to record that data in real time, so for any practical purposes no, the players have no control. So, you are saying you can just see my body while the ball leaves my racket and you will predict if I will hit a net cord? I doubt you can do that even on video. Why do people have problems measuring Sampras serve speed if you can do that from video?
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Lol, so you’re claiming that Fed didn’t care and viewed an Olympic Gold Medal (really the only thing he lacked on his trophy mantle) as an “exhibitio”? Do not insult a great achievement by Murray here.
Again, I give this to Djokovic, but Murray has a very impressive grass resume, and this for me is one of his great victories on the surface.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Murray played lights out. Fed was lackluster and probably worn out, but Murray was not going down. He had a champion’s mindset.
I was rooting for Fed in that match but Murray deserved the victory.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray deserved the victory, obviously Federer didn't with that performance. Though Murray was basically at the same level as Wimbledon, he just had a way worse Federer.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
1. Roger's never won ANYTHING on fast grass.
2. Traditionally, Grass always comes with S&V. Pete is the iconic S&Ver while Fedr's never won anything with S&V. Even his first Wimby can be considered partial S&V compared to the traditional S&V.
3. Roger has a trail (set by Pete himself), a lighthouse to follow while Pete had not, as he said:" When I reached 14 I thought it would last forever...".
4. Eye-test.
Federer won the Junior Wimbledon in Singles and Doubles on the fast grass, beat Pete by S&Ving exclusively and S&Ved a lot of the time even when the grass was already changed significantly for his first Wimbledon title.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Murray won the first set of their Wimbledon clash and the second set was tight. One could argue that Murray had the edge before the roof was closed.
Tenez!
Professional
Murray truly went on a tear for that event. Britannia ruled the tennis waves for a few bright days of 2012.
But Federer's attack was atrocious, one of his worst performances ever on grass. Hadn't been straight-setted at Wimbledon since 2002, and hasn't been since.
That's a hard one.
Nadal lost to high-risk low-percentage attacking games from Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios and Brown, but he put away the defenders quite easily. Then in 2018 he found some attacking mojo again.
Murray's a prodigious defender who only rarely brings his attacking game (think US '08 semifinal, Montreal '15) lest it backfire on him.
Hard to tell whether Murray can deal with Nadal's spin on grass. He got nuked the 3 times he tried (2008, 2010, 2011).
NatF
Bionic Poster
The momentum had already turned before the roof closed.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I hope you know I was joking
CentreCourt
Rookie
I think London 2012 is unique as far as things like that are concerned though. Has any other Olympics been played specifically at the venue of a Grand Slam? I don't think it has. Murray's 2012 OG > 2016 OG, for example. That 2012 medal is the same as a slam, for me. I think discounting it is completely disingenuous, because it's effectively the same tournament.
EloQuent
Legend
Except for being a 64 draw with 5/6 rounds Bo3...
CentreCourt
Rookie
The size of the draw is irrelevant. Come on, adding another round of players is going to make no difference at all. If BO5 is important, are Federer's early M1000 wins greater than all the current M1000 wins?
Ultimately, what's the difference between the 2012 Olympics final and the 2012 Wimbledon final? There is none.
2 slams + 1 Olympics + 5 Queen's club (the all time record of an event run since the 19th century of the number 2 grass court event) > (by just a little) 2 slams + 1 Queen's Club + 1 Stuttgart.
EloQuent
Legend
Yes.
Similar threads
- Poll
- FedererWinsWimbledon2014
- General Pro Player Discussion
- Poll
- Deleted member 748597
- General Pro Player Discussion
