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
#51
Are we talking about winning WB on fast grass in the 2010s or about time shifting scenarios? I could see Djokovic winning a few in the 2010s but then again, there is no serve and volley these days, so baseliners would still be on top.

If Connors and Borg were able to win on fast grass, then Djokovic and Nadal would too.
Borg and Connors would have never been able to win WB past 1982/83 though, so I guess Djokovic and Nadal would have had their best chances to win WB in the 70s and early 80s as well. No chance for them winning WB afterwards, unless Djokovic could pull another Agassi but then again, Agassi was smaller and quicker, he could adapt a lot better than Djokivic and still be able to hit lethal shots, taking the ball early. I don't see a 6'2 baseliner being able to do that on fast grass.

Lendl tried so many times and he actually played serve and volley a lot too in the late 80s, which might have been the only reason he made it to 2 finals and a couple of semis.
 
#52
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...
Totally true but if grass had stayed the same as in y2k its quite possible a young stan would have molded his grip to suit the fast grass.
He took a long time to develop his game and is the only one to come to fruition late in his career unlike the others.
Sure his western FH grip wont cut the mustard on any grass but we never know what could have been of many players
if the homogenization of tennis was not implemented by the monopoly of our sport by a corrupt and totalitarian association.
 
#56
Who the f... k care if they would or not...

They are adopting their game to current conditions, not for conditions that was actual 30 years ago...

What a stupid question and threads from winning Fed fans... They are really scared about sf with Nadal...
 
#58
Querrey is better behind his serve than Sampras ever was, so the sky is the limit for peak golden grass Bull

Saltcasm, perhaps. But Bull is so hyped now, next thing his hair is fuller than Novak's.
 
#59
Totally true but if grass had stayed the same as in y2k its quite possible a young stan would have molded his grip to suit the fast grass.
He took a long time to develop his game and is the only one to come to fruition late in his career unlike the others.
Sure his western FH grip wont cut the mustard on any grass but we never know what could have been of many players
if the homogenization of tennis was not implemented by the monopoly of our sport by a corrupt and totalitarian association.
I just don't see it because he's not great on fast surfaces in general. Even though he played a handful of matches early in his career on carpet, his record was 47%. When you compare that to players like Murray and Djokovic at a young age, even though they only played a handful of matches, they were both around 70% or more. They adapted to those conditions right away and you can see why they are also great on grass with the lower bounce. Wawrinka's record is 50% on the slow grass.

I just think his game needs time so he can line up and drill his shots. He's not one of the great players who are good at reacting and improvising, but he is great in slower conditions where he can meet the ball and bury it. He even said he's not great at reacting on grass. So really I think this era with the slower conditions was great for Wawrinka's career because I don't see him replicating this in an era with faster courts.
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
#61
Novak could, wouldn't see him winning 4-5 of them but he plays when the ball stays low, has a great ROS and an underrated serve as well.

Nadal is too great to not make a few deep runs but I'm not sure he would have ever won it. Maybe in his 2008 form, probably the peak of his athleticism and shotmaking.

Fed won Wimbledon coming behind every 1st serve so I'd reckon he would have done fine though he'd be more prone to upsets (like anyone).

Murray would have been awesome to watch on old grass, great hands. I think he was hurt the most by slowdown of the grass actually because he's the worst power baseliner of the 4.


Who the f... k care if they would or not...

They are adopting their game to current conditions, not for conditions that was actual 30 years ago...

What a stupid question and threads from winning Fed fans... They are really scared about sf with Nadal...
Is it really? Both fanbases are quite quick to put them above not just Fed (who also grew up in vastly different conditions) but over past greats as well while ignoring different conditions and circumstances.

Sampras and Lendl didn't have the luxury of ITF/ATP tailoring slam surfaces to their game. Neither did Borg for that matter.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
#62
I just don't see it because he's not great on fast surfaces in general. Even though he played a handful of matches early in his career on carpet, his record was 47%. When you compare that to players like Murray and Djokovic at a young age, even though they only played a handful of matches, they were both around 70% or more. They adapted to those conditions right away and you can see why they are also great on grass with the lower bounce. Wawrinka's record is 50% on the slow grass.

I just think his game needs time so he can line up and drill his shots. He's not one of the great players who are good at reacting and improvising, but he is great in slower conditions where he can meet the ball and bury it. He even said he's not great at reacting on grass. So really I think this era with the slower conditions was great for Wawrinka's career because I don't see him replicating this in an era with faster courts.
Yeah, Stan is basically like Guga (though the latter was a much better mover on clay). He has very heavy groundstrokes but needs time to set them up, he'd be eaten alive on fast, low bouncing grass.
 
#64
Yeah, Stan is basically like Guga (though the latter was a much better mover on clay). He has very heavy groundstrokes but needs time to set them up, he'd be eaten alive on fast, low bouncing grass.
Pretty much and Kuerten, as much as I loved the guy and his game, was pretty much eaten alive in grass.
 
#65
Novak could, wouldn't see him winning 4-5 of them but he plays when the ball stays low, has a great ROS and an underrated serve as well.

Nadal is too great to not make a few deep runs but I'm not sure he would have ever won it. Maybe in his 2008 form, probably the peak of his athleticism and shotmaking.

Fed won Wimbledon coming behind every 1st serve so I'd reckon he would have done fine though he'd be more prone to upsets (like anyone).

Murray would have been awesome to watch on old grass, great hands. I think he was hurt the most by slowdown of the grass actually because he's the worst power baseliner of the 4.




Is it really? Both fanbases are quite quick to put them above not just Fed (who also grew up in vastly different conditions) but over past greats as well while ignoring different conditions and circumstances.

Sampras and Lendl didn't have the luxury of ITF/ATP tailoring slam surfaces to their game. Neither did Borg for that matter.
Yes, it really is...
Concluding what would player do in different era, with different conditions and thinking he would play same tennis style as his plays now is very, very stupid...

And thinking that some player wouldn't be capable to develope appropriate style is very arogant way to think about someone.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
#66
Yes, it really is...
Concluding what would player do in different era, with different conditions and thinking he would play same tennis style as his plays now is very, very stupid...

And thinking that some player wouldn't be capable to develope appropriate style is very arogant way to think about someone.
OK, then we should stop saying that the big 3 are the greatest ever simply because we have no idea how past greats would have done in today's conditions and with the help of today's advances in nutrition, medicine etc.

Maybe Lendl in today's conditions would have won 25+ slams, we simply don't know.
 
#68
OK, then we should stop saying that the big 3 are the greatest ever simply because we have no idea how past greats would have done in today's conditions and with the help of today's advances in nutrition, medicine etc.

Maybe Lendl in today's conditions would have won 25+ slams, we simply don't know.
Its not the same, we compare what really happened, so there is point of doing that. What we think that would happen is just our opinion, which is obviously too subjective...

Off course, things would be different if big 3 played together in other era, but in what way it would be different, we will never know, and we will never agree...
 
#70
Players adjust based on the conditions they play in. People here think Rafole would play the same on fast grass? They're 2 of top 3 to ever play the game for a reason. Nadal as a kid said he wanted to win Wimbledon, if Borg and Lindell could make Wimbledon finals S&Ving and in Borg's case win than so could Rafa. He returns good enough has an effective lefty serve and is one of the best volleyers in the game. He'd be fine. As far as Novak goes, he has a great serve and possibly the best ROS in the history of the game. They wouldn't rack of the Wimbledon titles, but they'd win at least one.
 
#74
Nadal as a kid said he wanted to win Wimbledon, if Borg and Lindell could make Wimbledon finals S&Ving and in Borg's case win than so could Rafa. He returns good enough has an effective lefty serve and is one of the best volleyers in the game.
If he was really serious, he wouldn't have developed his game like that a.k.a a typical Latin claycourt tennis game. He was fortunate that grass slowed down.

Borg serve was better than Nadal, in least in the sense that Borg was among the better servers of his time but most of the time Nadal is not (and his serve ranking would be even worse during the 1990s). Also, Borg's junior training involved loads of fast court tennis on Swedish carpet courts. Next, his volleys are simply not good enough by 1990s standard to play serve and volley. By the 1990s, to win Wimbledon playing S&V, you must either have a truly elite serve or a Edberg/Rafter-sque netgame (or both), and there is no middle ground.

Finally, Nadal returns are simply not suitable on super fast courts.
 
#77
If he was really serious, he wouldn't have developed his game like that a.k.a a typical Latin claycourt tennis game. He was fortunate that grass slowed down.

Borg serve was better than Nadal, in least in the sense that Borg was among the better servers of his time but most of the time Nadal is not (and his serve ranking would be even worse during the 1990s). Also, Borg's junior training involved loads of fast court tennis on Swedish carpet courts. Next, his volleys are simply not good enough by 1990s standard to play serve and volley. By the 1990s, to win Wimbledon playing S&V, you must either have a truly elite serve or a Edberg/Rafter-sque netgame (or both), and there is no middle ground.

Finally, Nadal returns are simply not suitable on super fast courts.
stick to werewolf stories...
 
#78
If he was really serious, he wouldn't have developed his game like that a.k.a a typical Latin claycourt tennis game. He was fortunate that grass slowed down.

Borg serve was better than Nadal, in least in the sense that Borg was among the better servers of his time but most of the time Nadal is not (and his serve ranking would be even worse during the 1990s). Also, Borg's junior training involved loads of fast court tennis on Swedish carpet courts. Next, his volleys are simply not good enough by 1990s standard to play serve and volley. By the 1990s, to win Wimbledon playing S&V, you must either have a truly elite serve or a Edberg/Rafter-sque netgame (or both), and there is no middle ground.

Finally, Nadal returns are simply not suitable on super fast courts.
Borgs serve was actually very good given the time he played in and the equipment he played with. He is 5-3 against Mac on carpet while Nadal is 1-5 against Fed on indoor hard. This alone should tell us who of the two is the better fast court player. In theory Nadal has very good returns and passing shots (on slow surfaces). However, these would not work well in faster surfaces due to his wide topspin swing. Therefore comparisons with Borg or Agassi are pointless, Nadal plays nothing like them other than all of them are primarily baseliners.
 
#79
I have to wonder if some of the trolls have seen Fed play... on a fast court.

Wimbledon on slick fast grass means Fed probably ends up with 9-10+ instead of losing finals to grinders and clay courters.
He would have less problems with Nadal and Djokovic that’s for sure. Whether he wins more or less titles than he currently has is too speculative. Upsets by hard hitters would become more frequent on fast grass. He could very well end up with the same number or even less even though he would never loose a final to Nadal and next to certain neither to Djokovic.
 
#80
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 ?
Zero shot if we eliminated those poly strings and brought back Sampras and Becker etc
 
#81
Depends who the competition is really,with today's mug field they could pick up titles on anything but if there was a Becker,Sampras,Federer at his peak they would be lucky to nab more than 1-2 each though...
 
#83
However, these would not work well in faster surfaces due to his wide topspin swing. Th
When we talk about Nadal being clay court player, we emphasizes this. Even Djokovic also has that problem on the forehand side.

And on crazy fast courts of the 20th century (not just the 1990s), Nadal would hit the ground before hitting the balls with his extreme claycourt grip. Djokovic grip is actually even more extreme.
 
#84
Upsets by hard hitters would become more frequent on fast grass.
Depends on what kind of hard hitters, Lendl-like or Becker-like. The likes of Safin, Delpo, Soderling, Anderson, Blake or Berdych would not be really much of an issue, with Roddick being the exception. All-courters like Ancic and Tsonga, OTOH, are big threats.
 
#85
I have to wonder if some of the trolls have seen Fed play... on a fast court.

Wimbledon on slick fast grass means Fed probably ends up with 9-10+ instead of losing finals to grinders and clay courters.
I am actually surprised when Phillippoussis was not weaponized as much as I expected by weak-era bandwagon, given his unseeded status in 2003, and the fact that he looked like a servebot in the final.
 
#86
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 ?
No, I don't think their talent is suited for fast grass. But so what, Fed is not as talented as Nadal for very slow courts.
 
#87
He would have less problems with Nadal and Djokovic that’s for sure. Whether he wins more or less titles than he currently has is too speculative. Upsets by hard hitters would become more frequent on fast grass. He could very well end up with the same number or even less even though he would never loose a final to Nadal and next to certain neither to Djokovic.
With his grass return at his peak, he neutralised big hitters easily. I can see him winning 6 straight in 03-09 then further titles probably in 12, 14 or 15 and 17 if we assume the draws remain the same.
 
#88
Upsets by hard hitters would become more frequent on fast grass.
Depends on what kind of hard hitters, Lendl-like or Becker-like. The likes of Safin, Roddick, Soderling, Anderson, Blake or Berdych would not be really much of an issue, maybe except for Roddick. All-courters like Ancic and Tsonga, OTOH, are bigger threats.
 
#89
I just don't see it because he's not great on fast surfaces in general. Even though he played a handful of matches early in his career on carpet, his record was 47%. When you compare that to players like Murray and Djokovic at a young age, even though they only played a handful of matches, they were both around 70% or more. They adapted to those conditions right away and you can see why they are also great on grass with the lower bounce. Wawrinka's record is 50% on the slow grass.

I just think his game needs time so he can line up and drill his shots. He's not one of the great players who are good at reacting and improvising, but he is great in slower conditions where he can meet the ball and bury it. He even said he's not great at reacting on grass. So really I think this era with the slower conditions was great for Wawrinka's career because I don't see him replicating this in an era with faster courts.
I will have to agree with you on most counts, however Stans mobility has been outstanding in his later years but his FH feeds off the slow courts
I wonder how much success he would have had if the lta and atphomo effort wasnt introduced? maybe Nadal and Nole wouldnt have won wimby once.
 
#90
I am actually surprised when Phillippoussis was not weaponized as much as I expected by weak-era bandwagon, given his unseeded status in 2003, and the fact that he looked like a servebot in the final.
Also, it's not just about the final. He defeated Roddick in the semis too. And before AO07 Gonzo Fed actually destroyed Djokovic/Roddick too. Plus there was times in the semis he also had to play Agassi. And if they will say Agassi was a joke, then old Fed is a joke too, so Djokovic gets no credit.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
#91
Of course he can.
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?
Nope. Federer would have enjoy the slick, low bounce grass since it's suits his game much better than Djokodal. Watch a 19 years old Federer vs. 7 time Wimbledon champions Sampras in a thrilling 5 sets match when they both played classic serve and volley.


If you haven't watched Wimbledon 2003, I encourage you to see Federer won the event by playing old-school attacking tennis.

There's no doubt that Federer would have blossomed on a traditional fast grass.
 
#95
Honestly Nadal almost no chance IMO. Probably not even 2007-2010 which was clearly his best ever grass tennis. His serve and return of serve are both weaker than Agassi, return of serve big time. And his groundstrokes, court positioning, and timing arent as suited to grass as Agassi's are. Agassi is my barometer as the only true baseliner to win grass when it was truly fast. Well Hewitt too, but the grass might have been slowed down already in 2002, although I think he wins this year anyway. Especialy not with the field of big servers, great net players, and attacking players of the 90s.

Djokovic would have a good chance. Would not be as successful as today IMO, but he has the serve and return of serve combination, baseline skills, and athleticsm to win Wimbledon as a baseliner on fast grass.
 
#96
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 ?


Djokovic with more net points played than Fed and Nadal combined, despite playing 22 fewer total points.

 
#98
Nadal comes in off killer approaches usually and pokes an easy volley or overhead away. Djokovic even as well. Which is totally fine of course, but doesnt exactly qualify as traditional net rushing or transitional play which you almost always had to do some of on old 90s grass. Atleast in the mens game.
 
Djokovic I suppose yes. Agassi grabbed a Wimbledon too. But not 5 like he has now.

Nadal, absolutely not. Just forget it. I'm always stunned how incompetent he manages to look at times even on this much slowed down grass in recent years.
 
Top