Could Nadal and Djokovic win Wimbledon on a traditional fast, slick grass ?

Who has a better chance of winning Wimbledon on a fast, slick grass ?


  • Total voters
    80

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
#1
We all know that slow grass rewards both Djokodal, because it favor players who can play defense and comfortable playing long rallies without taking any risk.

However, the fast, low bounce grass is out of their comfort zone. The grass that rewards great servers and net rushers without the long rallies. It favors offensive tactics and serve & volley is a huge advantage.

Could Djokodal win Wimbledon on an old traditional fast grass ?
 
#12
We all know that slow grass rewards both Djokodal, because it favor players who can play defense and comfortable playing long rallies without taking any risk.

However, the fast, low bounce grass is out of their comfort zone. The grass that rewards great servers and net rushers without the long rallies. It favors offensive tactics and serve & volley is a huge advantage.

Could Djokodal win Wimbledon on an old traditional fast grass ?
Good question. You might as well include Federer there, seeing as he never won a Wimbledon in the old grass. Would Fed have been able to win 8 Wimbledons in the era of the great S/V'ers using old technology in slick grass?
 
#14
Djokovic has won titles indoors, which is a fast surface. He has his best surface but he can still play on faster courts. Jury is out on Rafa.
 
#15
A baseliner like Agassi won one, Djokovic would definitely bag at least 3.
No baseliner won 3 Wimbledons playing baseline tennis at that time, especially when he is going to face a guy who "licks his chop when playing baseliners on fast grass" in the final. I mean, if you put 2000 USO Safin in a 1990s Wimbledon final and Safin would still lose to that guy.

And Agassi is a completely different type of baseliner. His game and stroke mechanics are far more similar to Medvedev and Davydenko (but with more firepower) than Djokovic, especially the forehand side. Also, in 1992, facing a bad shape, overweight and bad form Becker was actually a blessing for Agassi since he could somehow read his serves better than other comtemporary players, but, this ability/trick is unique to Agassi only. Even then, that match still went to 5, on other surfaces it would have been a straight set victory for Andre.


Djokovic has won titles indoors, which is a fast surface
Post-2000 indoor was medium at best with few exceptions. In Paris 2010, the last true fast court tournament, he went down like a chump against Llodra. There is a CPI list about WTF which shows that 2011-2015 WTFs were medium slow.


Nadal at his peak could, sure. And Djokovic would still win multiple.
You are not going to even reach 5 consecutive QFs or deeper during the 1990s if you play baseline tennis. And Djokovic is not going to have a 100% win rate in 1990s Wimbledon finals.

Verdict: I am open to Djokovic winning fast Wimbledon but object to Djokovic winning 2-3 fast Wimbledons.
 
#16
No baseliner won 3 Wimbledons playing baseline tennis at that time, especially when he is going to face a guy who "licks his chop when playing baseliners on fast grass" in the final. I mean, if you put 2000 USO Safin in a 1990s Wimbledon final and Safin would still lose to that guy.

And Agassi is a completely different type of baseliner. His game and stroke mechanics are far more similar to Medvedev and Davydenko (but with more firepower) than Djokovic, especially the forehand side. Also, in 1992, facing a bad shape, overweight and bad form Becker was actually a blessing for Agassi since he could somehow read his serves better than other comtemporary players, but, this ability/trick is unique to Agassi only. Even then, that match still went to 5, on other surfaces it would have been a straight set victory for Andre.



Post-2000 indoor was medium at best with few exceptions. In Paris 2010, the last true fast court tournament, he went down like a chump against Llodra. There is a CPI list about WTF which shows that 2011-2015 WTFs were medium slow.



You are not going to even reach 5 consecutive QFs or deeper during the 1990s if you play baseline tennis. And Djokovic is not going to have a 100% win rate in 1990s Wimbledon finals.

Verdict: I am open to Djokovic winning fast Wimbledon but object to Djokovic winning 2-3 fast Wimbledons.
Djoker does not have 100% win rate at WC finals now.
 
#19
If Agassi could win Wimbledon, Djokovic and Nadal would as well.

Anyhow, what is the point of making these threads to dismiss Djokovic and Nadal's achievements with untestable scenarios? Djokovic and Nadal play in the XXI century, they don't need to adapt their game to the XX century.
Agree that it is irrelevant and petty. But it is testable, they just won't do it.
 
#21
The title asks if both Nadal and Djokovic could win Wimbledon on the old grass, and then the poll only let's you choose one of them :unsure: I voted for Nadal because he's my favorite player, but I honestly think they both could have won on the old grass.
 
#23
The title asks if both Nadal and Djokovic could win Wimbledon on the old grass, and then the poll only let's you choose one of them :unsure: I voted for Nadal because he's my favorite player, but I honestly think they both could have won on the old grass.
They would, in fact, Fed might have only a few, so if they never changed the grass there would be about 7 or 8 other slam winners. That would of been nice in this era don't you think?
 
#24
No baseliner won 3 Wimbledons playing baseline tennis at that time, especially when he is going to face a guy who "licks his chop when playing baseliners on fast grass" in the final. I mean, if you put 2000 USO Safin in a 1990s Wimbledon final and Safin would still lose to that guy.

And Agassi is a completely different type of baseliner. His game and stroke mechanics are far more similar to Medvedev and Davydenko (but with more firepower) than Djokovic, especially the forehand side. Also, in 1992, facing a bad shape, overweight and bad form Becker was actually a blessing for Agassi since he could somehow read his serves better than other comtemporary players, but, this ability/trick is unique to Agassi only. Even then, that match still went to 5, on other surfaces it would have been a straight set victory for Andre.

Post-2000 indoor was medium at best with few exceptions. In Paris 2010, the last true fast court tournament, he went down like a chump against Llodra. There is a CPI list about WTF which shows that 2011-2015 WTFs were medium slow.

You are not going to even reach 5 consecutive QFs or deeper during the 1990s if you play baseline tennis. And Djokovic is not going to have a 100% win rate in 1990s Wimbledon finals.

Verdict: I am open to Djokovic winning fast Wimbledon but object to Djokovic winning 2-3 fast Wimbledons.
A no brainer vote, above post has it right but would see more serve bots win like Stich, Goran and Krajicek between Fed like players
with all court games like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Pat Cash etc. Today LTA and ATP monopolies promote only rye grass marathon pushery.
Someone who thrives on defence like Murray and even Stan would easily destroy the defenders on fast grass adapting to serve volley.
Murray more so than Stan not just for the alpha male physicality but grips that veer towards eastern have more success on low bouncing wheat.
 
#26
No baseliner won 3 Wimbledons playing baseline tennis at that time, especially when he is going to face a guy who "licks his chop when playing baseliners on fast grass" in the final. I mean, if you put 2000 USO Safin in a 1990s Wimbledon final and Safin would still lose to that guy.
Well yea of course because Safin wasn't that great on grass. This is really a no brainer and he stands no chance against Sampras on grass.
And Agassi is a completely different type of baseliner. His game and stroke mechanics are far more similar to Medvedev and Davydenko (but with more firepower) than Djokovic, especially the forehand side. Also, in 1992, facing a bad shape, overweight and bad form Becker was actually a blessing for Agassi since he could somehow read his serves better than other comtemporary players, but, this ability/trick is unique to Agassi only. Even then, that match still went to 5, on other surfaces it would have been a straight set victory for Andre.
Agassi is very similar to Djokovic except Djokovic is a much better athlete. Both are very versatile in different surface conditions.
Post-2000 indoor was medium at best with few exceptions. In Paris 2010, the last true fast court tournament, he went down like a chump against Llodra. There is a CPI list about WTF which shows that 2011-2015 WTFs were medium slow.
Yea in 2010 in one of his two worst years on tour. It doesn't make sense to use that match and ignore that he has won more tournaments on the ATP's fastest surface, Shanghai, than anyone else. He also has 4 Dubais, med fast surface, and Basel title. Djokovic has more than proved himself in faster conditions and did it again just this year in Australia.
You are not going to even reach 5 consecutive QFs or deeper during the 1990s if you play baseline tennis. And Djokovic is not going to have a 100% win rate in 1990s Wimbledon finals.

Verdict: I am open to Djokovic winning fast Wimbledon but object to Djokovic winning 2-3 fast Wimbledons.
Agassi made the SF or better at Wimbledon 5 times as a baseliner. Wimbledon regards athletes and Djokovic is a much better athlete than Agassi. His record would have been superior to Agassi's at Wimbledon even on fast grass.
 
Last edited:
#29
A no brainer vote, above post has it right but would see more serve bots win like Stich, Goran and Krajicek between Fed like players
with all court games like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Pat Cash etc. Today LTA and ATP monopolies promote only rye grass marathon pushery.
Someone who thrives on defence like Murray and even Stan would easily destroy the defenders on fast grass adapting to serve volley.
Murray more so than Stan not just for the alpha male physicality but grips that veer towards eastern have more success on low bouncing wheat.
Stan destroying anyone on fast grass is a laughable myth. He's not even good on the slow grass and not great on faster surfaces in general but he would destroy defenders on fast grass? Lawd...
 
#31
Did you watch Wimbledon back then? It was staggeringly different to today. I remember sitting at Queen's in 2006 watching Nadal v Verdasco (great match by the way) with some casual fans, who were all talking about how much the game had changed, and it's only got more pronounced since 2006. If you spent a couple of weeks watching Roland Garros in the 1990s and then watched the first day of Queen's the day after the Roland Garros final, you would think that it was almost two different sports. The grass courts seemed like they were half the size of the clay ones because it was so much easier to put the ball away.

The way these guys talk is like as if Wimbledon was played on a different planet 20 years ago...
 
#32
Did you watch Wimbledon back then? It was staggeringly different to today. I remember sitting at Queen's in 2006 watching Nadal v Verdasco (great match by the way) with some casual fans, who were all talking about how much the game had changed, and it's only got more pronounced since 2006. If you spent a couple of weeks watching Roland Garros in the 1990s and then watched the first day of Queen's the day after the Roland Garros final, you would think that it was almost two different sports. The grass courts seemed like they were half the size of the clay ones because it was so much easier to put the ball away.
We have trained the new generation of tennis fans to like slow courts and no variety.
 
#33
If Agassi could win Wimbledon, Djokovic and Nadal would as well.

Anyhow, what is the point of making these threads to dismiss Djokovic and Nadal's achievements with untestable scenarios? Djokovic and Nadal play in the XXI century, they don't need to adapt their game to the XX century.
Nop.

Agassi and Nadal don't play the same.

Much better return agassi and more offensive with flat shots.

If grass had stayed the same, Nadal would have as much Wimbledon titles as WTF. 0

On the other hand, Novak would have had a similar career on the surface i reckon. Good serve with amazing returns.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#36
Wimbledon should either fasten up the grass or make every volley winner worth two ordinary points.

It's a revolutionary idea but they don't seem to care too much about tradition despite their claims.
 
#38
Or there was a roof. Or WTF don't matter. Or weeks at number one are meaningless. Or he has the toughest draw of all time. Or his parents got a divorce. Or.. Well we get the picture.
Lack of education because Kyrgios won and didn't go to Nadal academy to be taught by uncle Toni. It always smells blood playing that guy.
 
#40
Agassi made the SF or better at Wimbledon 5 times as a baseliner.
I said "5 consecutive times" not "5 times". There would be far more Sam Querrey or Kevin Anderson (2015) on fast grass, so his performance timeline would be far more volatile.

Yea in 2010 in one of his two worst years on tour. It doesn't make sense to use that match and ignore that he has won more tournaments on the ATP's fastest surface, Shanghai, than anyone else. He also has 4 Dubais, med fast surface, and Basel title. Djokovic has more than proved himself in faster conditions and did it again just this year in Australia.
Paris 2010 was the only court since 2010 that met the standards of a 1990s fast court. In any other cases even in 2010, Djokovic would have beaten Llodra in his sleep.

If Connors and Borg were able to win on fast grass, then Djokovic and Nadal would too.
Borg served-and-vollleyed on grass (only 1st serves, like young Sampras on hard courts) and Connors also attacked the net relentlessly (especially during his 1st Wimbledon title run).

On fast grass Nadal would have lost to Petzchner, Kendrick, Haase, Youzhny.... early. In other words, his 5 consecutive final record would have been decimated.
 
Top