noeledmonds
Professional
Who is the greatest grass court player ever?
Greatest grass court player ever
- Thread starter noeledmonds
- Start date
psamp14
Hall of Fame
the answer to this poll is obviously pete sampras
federer is superb, but in terms of grass court tennis he still trails borg and sampras
he can very well break those records, 5 straight wimbledons or 7 wimbledon titles, but right now, december 2006, pete sampras is the greatest grass court tennis player ever
no doubt about it
federer is superb, but in terms of grass court tennis he still trails borg and sampras
he can very well break those records, 5 straight wimbledons or 7 wimbledon titles, but right now, december 2006, pete sampras is the greatest grass court tennis player ever
no doubt about it
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
well from your choices, one would have to say Sampras. But I'm sure guys like Laver and Gonzalez (with his 135 mph serve-for you rabbit), would disagree. Remember most of the tournaments back then were played on grass, as a result they had way more grass court titles than Sampras.
noeledmonds
Professional
Noeledmonds? Is that really you!
Where's Mr. Blobby today?
Its really me, and I should have the image to prove it.
I know, the record speaks against it, but of the candidates, i would chose the young Boris Becker. He was imo a more natural grass courter than Sampras, who was more a hard courter in his beginnings, and had to learn the grass court game. His flat style was probably more adjusted to cement. Grass court tennis was Becker's second nature, his drives and slices did correspond wonderfully with the grass, also his backhand cross return was a real weapon on grass. He didn't train properly, and because of stamina problems, he lost more finals at the Big W than necessary. Still, the young Boris flying, stamping and rolling over the grass, was imo the epitome of modern lawn tennis.
justineheninhoogenbandfan
Banned
I voted for Sampras. You cant deny his record. Federer will have to keep dominating Wimbledon like he is now another 3-4 years to be equal or over him.
Eviscerator
Banned
I mean no personal offense when asking the following.
How is it that posters such as yourself will put these polls up and leave out some of the obvious choices. Is it that you do not think it though and only put down who you think are the greatest and then want to see who agrees with you? Or is it that you lack the knowledge to create a comprehensive list
I have not read the responses yet to see if others have asked why Laver is not included, but on this grass court poll he must be included otherwise the polls premise is flawed.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
I mean no personal offense when asking the following.
How is it that posters such as yourself will put these polls up and leave out some of the obvious choices. Is it that you do not think it though and only put down who you think are the greatest and then want to see who agrees with you? Or is it that you lack the knowledge to create a comprehensive list
I have not read the responses yet to see if others have asked why Laver is not included, but on this grass court poll he must be included otherwise the polls premise is flawed.
I did. post # 5.
ckthegreek
Rookie
Agreed. I think 2007 is especially crucial. The amount of pressure will be enormous because he's expected to equal Borg's 5 in a row. However, if you look at what happened to Sampra chances are Fed won't win it this year.
Having said that, the opposition has to improve for that to happen. Nadal can't play on grass yet. Safin and Bandy to challenge him I'm guessing.
noeledmonds
Professional
The fact these guys played and won more grass tournaments does not make them better players. Most of these titles were won in the pre-open era, before tennis was even competitive as ameteurs and professionals were not allowed to play together. I disagree that either of these players could be described as the greatest grass courter of all time.
Eviscerator
Banned
LOL, so what surface did Laver do his best on then?
He is considered by most to be the GOAT yet you do not even list him for best grass court player?
Your opinion is one thing, but when you have a poll it is to gauge what other people think, so you should not allow your opinion to taint the poll. Additionally, if you want to ignore the great players who existed before the "open era", then make your poll more specific in the future!
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Eviscerator and drakulie have a point:
9 of Laver's Slam titles were won on grass, and with his two calendar year Grand Slams, a lot of people consider him to be the GOAT. From 1963 to 1967 (his prime years), he was not allowed to play in any of the Slam events because he had turned professional... otherwise, he might have accumulated another 11+ Slam titles (most of which would have been on grass). Perhaps, if 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass during Sampras' era, he would have won a calendar GS or had 20+ titles as well. However, the bottom line is that you can not forget Laver in this argument as his titles might put him ahead of everyone except Sampras.
psamp14
Hall of Fame
i agree with your post 100% jack the hack...eviscerator and drakulie, you made great points too
basically you just cannot leave out the rocket rod laver in any GOAT poll
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Definitely Sampras. Sampras at his prime would be Federer at his prime on grass because of the serve.
noeledmonds
Professional
Alright I admitt this should be an Open Era poll as the other ones should be also, I have always thought it is almost immpossible to comapre early tennis with modern tennis as the game has changed so much anyway. There is only so much time in a day and I just wanted to see people's thoughts on the matter. Do all my polls have to be such heavily scrutinised and critised by all of you. These were quickly made threads, and was not made to withstand a barrage of attack. Feel free to discuss other great players not on the poll if you wish, the poll was just to go along with the discussion and comments, which will always be more constructive than voting alone. Discussion of the thread topic itself makes the best discussion though I think.
Eviscerator
Banned
In post number 14 you tried to defend not including players so that brought on more of the scrutiny/criticism. In my case as you can see by my posts in your other polls, you have hit upon a pet peeve. I am not old enough to have watched Laver play but I do have an appreciation of players from his era and even before that. The few video clips I have seen of him are impressive though. All knowledgeable tennis fans should appreciate the greats/legends of the past. Sadly, we have way to many people posting who only know current players like Nadal, Roddick, and Federer. To them, players like McEnroe, Edberg, Connors do not even exist, much less players before that. So when I see polls of interest I like it to include all the greats, not just the more recent ones.
I appreciate you explaining why your polls are lacking, but hopefully you will take a little more time to include all players that should be on a poll so everyone can enjoy expressing their point of view. My criticism was never personal, I am just hoping to be constructive so to next time you start an interesting thread/poll, we all can enjoy it.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Do you have an internet link to prove they layed down concrete where none was present before or are you stating opinion as fact?
Eviscerator
Banned
I have read about it as well, though I do not have any link off hand. In addition to the underlayer, they changed out the type of grass, which also makes play slower, and changed the balls. There is no doubt the courts are slower today which I think is a shame.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
I find it strange I can find links about the rye grass change on google (search for 'wimbledon rye grass courts') but adding a cement layer is a far far bigger structural change than changing the type of grass seed used however a google search of 'wimbledon grass tennis courts new cement layer' yielded no relevant results on the first few pages.
fastdunn, if you can produce the evidence.
Rafa's best friend
Banned
Pete is the obvious choice here cause his record. But once RAFA improves more and gets more experience, watch out, he will duplicate what Borg did back to back in french and wimbledon. I see a lot of similarities in them....
christos_liaskos
Professional
I have tons of respect for Fed but he is definitely not the best grass courter ever. He plays a hard court game on what is a relatively slow court compared to the original grass courts to even ten years ago. With everyone playing from the baseline nowadays Fed has a chance where as 20 years ago when there were way more grass court specialists to challenge him and the courts were faster, many players would take him down on the surface; Sampras obviously (my vote goes to him by the way as the best ever), the mac, Becker, Borg. Even 'the second tier greats'; Goran, Rafter, Cash, Edberg, may all have a chance on their best day with a fast grass court, not the virtual hard court of today.
The Gorilla
Banned
the thing about laver is that after his first grand slam,he turned pro,went on tour playing against lew hoad who had a bad back by this stage,got absolutely hammered,admited that lew hoad was much better than him,stated that he thought that lew hoad was the greatest player of all time,then he went off and toured playing against ken rosewall and was humiliated and said,'I thought lew was good but after playing kenny I think I'm going to have to relearn the game',so you have to realize that anyone who was any good went pro,there was no player of any real quality playing the slams.Pancho Gonzales on te other hnad played an exhibition winner take all 5 set match against the annual winner of wimbledon every year,right after wimbledon,in wimbledon,and won,11 years in a row.
Last edited:
AAAA
Hall of Fame
partly agree.
You are correct. Players commented the real difference came from
soil and surface underneath the grass area.
However, I can not find the link to the original BBC news I read
about the extra cement layer. I posted link somewhere in this forum.
Then another poster posted "Tennis Week" article.
In 2001, they changed the composition of grass type(rye).
And then in 2003, they changes surface layer underneath grass layer.
Many players (including Agassi, Navratilova etc) and commentators
are saying it's practically playing like a hard court.
The mix of 70% rye and 30% fescue was first used in 1994. From this 1999 article - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/1999/wimbledon/news/1999/06/18/grass_guru/
Wimbledon changed its mix of grasses five years ago, going to 70 percent rye and 30 fescue and eliminating bent grasses.
Then the mix was changed to 100% rye in 2001 for better wear and tear and a better look (instead of the chewed out look of the 2nd week).
http://2005.wimbledon.com/en_GB/about/infosheets/Grasscourts_preparation_2005.pdf
Court Durability
• To improve the durability, for the fifth year the courts have been sown with 100%
Perennial Ryegrass. This change was made in 2001 to strengthen the sward in order to
withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
• Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK,
proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70%
Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and
enhance court presentation and performance.
Speed of Courts
• There has been no intention either this year or in previous years to produce slower courts
or ones suited for a particular type of game.
Bounce
• The amount a ball bounces is largely determined by the soil, not the grass. The soil must
be hard and dry to allow 13 days of play without damage to the court sub-surface.
• To achieve the required surface of even consistency and hardness, the courts are rolled
and covered to keep them dry and firm. Regular measurements are taken to monitor this.
The groundsman on complaints of slowing down:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050619/ai_n14674502
Henman's statements about the grass he tends so lovingly have perplexed the Wimbledon groundsman, Eddie Seaward. 'We have done nothing to change the nature of the courts,' he said. 'The rye- grass content used to be 60 per cent. That was changed to 100 per cent four years ago because of its better wear quality, but the ball is still coming up at the same speed as it has always done.
'The courts may be a bit harder now on day one than they were 15 years ago, so the ball will come through slightly higher, but I don't think that happens at a later stage in the tournament. I think it is simply that the nature of the game has changed; there are more baseline players now. But it would be wonderful if Tim won it.'
It appears that 100% rye and well-rolled soil have contributed to better durability and truer, higher bounces but as the groundsman said, I don't think it made any difference to the speed at which ball comes off the surface. This year Federer lost serve only 4 times in 7 matches and Nadal only twice before the final. I don't think they would be holding serve as well on any other surface.
I absolutely agree.
Rafa's best friend
Banned
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Sampras never won more than 2 Slams during any year of his career. However, the point of my comment was that if 3 out of the 4 Slams were on grass and he had won those three in one year once or twice, I would think he would have been more motivated than ever to complete the calendar Grand Slam with a French title. Contrary to popular belief, Sampras was not a horrible clay court player. He won several titles on red clay, including the Italian Open. However, I always got the impression that he didn't care enough about that title to train seriously for it. Being so close to Wimbledon, I think he never wanted to jeopardize his chances there. (That is why Borg's multiple back-to-back French/Wimbledon titles are so impressive... it's a feat that is hardly ever accomplished.) However, with a serious shot at a calendar Grand Slam, Sampras might have looked at the French differently.
(Aside from surfaces, I liken this to McEnroe and the Australian Open. Mac never won an Aussie title, but if he had won the French title in '84 to go along with his Wimbledon and US titles... don't you think he would have been more motivated to win the Aussie that year and claim the calendar Slam? As it was, he didn't even play the Australian in 1984... much like Sampras never gave himself a serious shot at the French.)
Last edited:
Would you still say that if Fed wins 7 wimbledons in a row ???
I think Fed can finish as the greatest grass courter ever but like Nadal with clay courts I just don't think both have done enough yet to claim such a title which is why I said if Nadal won at least 6 FOs I think he can definitely claim the greatest clay courter title. Same with Fed. It doesn't necessarily need to be 7 with Fed or 6 with Nadal but I need to see them dominate the respective surface longer before I can give them that an all-time title.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Yannick Noah was clearly the player most famous for his skills on grass. McEnroe played well after smoking, too, but Noah could flat-out run cirlces around dudes while on the grass ... on any surface.
Last edited:
luke_1983uk
Semi-Pro
for this it has to be feder-bear!
Jack the Hack, i also think, that Samprs had Wimbledon in mind, when playing RG, especially past 1996. On the other hand, he played there 13 times, so he wanted to win it badly, as his mentor Pete Fischer demanded it. I think, his 1995 bid was crucial. On demand by a lot of experts, he played 6-7 clay court events in Europe, only to lose always in 1st or 2nd round, adn to lose to Schaller at RG. I always felt, that Sampras had problems with his footwork on sand, he never looked comfortable in covering the court there. When he won Rome in 1994, it was extremely fast, almost without sand. The semi lineup was Sampras, Dosedel, Becker, Stich.
noeledmonds
Professional
In post number 14 you tried to defend not including players so that brought on more of the scrutiny/criticism. In my case as you can see by my posts in your other polls, you have hit upon a pet peeve. I am not old enough to have watched Laver play but I do have an appreciation of players from his era and even before that. The few video clips I have seen of him are impressive though. All knowledgeable tennis fans should appreciate the greats/legends of the past. Sadly, we have way to many people posting who only know current players like Nadal, Roddick, and Federer. To them, players like McEnroe, Edberg, Connors do not even exist, much less players before that. So when I see polls of interest I like it to include all the greats, not just the more recent ones.
I appreciate you explaining why your polls are lacking, but hopefully you will take a little more time to include all players that should be on a poll so everyone can enjoy expressing their point of view. My criticism was never personal, I am just hoping to be constructive so to next time you start an interesting thread/poll, we all can enjoy it.
I generally do not consider my polls lacking if you view them as Open era. You may not agree with the 5 I selected being the top 5 players on the surface, but that is not relevant, as long as your number 1 is there then there is no problem. In reality it is impossible to satisfy all people with limmited poll options, but I hope my options satisfy over 95% of people for their number 1. In reality if most people tend to know more about modern players therfore they are more likely to select them as their number 1, therfore a greater proportion should be included in the poll.
JohnS
Semi-Pro
Pete Sampras wins my vote:
His game is suited for grass. Pure offense on his serves, and large cuts on the opponents. If it's grass, points are made to be longer than 3-4 ball rallies. If it were, then you are watching hardcourt or clay matches. During his era, his competition are deeper when it comes to grass. What I'm saying is, there were more grass court specialist during his day than in todays era. Year after year, he had to put up with players like (bout to butcher some names for a moment ) Rafter, Philipoussissississ, Krajicick, Henman (his near prime), Ivanisevic, Bjorkman, Todd Martin, Becker (decline of prime), McEnroe (decline of prime), and more. These guys were great grass court players.
He also dominated when "the age of the baseliners" where emerging, and dominated players like Grosjean, Kiefer, Moya, etc...
Federer is good and all, but no one these days are considered grass court specialist. To be the goat of grass, you need the game suited for it, and that was during Sampras' era. Federer is the closet in today's age. Ancic is good, but not a true grass court player. He lacks the hands/volleys that he 90's folks can produce. Not to flame Nadal, but he even made it to the finals of Wimby. Back in the day, i doubt he would make it past two or three of the grass courters that I've previously mentioned. Topspin doesnt suit grass. It doesnt bounce high, but the ball may dip at the volleyer's feet on the service returns. A flat ball is more effective because it forces the opponent top hit up and over the net, giving the volleyer an easy put-away.
Overall, Pete is the goat imo. I don't care if Federer wins 6 or 8 wimby's in a row, Pete had the stiffer cometition on grass, and was able to win too many times. All Federer plays now a days or baseliners and clay court specialist at wimby.
From your list in order:
1. Sampras
2. McEnroe/Borg (genious grass players, adaptability, GOT WOOD?)
4. Becker/Federer
... man, am i gonna get flamed by the federer heads...
His game is suited for grass. Pure offense on his serves, and large cuts on the opponents. If it's grass, points are made to be longer than 3-4 ball rallies. If it were, then you are watching hardcourt or clay matches. During his era, his competition are deeper when it comes to grass. What I'm saying is, there were more grass court specialist during his day than in todays era. Year after year, he had to put up with players like (bout to butcher some names for a moment
) Rafter, Philipoussissississ, Krajicick, Henman (his near prime), Ivanisevic, Bjorkman, Todd Martin, Becker (decline of prime), McEnroe (decline of prime), and more. These guys were great grass court players. He also dominated when "the age of the baseliners" where emerging, and dominated players like Grosjean, Kiefer, Moya, etc...
Federer is good and all, but no one these days are considered grass court specialist. To be the goat of grass, you need the game suited for it, and that was during Sampras' era. Federer is the closet in today's age. Ancic is good, but not a true grass court player. He lacks the hands/volleys that he 90's folks can produce. Not to flame Nadal, but he even made it to the finals of Wimby. Back in the day, i doubt he would make it past two or three of the grass courters that I've previously mentioned. Topspin doesnt suit grass. It doesnt bounce high, but the ball may dip at the volleyer's feet on the service returns. A flat ball is more effective because it forces the opponent top hit up and over the net, giving the volleyer an easy put-away.
Overall, Pete is the goat imo. I don't care if Federer wins 6 or 8 wimby's in a row, Pete had the stiffer cometition on grass, and was able to win too many times. All Federer plays now a days or baseliners and clay court specialist at wimby.
From your list in order:
1. Sampras
2. McEnroe/Borg (genious grass players, adaptability, GOT WOOD?)
4. Becker/Federer
... man, am i gonna get flamed by the federer heads...
AAAA
Hall of Fame
TGV, I'm not questioning the change in grass seed used. It's something I've heard on TV and read about in newspapers and numerous internet links. However what I am questioning is the stuff about laying a cement underlayer beneath the grass. I found no evidence on the BBC or Wimbledon website and neither serching via google. The fact is people are saying there is cement without actually providing any proof, not a shred of evidence.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
No such info was found so where is the proof. Numerous links can be found about the rye grass change but none about a far bigger alteration to the courts. When the bigger change isn't shown by any search it's likely to be bogus.
Eviscerator
Banned
:roll:
Just when I thought we had reached a mutual understanding you come back with this rationalization. :roll:
Your Open Era comment is what is irrelevant because you never stipulated such in any of your flawed polls. Even your choices for best Rebound Ace polls includes and excludes players both deserving and non deserving. As to this poll, you do not have the choice I would vote for so your aforementioned statement is as you put it not relevant.
If you strive to cater to the lowest common denominator, or are too busy to do a proper poll, then I suggest you leave them to people better equipped to do them. I for one don't start poll threads because they have been done to death. However if I were to start one I would include as many choices as possible that could be considered.
Just because some people have short memories is no reason to leave off great players from history.
Imagine a poll that asked what the worst war was and only including the Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnian, Vietnam and Korean wars because those were the ones most people alive today went through?
Hopefully you see my point and do not take this criticism personally as that is not my intent. As long as you do not try to further rationalize your omissions in the polls we will not need to belabor this any further.
I think Wimbledon also has a right to keep that info confidential.
Only thing I could find about players' pointing out that the real difference
is in the surface below grass layer:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2006-07-16-surface-tension_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA
noeledmonds
Professional
:roll:
Just when I thought we had reached a mutual understanding you come back with this rationalization. :roll:
Your Open Era comment is what is irrelevant because you never stipulated such in any of your flawed polls. Even your choices for best Rebound Ace polls includes and excludes players both deserving and non deserving. As to this poll, you do not have the choice I would vote for so your aforementioned statement is as you put it not relevant.
If you strive to cater to the lowest common denominator, or are too busy to do a proper poll, then I suggest you leave them to people better equipped to do them. I for one don't start poll threads because they have been done to death. However if I were to start one I would include as many choices as possible that could be considered.
Just because some people have short memories is no reason to leave off great players from history.
Imagine a poll that asked what the worst war was and only including the Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnian, Vietnam and Korean wars because those were the ones most people alive today went through?
Hopefully you see my point and do not take this criticism personally as that is not my intent. As long as you do not try to further rationalize your omissions in the polls we will not need to belabor this any further.
You dont see what i am saying at all do you? Why can't you accept that your opinion is not necceserily the defninative answer to an altogether subjective question. Maybe these threads arent for you, in which case you have no need to comment on them.
I accept the poll is flawed to the extent that it should have orginally stated exclusion of pre-open era players, but I have a full time job you know, I can not spend all my time creating flawless polls. I made a mistake there, but the poll is not all bad.
These polls to indeed cater for the common demoniator, but this board is for everyone not just those with advanced tennis knowledge. I could have done a pre-open era poll, but that would not engage as many different people I suspect.
Sure these are commonly discussed topics, but when people are still prepared to talk about them they have surely not been done to death. They are commonly discussed because people are really interested in them.
Dont try and blow the debate out of proportion by comparing it to the wars. There is no way that a poll today would show a modern war such as the Iraq war being the worst war. The figures and facts for the World wars vs. the new wars are far more extreme than older tennis players vs. newer ones.
Please lets here no more about it, either discuss the tennis in acceptance (if not agreement) of what I say, or stick to threads you can agree with.
I hope we may now reach some uncomfertable silence as I suspect agreement is almost impossible.
:neutral:
OK, I found one called "Hard Courts with Grass on Top"
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2006-06-16/c.php
I think this is Moose Malloy posted in other thread.
There should be another one about the 'cememnt layer' in TennisWeek
and another from BBC which I can not find at the moment.
I also remember to read a few BBC articles at around 2001 that said Wimbledon
want to put concrete layer in coming years.
As I understand, the bottom most layer of grass court is consist of
stone or other hard material anyway. It's so easy to make that
layer thicker and spring area harder and thinner.
Note that, however, Wimbledon never confirmed that they did anything
to slow down the speed of the game.
Anyway, it's very clear that grass plays like hard courts. Some like
Bjorkman said it's slow enough to be clay. Another thing is that
the bounce is very true and honest.
Last edited:
Similar threads
