Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Duzza, Jun 19, 2006.
Woohoo. Only one win at Wimby and he's the best(so to speak).
not the best on grass in history, but the record holder for most consecutive wins on grass - it's the same with Nadal and his clay-court record - he has the most win's in row on it , but unless he wins at least 4 RG's I won't put him above Borg and he's on a level with Guga atm, imo.
So, unless Fed can win 2-3 more Wimby's I wouldn't rate him as the best grass court player ever, above Borg and Sampras!
Yeah, thats why i said "(so to speak)". It's just a stat but personally i feel he is the Best. SORRY EVERYBODY don't hurt me.
It's a message-board, we can't hurt you. Well, at least not physically...
imo, I wouldn't rate Nadal equal with Guga . . . yet. Guga has three Roland Garros titles and quite a few other titles on all types of surfaces, fast and slow. Rafa is close, and in another year or two, will most likely, exceed the acomplishments of Kuerten, but not yet.
I dunno about that. Sometimes after reading devilla posts my head really hurts.
i think rafa will surpass guga in a couple years. and about the same time fed will surpass sampras on grass.
I am pretty sure Nadal can win another French open in the next few years, that will put him with equal number of FO wins with Kuerten, but will Fed surpass Sampras's 7 winbledon wins? Only time will tell. Right now my guess is no.
It's so weird man it is like Neo and Mr. Smith from the Matrix, Yin and Yang you know
the stronger Neo = Nadal gets the stronger Mr. Smith = Roger gets, can Nadal set us free from the Matrix or will Mr. Smith prevail?
That's an extremely biased analogy.
He's nowhere near Borg, Mac, Sampras, Edberg, Becker.....
Because he plays on user-friendly, politically correct, Wimbledon grass, with no real grass-courts opponents.
No comparsion to the champions of old. I'm sure he'd be the first to point out this fact.
It's a shame in many ways because he'd be fantastic to watch against real S&Vers, and it would be great to see him work on his net game.
Having said that, I don't think his serve is strong enough to beat an old Agassi if he served and volleyed, the way Sampras did. The few times Federer tried to S&V against Agassi, Agassi smokes him and he tucks his tail and runs back to the baseline.
Roger on faster grass would be unstoppable.He would remind me the same way as sampras.He would wait for the perfect time to get a break.It doesnt matter, the guy reminds me so much like Sampras on grass, he would volley as well.Its too early too be talking about it.
Are u talking about Agassi on grass?What are u smoking, Fed kills Agassi on grass.
I think Nadal has already accomplished about equal of Kuerten on surfaces besides clay. Guga won the year end championships, but Nadal won 2 Masters Series on hard court.
He may resemble Sampras on grass but his serve is nowhere near Sampras'. But his returns are definitely better than the late Sampras'.
Still, his game has matured against baseline, one-dimensional players. Real S&Vers present a very different set of challenges.
Personally, I think Rafter in his prime would eat Fed at the USO the way Nadal eats him on clay, because Rafter's serve is the one Fed hates- slower, heavy spin and kick serves, esp. to the backhand. And when Rafter had his run at the USO his returns were superb. Fed wouldn't have these cruise-control baseline rallies.
I still think Fed would be very successful but just look at how sophomoric his grasscourt competition is these days.
It's so bad it's almost impossible to imagine serious S&V play these days.
believe me, i love watching roger play. it is because of him that i watch tennis games, but these comparisons to guys who have retired is just dumb.
Are you guys are so shallow minded that have no other topics to think about? When FedEx achieves the titles in comparison to the greats, then we make such assumptions and discuss it. making them now is just foolish.
who know what will happen to him in present and near future. might have an injury, maybe other players stepup, rule changes..etc....
the same arguments are made in other sports when people have nothing better to talk about. Here are few examples:
D'wade and Lebron James are Jordanasque?
Tiger woods is the greatest golf player?
Lets just wait and enjoy the fruits of their labor... we will have plenty of time in future to make such comparisons...
For god sake, at least wait till they get little closer to the greats' records.
p.s. Tiger would have never choked, leading two rounds with 1 hole to play.
When have they played on grass, #1?
And when has Federer S&V'd exclusively against anyone since W '01?
I don't think he could beat Hewitt if he S&V'd exclusively. His serve isn't strong enough. Agassi would eat him alive.
Cavalier, Agassi was never known as a grass player.Fed would eat him up.U say that Fed doesnt have Sampras's serve, i agree but Federer's serve is very effective.Just look back at wimbledon 01 against Sampras, Sampras couldnt do nothing against it.
How is that, you hear how people dont' even watch Roger's games.
It loses a lot of the excitment.
Neo will set us free, we are no longer slaves, we need to see the real world:mrgreen:
That didn't make any sense whatsoever.
Isn't Borg's streak mostly on matches in Wimbledon while
Federer's streak includes lots of matches in warm-up tournaments ?
Borg's streak was from 1976-1981. It looks like a streak at 5 Wimbledons
and 1 or 2 warm ups.
Federer could be considered as benchmark player for new slower,
bouncier, "practically-a-hard-court" grass court of 2001 or later.
He is really setting a standard for this new generation of grass courts.
I don't think we can compare Federer with Sampras or Borg who
played on old fatser and low bouncing grass court of 2000 or before.
But my guess Federer would not be as dominant as now on older,
faster grass. Federer has very neutral game and not exactly a fast
court player. Note that he skips a few carpet tournaments and he
lost to Nalbandian at the Master's final on extremely fast indoor court.
Not *mostly*. It was *only* in matches at Wimbledon.
Not many warm-up tournament(s), only Halle.
Note that he lost 7-6 in the fifth set, after a very long match with three tiebreaks, while carrying a relatively fresh leg injury for the whole tournament.
You're right. Borg's streak was only in Wimbledon 6 multiplied by 7 minus
1 = 41. It's absolutely amazing how in the hell Borg adjusted from
slow clay of Paris, directly to old really fast Wimbledon ?
It's certainly incredible and unique stats.
Yes, Federer had foot injury last year. But I don't think last year
was first year Federer skipped indoor carpet tournaments.
I'm reluctant to label him as fast court player. He is #2 clay
player (only second to such special clay courter Nadal).
Lots of hard courts are slower these days and some people
argue Wimbledon grass courts are practically hard court now...
Bah!!!!!!The grass was boring in the 90s, it was a serving contest.There is no doubt in my mind he would dominate on grass even then.Its even more difficult now since the grass is different although not by much but different.
Federer fans should not worry. He will get great repect if he wins
4 or more Wimnledon whether it was on slow or fast grass.
That is hilarious!!!
Ironic that people focus so much on the speed of the grass, and yet if 2001 is the year of change as you say, the final that year was played between two players who *thrived* on court-speed, Rafter & Goran.
Also - given all of this "federer only had to play on this grass, federer only had to play these opponents, etc etc", I honestly wonder if the same was said about Borg back in the day? I bet such things fade with time, as the record holds true and people realise a challenge is a challenge, independant of small variables.
Agassi was never known as a grass player because it was made for serve and volleyers once upon a time and yet Agassi still won Wimbledon against serve and volleyers. He lost in the semis against Rafter a few times. If the courts were like they are now, he'd probably have 1 or 2 more Wimbledon titles under his belt. And he hasn't played Wimbledon in 3 years so you can see why you haven't heard more from him on grass.
Can someone reclarify the whole Neo and Agent Smith thing to me? I would have thought Federer is Neo as he is the best at the moment. Was Agent Smith better than Neo in the matrix? Perhaps at first....kinda like Nadal is beating Federer at the moment...but will Federer's destiny be revealed to him when he visits the oracle (John Madden)? Stay tuned, folks.
I think they tinkered with it in 2001, but not enough for players to notice the difference. They changed the mixture more dramatically in '02.
Players only started saying the courts were slower in '02, not '01. So I doubt that they were the same slow courts in '01.
Here's a Henman & Rusedski interview from '02:
Q. What do you know about grass court tennis now that you didn't know when you first played here, even as a junior?
GREG RUSEDSKI: Well, this year the grass is playing very interesting. I've never seen it so hard for a Monday in all the years I've played Wimbledon. So you can actually use the kick serve a little bit more, where usually if you had a kick serve, it would be punished severely. You know, you've just got to be crafty and use your physicality, take the ball early. You've got to mix it up. This year's Wimbledon is different because of the weather and the dryness of the court. So I think it's just experience, maturity, health, combination of a few things. Can't give away all my secrets (smiling).
Q. Scott mentioned that in his opinion, Centre Court was playing slower than before. There's been quite a lot of comment from a number of players that the courts are playing a bit differently this year. We wondered what your opinion was.
TIM HENMAN: I think they're a bit slower, yeah.
Q. Apart from that, any differences?
TIM HENMAN: I think because they're a little bit slower, the ball is probably bouncing a little bit higher. That's, you know, probably been the nature of the game in general.
Q. But the impression is that the bounce is quite consistent.
TIM HENMAN: Oh, very. Yeah, the bounce is very consistent. You know, on these courts, there are very, very few bad bounces. But, you know, I think the sort of general consensus is that they're playing a little bit slower, the balls are a little bit heavier.
& later in the '02 event:
Q. Could you see a final of two baseliners?
GREG RUSEDSKI: Possibly this year. It could happen
Q. And is it just because they're playing better or is the court playing differently?
GREG RUSEDSKI: Everybody knows the grass is much slower. There's no question about it. You can see it from the rallies and how guys are getting hits on returns and all sorts of things. You know, I mean, I talked to Bjorkman in Nottingham. And he said the speed of the grass from Nottingham to Wimbledon was quite a huge difference. But, you know, if you serve well and you volley well, it doesn't make a difference.
Q. Would it be right the conditions are a bit less helpful to you this year?
TIM HENMAN: I think it's slower. I think I'm not the first person to say that. I think the courts are, you know, bouncing up pretty high. But, as I said, you know, that's an element you've got to deal with, and it's the same for both the players. But perhaps the nature, you know, the way the draw has unfolded, that has something to do with it.
Also, one other observation about S&V declining at W. Around the time W slowed the grass down, the best grasscourt players were retiring/declining anyway. Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Rafter were all winding down their careers around '01'02(with some serious injuries as well)
So surface was factor, but so were players. Even if there was still fast grass today, I don't think Ancic, Lopez, Dent, Mirnyi & others would be contenders for W. They simply aren't in the same league as those other guys.
You gotta remember Fed does too
2001 was the year they changed the type of grass.
But I'm not sure when they started to have that cement layer below
the "rye" grass. Maybe 2002.
For example, Mario Ancic/Federer was playing S&V in 2001 and 2002.
Then both of them switched to baseliner sometime around 2002-2003...
It's around that time, roughly.
I think the primary reason for the decline of S&V are the tennis factories. Places like Bollitieri. I suspect its much easier to mass produce baseliners than all court specialists. Couple that with the dissapearance of indoor carpet and the slowing down of grass and we have the baseline drones of today.
Separate names with a comma.