For Federer or in the future Nadal to ever be the greatest ever Calendar Slam a must

[davey25]

Personally I think for either Federer or Nadal to ever have any claims on true GOAT status in the future they would have to win atleast one Calendar Slam. That is just my opinion though. What do some of you think.

For Federer that seems completely out of reach now. For Nadal it could be possible in the future but obviously wont be easy, and is already impossible this year.

 

[abmk]

I personally think this is another of your fail threads ...

going by this, everyone except budge and laver are disqualified from the debate ... and both won their slams only on two surfaces ...

unlike now where there are more diversity in surfaces . Its MUCH tougher to achieve a Calender slam now than it was earlier

 

[davey25]

I personally think this is another of your fail threads ...

and I dont personally care what you think, and I can easily predict whatever you think about anything at all related to Roger, and you were not one of the people I was looking for the opinion of thanks.

 

[urban]

I don't buy this surface argument. Today, the surfaces are all quite similar, and allow people to play basically the same (hard court) style to play with. That extends not only to the very top players, but also to sub-toppers like Berdych and Soderling, who reach the later rounds of RG AND Wimbledon. Imagine, that Sampras never could do, what Berdych - a talented but far from great player -managed to to: reach the semis or better at RG and Wim in the same year. A Grand Slam could be easier in the future, with all the specialists gone.

 

[davey25]

I think the hardest time period to achieve the Grand Slam would have been 1985-2000. Everyone was playing all 4 Grand Slams, the surfaces were the most polarized they have ever been, 4 distinct playing surfaces for the 4 slams back then, and you had probably the widest variety of surface specialists ever. I am not saying the overall field was the greatest ever these years, but the Calendar Slam probably would have been the hardest to achieve. So if any of Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, had achieved that it would have been an unbelievable feat, but of course none really even came close.

 

[abmk]

and I dont personally care what you think, and I can easily predict whatever you think about anything at all related to Roger, and you were not one of the people I was looking for the opinion of thanks.

umm, no , you have no clue about what you YOURSELF actually think in the melee of creating millions of IDs, let alone guessing/knowing what I think ...

 

[abmk]

I don't buy this surface argument. Today, the surfaces are all quite similar, and allow people to play basically the same (hard court) style to play with. That extends not only to the very top players, but also to sub-toppers like Berdych and Soderling, who reach the later rounds of RG AND Wimbledon. Imagine, that Sampras never could do, what Berdych - a talented but far from great player -managed to to: reach the semis or better at RG and Wim in the same year. A Grand Slam could be easier in the future, with all the specialists gone.

and I think it also has quite a LOT to do with players being more complete than ever from the baseline

If all the surfaces are that similar, why hasn't roddick done anything at the FO ? why hasn't davydenko done anything at wimbledon ? why hasn't murray reached even the semi @ RG ( he's reached the semis of the other GSs ) ? he hasn't even reached the final of a clay court event, IIRC ...

the slam surfaces are less diverse than in the 80s and 90s, but clearly more diverse than what they were laver and budge accomplished the slams ( phenomenal achievements no doubt, but its tougher to do it now because of more surfaces )

 

[davey25]

umm, no , you have no clue about what you YOURSELF actually think in the melee of creating millions of IDs, let alone guessing/knowing what I think ...

It is pretty easy to know what you think. You are very predictable. I can always anticipate your entrance into a thread even before it happens and your opening bars ad nauseum.

 

[hoodjem]

going by this, everyone except budge and laver are disqualified from the debate ... and both won their slams only on two surfaces ...

unlike now where there are more diversity in surfaces . Its MUCH tougher to achieve a Calender slam now than it was earlier

Personally, I don't include Budge in the discussion, but I do include Fed in the GOAT discussion.

I think the diversity of surfaces argument is a bit of a red herring: that is, tournaments have done much to equalize surfaces today. One could argue that there was virtually as much diversity among the grasses of Wimbledon, Australia, and Forest Hills back then as there is today with the slower grass of Wimbledon and the Deco-Turf at Flushing Meadow and the Plexicushion Prestige at Melbourne Park.

I do believe that until Fed equals (or surpasses) Laver's record in this particular category, the debate will continue.

 

[abmk]

Personally, I don't include Budge in the discussion, but I do include Fed in the GOAT discussion.

I think the diversity of surfaces argument is a bit of a red herring: that is, tournaments have done much to equalize surfaces today. One could argue that there was virtually as much diversity among the grasses of Wimbledon, Australia, and Forest Hills back then as there is today with the slower grass of Wimbledon and the Deco-Turf at Flushing Meadow and the Plexicushion Prestige at Melbourne Park.

I do believe that until Fed equals (or surpasses) Laver's record in this particular category, the debate will continue.

no, you can't , grass is still grass . Its one thing to say grass in those days varied like the different hard courts do today, but its another to say the same differences exist b/w different surfaces ( like grass vs clay or grass vs HC or grass vs clay vs HC ) . They are different surfaces ...

 

[abmk]

It is pretty easy to know what you think. You are very predictable. I can always anticipate your entrance into a thread even before it happens and your opening bars ad nauseum.

umm, no, I am not that predictable. You don't have a clue as to how I think. One thing though, I am very predictable in that I don't make U-turns like you after every single match !

 

[hoodjem]

no, you can't , grass is still grass . Its one thing to say grass in those days varied like the different hard courts do today, but its another to say the same differences exist b/w different surfaces ( like grass vs clay or grass vs HC or grass vs clay vs HC ) . They are different surfaces ...

Yes, I can. Wimbledon is still on grass, but would you argue that the post-2001 Wimbledon surface is the same as pre-2001? Lacquered wood is hard-court, but would you argue that it plays as slow as sand-painted acrylic? Of course not. To ignore all these differences is to be too general.

"Grass specialist Tim Henman spoke out against this change in 2002, stating 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year'."

 

[abmk]

Yes, I can.

elaborate .

Before that , answer to this point. The movement on grass across USO, australian and wimby on grass was more or less the same. The bounce and speed varied.

You have to make adjustments for movement across different surfaces. This again apart from the variation in bounce and speed.

So how is it the same ?

 

[abmk]

Yes, I can. Wimbledon is still on grass, but would you argue that the post-2001 Wimbledon surface is the same as pre-2001?

"Grass specialist Tim Henman spoke out against this change in 2002, stating "What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year".[4] As a result, serving and volleying has become rare at Wimbledon and dominant baseliners such as Roger Federer have won the most recent titles."

Again, the bounce is more consistent, higher and the speed is slower, but it is still grass . It is different, but there is still a LOT less difference b/w the grass pre-2001 and post 2001 than say b/w grass and any hard court or b/w grass and clay .

Can't believe have to explain an elementary thing like this more than once !

 

[hoodjem]

Can't believe have to explain an elementary thing like this more than once !

Therein lies the problem, your discernment is overly general and thus too elementary.

It is flawed by its coarseness.

 

[abmk]

Therein lies the problem, your discernment is overly general and thus too elementary.

that still doesn't contradict my point regarding the surfaces ...nice try, though

 

[hoodjem]

Before that , answer to this point. The movement on grass across USO, australian and wimby on grass was more or less the same. The bounce and speed varied.

You have to make adjustments for movement across different surfaces. This again apart from the variation in bounce and speed.

I assume you are talking about players' movement.? Yes, I mostly agree--if the playing conditions (e.g. amount of water in the grass, or degree of wear on the court, or dryness of the dirt under the grass, or amount of roll put to the court, etc.) are the same.

(Remember that Laver asked the umpire if he could switch to cleated shoes after the first set at the 1969 USO finals against Roche--something he did not do in the other grass slams that year. These conditions were obviously very different from Wimbledon or the AO. See here about one minute in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2CpBpV5pg&feature=related)

A player's movement on this court would be very, very different from the same player (or any other player) on a dry hard-packed worn grass-court.

 

[egn]

Whether or not they need it if either did it would definite nearly completely establish them as GOAT.

 

[pc1]

I don't think either player necessarily has to win the Calendar Grand Slam to be a GOAT. It obviously would depend on how much they accomplish overall in their careers and during their best years.

Tilden is considered to be a possible GOAT and he never won the Calendar Grand Slam, same with Gonzalez, Rosewall, Borg and some others. These players accomplished so much during their careers.

Actually Rosewall did win a Pro Grand Slam in 1963 which was super impressive now that I think of it.

Nadal and Federer have proven they can win on all surfaces and I think that is why they emphasize winning all the slams like an Agassi for example.

That being written, it wouldn't hurt their resume if they won a Calendar Grand Slam.

 

[TMF]

Roger is the goat and he doesn't need to win the calendar slam. Laver won the CS only on 2 surfaces. If Laver have won on all four surfaces, then a good argument to say Roger need to win the CS to be undispute king.

As for Rafa, he'll be lucky to reach Tier I great when he's finish. Most likely he'll be in Tier II great, just like Serena in the WTA.

 

[urban]

Actually, Laver won on all surfaces (indoor, clay, grass and hardcourt) each and every year from 1964 to 1970. In 1971 he won on all courts except on grass, where he played little. I don't see, that the versatility argument works against him, and that either Federer or Nadal have matched that.

 

[thalivest]

Laver would no doubt have won the Calendar Slam at that time even if they played on every surface. There were many who felt hard courts was his best surface.

 

[dmt]

I dont agree. I mean no one has won the calender slam since its been playing on three surfaces. Laver won it on two surfaces. Its a little harsh to expect federer or nadal to be able to do it.

 

[Gizo]

Actually, Laver won on all surfaces (indoor, clay, grass and hardcourt) each and every year from 1964 to 1970. In 1971 he won on all courts except on grass, where he played little. I don't see, that the versatility argument works against him, and that either Federer or Nadal have matched that.

Agreed. Laver regularly won the biggest hard court and indoor tournaments during his prime, including in 1969 when he won the biggest titles available to him on every surface. It is a common misconception that the tour was dominated by grass courts when Laver was playing, when in-fact aside from the 3 grand slams, there were very few other events or warm-ups on the surface. In fact for a while weren't there no grass court warm-ups ahead of the Australian and US Opens? There were still more indoor, clay and hard court tournaments in Laver's prime than grass court ones.

 

[pc1]

Actually, Laver won on all surfaces (indoor, clay, grass and hardcourt) each and every year from 1964 to 1970. In 1971 he won on all courts except on grass, where he played little. I don't see, that the versatility argument works against him, and that either Federer or Nadal have matched that.

Laver won on every surface including super fast surfaces not seen anymore like some wooden surfaces. Same with Rosewall incidentally and I believe Gonzalez.

 

[davey25]

Laver won on every surface including super fast surfaces not seen anymore like some wooden surfaces. Same with Rosewall incidentally and I believe Gonzalez.

How much did Gonzales win on clay though? I thought he never won the French Pro even once. He did win some tournaments on clay, but not alot of noteable ones that I know of.

 

[dmt]

It must also be mentioned that tennis is alot more popular today then it was 40-50 years ago. Look at the top 10. Almost all the guys in there are from different countries. Thats why its alot harder to achieve now.

 

[abmk]

I assume you are talking about players' movement.? Yes, I mostly agree--if the playing conditions (e.g. amount of water in the grass, or degree of wear on the court, or dryness of the dirt under the grass, or amount of roll put to the court, etc.) are the same.

(Remember that Laver asked the umpire if he could switch to cleated shoes after the first set at the 1969 USO finals against Roche--something he did not do in the other grass slams that year. These conditions were obviously very different from Wimbledon or the AO. See here about one minute in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2CpBpV5pg&feature=related)

A player's movement on this court would be very, very different from the same player (or any other player) on a dry hard-packed worn grass-court.

It was an adjustment to ensure he didn't slip (and that was just an isolated example ). Again, nowhere as significant as the difference in movement across different surfaces .

 

[abmk]

Actually, Laver won on all surfaces (indoor, clay, grass and hardcourt) each and every year from 1964 to 1970. In 1971 he won on all courts except on grass, where he played little. I don't see, that the versatility argument works against him, and that either Federer or Nadal have matched that.

not questioning laver's versatility over the course of his career ( he was as versatile as any ), but his versatility over the surfaces was not so much required during the course of the Calender slams. All it'd take for a non-accomplishment of a Calender slam was a single slip and the probability would increase with more changes/adjustments required

And nadal shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with fed as far as versatality is concerned, he hasn't even made the final @ the USO or the TMC. fed has all the 4 slams and the TMC as well

 

[davey25]

So you are faulting Laver for something that he had no control over- there being no hard court slams. That is IMO silly and unfair, especialy when he proved his dominance over all surfaces in other tournaments.

 

[TMF]

So you are faulting Laver for something that he had no control over- there being no hard court slams. That is IMO silly and unfair, especialy when he proved his dominance over all surfaces in other tournaments.

The reality is it never happened. You can't give credit when he didn't win the GS on hard court. It's just like you arguing with samboy01 about Sele's stabbing....why give Seles SW19 and more GS titles simply b/c it never happened. It works both way. Now please stay consistent instead of contradicting yourself!

 

[davey25]

The reality is it never happened. You can't give credit when he didn't win the GS on hard court. It's just like you arguing with samboy01 about Sele's stabbing....why give Seles SW19 and more GS titles simply b/c it never happened. It works both way. Now please stay consistent instead of contradicting yourself!

What happened is Laver DID win the Calendar Slams and he did, and he won them on the surfaces that were in place at the time while proving his dominance on all surfaces around the same time. There is no speculation, that is what did happen like it or not.

 

[TMF]

What happened is Laver DID win the Calendar Slams and he did, and he won them on the surfaces that were in place at the time while proving his dominance on all surfaces around the same time. There is no speculation, that is what did happen like it or not.

Please explain to the board on how Laver actually won his 4 GS in 1969 on EVERY surfaces?

 

[krosero]

It was an adjustment to ensure he didn't slip (and that was just an isolated example ).

Because of all the rain that year, it was somewhat of an extreme situation, with the spikes, and the helicopter drying the court and all that. But the Forest Hills grasscourts were generally very different from the others, and Laver made a lot out of the differences in his book:

“American grass is for cows and lovers – not tennis players. In fact American grass courts are so uncertain under foot that an unwary cow might break a leg strolling from a baseline to net. Or starve. There isn’t much grass left on an American court by the time a tournament reaches its climax. / … it is a sad fact that few Americans know how thrilling it is to watch excellent tennis. / When you say that Wimbledon is a grass court tournament and Forest Hills is a grass court tournament … you may as well say that Raquel Welch is a woman and Twiggy is a woman. No American club has the grass-growing climate or the resources to duplicate Wimbledon. / …at least at Wimbledon you know where the ball will bounce – and that it will bounce. Because grass makes for a low, skidding bounce, points are normally over very quickly …/ The game I play at Forest Hills or on any other American grass – is entirely different from how I play on Wimbledon’s firm and true grass. Junk brings results at Forest Hills. I serve my kicker (American twist) a lot more because it will take erratic bounces whereas at Wimbledon it will stand up too high and I use it only to vary my serving pattern. I chip the ball around a lot hook and slice, even chop, trying to produce skips and annoying hops to throw off the other fellow. You improvise at Forest Hills.”

Just an example of how Laver viewed two grasscourts as completely different.

Of course, grass is just one surface. But there were differences, depending on the court or the circumstance (just like there are differences among hardcourts; or differences among claycourts). It was not a simple surface to negotiate from day to day (with changing weather), and from one place to another (with different climates and maintenance issues). At the beginning of a tournament you might be playing on thick green blades, while at the end you'd be playing on dirt (and the ground might play fast or slow depending on how dry it was).

 

[CyBorg]

The grand slam doesn't really matter - the arguments that spring out of this are fallacious and problematic because the standards are different over time.

What works in Laver's favour is that he, over the course of certain years, was not only the best player on every existing surface in tennis, but also by far the most dominant - and we know this based on the results that are available. Federer has come up short on clay of matching that type of brilliance, save for 2009 - the year in which he was unfortunately part his peak (losses at both the Australian and the US Open).

So, yes, we can definitely say with a great deal of confidence that Laver had a more convincing peak and was head-and-shoulders above everyone at some point - on every surface imaginable.

That said, I have to grant Federer a bit of leeway, because I think his situation involves an exception - his nemesis on clay, Nadal, was, sadly for him, at the peak of his powers roughly at the same time as Roger, and he'll go down as arguably the finest player on that surface. So a bit of bad luck for Roger. Rod had better luck, something that we can acknowledge considering Rosewall's more advanced age and decline in performance in the mid-to-late 60s.

So, looking things over I can see very good arguments both ways. Laver's resume stands up against that of anyone. Federer has the whole clay blemish (if we can even call it that - not too shabby a blemish), but considering the circumstances it can also be better understood in context.

 

[krosero]

not questioning laver's versatility over the course of his career ( he was as versatile as any ), but his versatility over the surfaces was not so much required during the course of the Calender slams. All it'd take for a non-accomplishment of a Calender slam was a single slip and the probability would increase with more changes/adjustments required

See I think this is a true distinction: the number of surfaces that Laver mastered as a tennis player; and the number of surfaces he played on in the Slams. He mastered all the surfaces, at one place or another; in the Slams, of course, he played only on clay and grass.

I just think the surfaces debates often gets those two things confused, so I appreciate the distinction.

It's like the example of Connors: he won five USO's on 3 different surfaces (grass, clay, hard). Sampras and Federer have also won five USO's; but only on one surface. So Connors' achievement is greater as far as the surface question is concerned; but it doesn't automatically mean that he was a more versatile player than Sampras or Federer. He might or might not be; to decide that you just have to look at other tournaments: the entire careers of these players; their entire records.

With Laver, his entire career shows mastery of grass, clay and hard (and various indoor surfaces); but in the Slams he only showed mastery of grass and clay. Any future calendar Slam will have to be done on grass, clay and hard.

A calendar slam on 3 surfaces has not happened, but theoretically it would be greater than a CS on 2 surfaces. Fine so far. But 3-to-2 is not a slam dunk, and what might make it even closer is the RG/Wimbledon transition. Everyone seems to agree that it was harder in Laver's day (all the way through Sampras' generation). You talk about a single slip ruining a calendar Slam; well that transition was a treacherous one. Laver played a lot from the baseline at RG, playing against other baseliners, then a few weeks later at Wimbledon he'd be coming in behind every serve and suddenly have to defend against SV from his opponents, too.

Federer and Nadal achieved their RG/Wimbledon doubles playing their usual baseline styles. Now whether that's because the surfaces are more homogenized now -- or the players simply have dropped SV as a style -- well I don't know if there's a definitive answer. But in the end I'm not sure how much it matters. If you face baseline tennis at RG and then face baseline tennis at Wimbledon -- and you yourself play baseline tennis at both places -- it does not seem as difficult a transition as it was up until around 2001.

 

[CyBorg]

I've decided to avoid the whole grand slam topic - more specifically the issue of whether the grand slam is the great mark of excellence, or a kind of tiebreaker.

It just doesn't work as a general rule, because it sets a standard that is, first of all, based on majors winnings (and we know that the grand slam underwent so many changes in the quality of its events) - we're not bound to accept the pro tour's equivalent of a grand slam as the same thing - and, second of all, the issue is bound to set the contemporary organization of the slam as the benchmark, due to 1) our natural propensity to project the present onto the past and 2) the fact that the tour has never been more standardized than it is now.

The grand slam that Laver won was different than what the grand slam is today. There's no way around that. Comparing leads to projecting leads to skewing - and two thing are just not the same.

It is much easier to just say "here are the results that prove that Laver dominated every single surface at some point in time" - we can even establish to what extent. It's easy and it immediately ends this silly argument - and these arguments always begin the same way; a poster comes here, projects his understanding of contemporary tennis onto past tennis and others take his bait.

This poster means well, but his/her post is a great example of the kind of projection I'm talking about.

Laver would no doubt have won the Calendar Slam at that time even if they played on every surface. There were many who felt hard courts was his best surface.

He/she treats the contemporary understanding of the grand slam is a kind of "benchmark" and then hypothesizes that Laver would have reached the benchmark had he played under similar circumstances. This creates a needless hypothetical. Again, this poster means well, but some really dimwitted ones use this kind of thinking in order to manufacture a flaw in Laver's record - eg. "Laver only won his majors on two surfaces, therefore his accomplishments are less impressive".

Rather than arguing back and forth, point out that the poster shouldn't project that way in the first place. Some posters who are Laver-friendly should probably also heed this advice - Laver's grand slam is not an argument-breaker.

 

[abmk]

So you are faulting Laver for something that he had no control over- there being no hard court slams. That is IMO silly and unfair, especialy when he proved his dominance over all surfaces in other tournaments.

no, not at all. Like I said , I consider laver to be as versatile as any .

I am saying you are penalising nadal/fed by expecting them to win a calender GS when it is clearly a more difficult task now than it was in laver's time .

 

[abmk]

See I think this is a true distinction: the number of surfaces that Laver mastered as a tennis player; and the number of surfaces he played on in the Slams. He mastered all the surfaces, at one place or another; in the Slams, of course, he played only on clay and grass.

I just think the surfaces debates often gets those two things confused, so I appreciate the distinction.

It's like the example of Connors: he won five USO's on 3 different surfaces (grass, clay, hard). Sampras and Federer have also won five USO's; but only on one surface. So Connors' achievement is greater as far as the surface question is concerned; but it doesn't automatically mean that he was a more versatile player than Sampras or Federer. He might or might not be; to decide that you just have to look at other tournaments: the entire careers of these players; their entire records.

With Laver, his entire career shows mastery of grass, clay and hard (and various indoor surfaces); but in the Slams he only showed mastery of grass and clay. Any future calendar Slam will have to be done on grass, clay and hard.

absolutely !

A calendar slam on 3 surfaces has not happened, but theoretically it would be greater than a CS on 2 surfaces. Fine so far. But 3-to-2 is not a slam dunk, and what might make it even closer is the RG/Wimbledon transition. Everyone seems to agree that it was harder in Laver's day (all the way through Sampras' generation). You talk about a single slip ruining a calendar Slam; well that transition was a treacherous one. Laver played a lot from the baseline at RG, playing against other baseliners, then a few weeks later at Wimbledon he'd be coming in behind every serve and suddenly have to defend against SV from his opponents, too.

Federer and Nadal achieved their RG/Wimbledon doubles playing their usual baseline styles. Now whether that's because the surfaces are more homogenized now -- or the players simply have dropped SV as a style -- well I don't know if there's a definitive answer. But in the end I'm not sure how much it matters. If you face baseline tennis at RG and then face baseline tennis at Wimbledon -- and you yourself play baseline tennis at both places -- it does not seem as difficult a transition as it was up until around 2001.

your point is valid. The RG-wimby transition was more difficult earlier. But we have the prime example of borg as something that illustrates that even if you conquer the opposites ( grass and clay ) , you are not guaranteed winning the middle one ( hard courts ). Something worth pondering right ?

 

[hoodjem]

“American grass is for cows and lovers – not tennis players. . . . When you say that Wimbledon is a grass court tournament and Forest Hills is a grass court tournament … you may as well say that Raquel Welch is a woman and Twiggy is a woman. No American club has the grass-growing climate or the resources to duplicate Wimbledon. / …at least at Wimbledon you know where the ball will bounce – and that it will bounce. Because grass makes for a low, skidding bounce, points are normally over very quickly …/ The game I play at Forest Hills or on any other American grass – is entirely different from how I play on Wimbledon’s firm and true grass. the other fellow. You improvise at Forest Hills.”

This is exactly what abmk was saying: grass is grass.

no, you can't , grass is still grass.

 

[hoodjem]

and I think it also has quite a LOT to do with players being more complete than ever from the baseline

I'm not sure of what you mean here. Do you mean that present players are more skilled from the baseline? Have more shots? Have more variety? Can do more with the ball?

In this context of [hitting] "from the baseline, what does "more complete" mean?"

 

[krosero]

your point is valid. The RG-wimby transition was more difficult earlier. But we have the prime example of borg as something that illustrates that even if you conquer the opposites ( grass and clay ) , you are not guaranteed winning the middle one ( hard courts ). Something worth pondering right ?

Certainly Borg is a good example of that. Borg was an excellent hardcourt player and had some great performances on that surface; but IMO he was somewhat stronger on clay and grass. Meanwhile McEnroe, Connors, Tanner were all strong hardcourt players. I think it's reasonable to say that the surface played a factor in Borg's defeats at the Open, maybe not a huge factor, and not the only one; but I think it was a factor (and I think Kramer has said that the DecoTurf gave an edge to the Americans over Borg, though I'm not sure of the context or the year of his quote).

However, even though you're right that conquering RG/Wimbledon did not guarantee that you'd overcome yet another surface, there were no guarantees traveling from Wimbledon grass to Forest Hills grass. Considering Laver's opinion above about how very different the grass was, and how much he felt he had to change his game, it's certainly easy to imagine years where Borg wins at Wimbledon but does not win the USO if it had stayed on Forest Hills grass. He figured out Wimbledon's grass but that was no guarantee he'd figure out Forest Hills.

The ball tended to bounce even lower at Forest Hills than at Wimbledon, so that would have posed challenges for Borg with his two-hander and his FH grip (I tend to think he would have liked the higher bounce on AO grass better).

In the end I have no problem with saying that hardcourt is an extra surface today that Laver (in the Slams!) did not face. For me the most important thing is just making sure that all the differences among the courts are appreciated, and not to minimize differences between two courts just because they might both be grasscourts.

 

[hoodjem]

Slower grass at Wimbledon: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/sports/tennis/04grass.html



Does .10 second matter?

 

[abmk]

krosero,

fair enough. Again, I did ackowledge/know that the grass courts were not that similar, but I'd liken the differences between the various grass courts to that b/w the various hardcourts ( say that b/w the plexicushion and decoturf ) more than that b/w say grass and clay or grass and hard court or clay and hard court

 

[abmk]

I'm not sure of what you mean here. Do you mean that present players are more skilled from the baseline? Have more shots? Have more variety? Can do more with the ball?

In this context of [hitting] "from the baseline, what does "more complete" mean?"

I'll rephrase it: this is the best base lining generation ever - meaning they are more effective from the baseline than any other ...

 

[hoodjem]

I'll rephrase it: this is the best base lining generation ever - meaning they are more effective from the baseline than any other ...

OK. More clear. Agreed.

 

[pc1]

I'll rephrase it: this is the best base lining generation ever - meaning they are more effective from the baseline than any other ...

Could very well be true. Have to see if any generation was close or better.

The 1990's had Courier, Chang, Rios, Agassi, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten among others. That's pretty good too.

 

[davey25]

Could very well be true. Have to see if any generation was close or better.

The 1990's had Courier, Chang, Rios, Agassi, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten among others. That's pretty good too.

True but one has to remember Muster and Kuerten's baseline skills were mainly limited to one surface, with only flashes of effectiveness on others. And Rios was too much a headcase and too oft injured to even make put his baseline skills to use in a match very often outside early 1998.

I still did love the variety of players of the 90s and prefered it to the current era of all hard court baseline and return of serve experts (there arent even differnet types of baseliners like in the 90s) with diminished serving, lack of understanding of a transition game, and non existent volleying skills.

 

[urban]

Nadal vs Courier on grass would be a fascinating match up. Maybe Nadal would handle his serve and forehand, as he did with Berdych. But Courier was a tough customer in his prime, who didn't choke. It took real serve and volleyers like Stich, Becker or Sampras to stop him on grass or indoors.

 

[abmk]

Nadal vs Courier on grass would be a fascinating match up. Maybe Nadal would handle his serve and forehand, as he did with Berdych. But Courier was a tough customer in his prime, who didn't choke. It took real serve and volleyers like Stich, Becker or Sampras to stop him on grass or indoors.

nadal would rip apart courier on grass .......except maybe 93 courier, whom he'd beat , but it'd be closer

courier made the final in 93 ( beating edberg along the way - stefan commiting a huge tactical error by serving more to his BH wing, his better returning wing ) and QF in 91 - he had absolutely poor results in every other wimby ...

the bold part isn't true at all. grass was clearly courier's weakest surface ...