How Many Wimbledon Titles Would Raonic Win On "Fast" Grass?

[HoyaPride]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how "slow" grass has helped certain players (i.e., Nadal) to the detriment of other players (i.e., Federer). I haven't seen much discussion about how "slow" grass has really hurt the players that would benefit the most from faster grass: the cannon servers.

So let's step back in time and make the grass at Wimbledon between 2003-2008 just as fast as it was in 1995. And I'm talking about slick, low-bouncing, inconsistent bouncing, chewed up grass here.

Let's also say that Milos Raonic was born in 1981, making him the same age as Federer.

How many of those Wimbledon titles do you think Raonic would have claimed during this period? What other current players do you think would have benefited from "fast" grass?

 

[HoyaPride]

I'd say Raonic would take out Fed in the 4th Round.

7-6 (7-4), 6-3, 7-5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPLj0QHnq2M

The grass would be too fast and patchy to sustain the long baseline rallies Fed would need to beat Raonic. Raonic would only need a couple of huge cuts at Federer second serves to put the match away easily.

 

[Crose]

None, because outside of his serve he's still not good enough to win a slam no matter how fast the court is.

 

[HoyaPride]

None, because outside of his serve he's still not good enough to win a slam no matter how fast the court is.

If the grass were fast, then he wouldn't need to be able to engage in long baseline rallies because there would be no long baseline rallies. All Raonic would need is a few good looks at some second serves. He'd put the service break in his pocket and coast. He'd be virtually unbreakable.

Guys like Andy Murray would likely perish in the early rounds. He wouldn't be able to hang back on the baseline and hit 20 or 30 shots. Once he was broken, someone like John Isner would put the nails in his coffin.

 

[spinovic]

None, because outside of his serve he's still not good enough to win a slam no matter how fast the court is.

I second this.

 

[spinovic]

What is the point in making Raonic older?

 

[Who Am I?]

Lol, Raonic ain't beating prime/peak Federer on grass. Heck, if Fed rediscovers his form and they end up playing on grass next year, I would back Federer. Raonic to Federer would be what Roddick was to Federer. And Roddick had a vastly superior game to that of Raonic.

 

[10is]

As many as the likes of Rusedski and Johanssen were able to achieve in the 90s.

 

[President]

None, because his ROS is absolutely awful. Sampras and Ivanesevic had above average ROS; that's why they were able to win on grass. Raonic has the second worst return in the top 50, after Isner. On grass his return of serve is even worse. Even an average server will get heaps of free points against him on grass.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

6.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

As many as the likes of Rusedski and Johanssen were able to achieve in the 90s.

Who is this Johanssen ?

 

[10is]

Who is this Johanssen ?

Thomas (who rather ironically lucked an AO win despite it being the relatively slowest surface at the time).

...the point being that (contrary to OPs deluded agenda in creating this inane thread) one-dimensional serve-bots have NEVER won Wimbledon.

 

[Pcdozer413]

Lol he won't be passing the third round! His return is alfuw, he ain't moving well and his backhand omg...Sijsling absolutely demolished him at this year's Wimbledon...

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Thomas (who rather ironically lucked an AO win despite it being the relatively slowest surface at the time).

...the point being that (contrary to OPs deluded agenda in creating this inane thread) one-dimensional serve-bots have NEVER won Wimbledon.

T Johansson was a baseline player, and was not famous for being a huge server

 

[10is]

^ :facepalm:

 

[Roddick85]

None. Regardless of the surface, he's not slam material. If anything John Isner stands a better chance at a slam on fast grass than Raonic due to him having superior groundstrokes.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

^ :facepalm:

U mixing up with Joachim Johansson who never played in the 90's 51 aces in 4 sets against Agassi in 2005.

 

[Steve0904]

None, because outside of his serve he's still not good enough to win a slam no matter how fast the court is.

None, because his ROS is absolutely awful. Sampras and Ivanesevic had above average ROS; that's why they were able to win on grass. Raonic has the second worst return in the top 50, after Isner. On grass his return of serve is even worse. Even an average server will get heaps of free points against him on grass.

Yeah pretty much. It['s not just about "fast and "slow" grass OP. The fact is that Nadal has perhaps benefited from the slowing of the grass because he was good enough to make the slowing of the grass a factor in the first place if you know what I mean. It's like the old cliche says. "You have to be good to be lucky and lucky to be good."

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

edit. .

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Rusedski aces in 1998 when he won M1000 Paris = 863 aces
T Johansson aces when he was the AO in 2002 : 430 aces

Kuerten in 2000 : 740 aces :lol:


Thomas Johansson = Serve bot

 

[Russeljones]

0 (zero)

10 Lindts..

 

[10is]

Rusedski aces in 1998 when he won M1000 Paris = 863 aces
T Johansson aces when he was the AO in 2002 : 430 aces
Kuerten in 2000 : 740 aces :lol:
Thomas Johansson = Serve bot [IMG][/QUOTE]

Yes, because clearly "Ace count" is the ONLY defining feature of a powerful serve (he served 712 aces in '98 BTW). You are clearly ignorant of tennis history. :rolleyes: For a 5'11" player with no discernable weapons off the ground, to achieve all that he did was on account of his powerful and versatile serve which has been clocked as fast as 136 mph.

 

[ManFed]

People forget that in fast grass is not only serve. You also have to break at least once.

Sampras did not win so much in fast grass for his serve only, he also was a better returner than his counterparts cannon servers.

If serve were the only thing that counts, Ivanisevic would have won 5 wimbledons instead of only 1.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Yes, because clearly "Ace count" is the ONLY defining feature of a powerful serve. You are clearly ignorant of tennis history. For a 5'11" player with no discernable weapons off the ground, to achieve all that he did was on account of his powerful serve which has been clocked as fast as 136 mph.

LMAO, Thomas Johansson = serve bot

His match vs Safin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=536yyv9rWno

136 mph = 217 Kmh ? Carlos Moya served faster !

I can't believe someone would ever compare Rusedski with Thomas Johansson :lol:


Back to ignore list

 

[10is]

:lol: ^ I'm upset that you took me off it in the first place. Shame on you!

 

[Indio]

People forget that in fast grass is not only serve. You also have to break at least once.

At least once a big match was won without a single break of serve by the winner: Stich over Edberg at Wimbledon 1991, 4-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6.

If serve were the only thing that counts, Ivanisevic would have won 5 wimbledons instead of only 1.

If Ivanisevic wasn't heavily reliant on his serve, why were his results at the Australian and the US Open so mediocre, compared to his results at Wimbledon (and indoors)?

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Let's face it, Ivanisevic groundstrokes were pretty average for a guy ranked number 2 in the world, his talent relied on his huge serve and then pressure he would put on the return, his volleys skills were good, maybe not the best but good enough.

But i mean anyone today got the same quality of groundstrokes, if not better and i mean random players like Brands, Anderson, Seppi, Isner ... this kind of players...

He was serving so well that the opponent felt huge pressure everytime he was serving himself.

It's like Karlovic today, he managesd to break opponents but his groundstrokes are... :lol: this guy broke Nadal, he broke Ferrer ...

 

[Laurie]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how "slow" grass has helped certain players (i.e., Nadal) to the detriment of other players (i.e., Federer). I haven't seen much discussion about how "slow" grass has really hurt the players that would benefit the most from faster grass: the cannon servers.

So let's step back in time and make the grass at Wimbledon between 2003-2008 just as fast as it was in 1995. And I'm talking about slick, low-bouncing, inconsistent bouncing, chewed up grass here.

Let's also say that Milos Raonic was born in 1981, making him the same age as Federer.

How many of those Wimbledon titles do you think Raonic would have claimed during this period? What other current players do you think would have benefited from "fast" grass?

This is quite depressing to be honest. Just because someone serves big it is instantly assumed they would win Wimbledon.

To win Wimbledon during that period you had to serve well, return well and move beautifully.

Stich and Krajicek both moved extremely well for big men but could only win Wimbledon once each. Phillipoussis had great shots but didn't move as well, consequently no Wimbledons. Goran moved very well and maybe unlucky to only win once.

Edberg didn't serve big but served well and moved beautifully. Becker served big and had the big shots, someone Phillippoussis should have studied more.

Then you have Rusedski, Wayne Arthurs, Alexander Popp, Marc Rosset: all very tall guys with devastating serves, couldn't return or move very well, consequently not a single semifinal between them.

Now as for Raonic, there is nothing in hs play to suggest he would get anywhere near a Wimbledon title in any era. His movement is extremely suspect and return of serve not very good at all. He has to improve considerably over the next two years to be considered a Wimbledon contender, or a contender at any grand slam tournament for that matter.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

This is quite depressing to be honest. Just because someone serves big it is instantly assumed they would win Wimbledon.

To win Wimbledon during that period you had to serve well, return well and move beautifully.

Stich and Krajicek both moved extremely well for big men but could only win Wimbledon once each. Phillipoussis had great shots but didn't move as well, consequently no Wimbledons. Goran moved very well and maybe unlucky to only win once.

Edberg didn't serve big but served well and moved beautifully. Becker served big and had the big shots, someone Phillippoussis should have studied more.

Then you have Rusedski, Wayne Arthurs, Alexander Popp, Marc Rosset: all very tall guys with devastating serves, couldn't return or move very well, consequently not a single semifinal between them.

Now as for Raonic, there is nothing in hs play to suggest he would get anywhere near a Wimbledon title in any era. His movement is extremely suspect and return of serve not very good at all. He has to improve considerably over the next two years to be considered a Wimbledon contender, or a contender at any grand slam tournament for that matter.

You forgot to mention Thomas Johansson, what do you think about him ?

 

[Laurie]

Thomas Johansson?

 

[bluetrain4]

T Johansson was a baseline player, and was not famous for being a huge server

I wonder if he meant Joachim Johansson, who, despite his huge serve, was never a factor at Wimbledon. But, he only played it twice and that was after the change from "fast grass". JJ is the guy who recently returned to tour at age 31 after many years of injuries.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I wonder if he meant Joachim Johansson, who, despite his huge serve, was never a factor at Wimbledon. But, he only played it twice and that was after the change from "fast grass".

10is is a girl, but i thought she meant Joachim too but apparently not.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Thomas Johansson?

Yes the guy who won Australian open 2002 against Safin in the final.

 

[timnz]

Goran

Goran had an even better server than Raonic (at over 40 he is still serving 140+ mph) and a better ground game - but only managed to win 1 wimbledon on fast grass. He was a threat to win Wimbledon however for a whole decade. But there you have it Goran > Raonic - but only got 1 wimbledon on fast grass.

 

[Laurie]

Yes the guy who won Australian open 2002 against Safin in the final.

Oh, umm, well....

I have to think about this. In terms of Wimbledon? He got to the semis in 2005 didn't he?

Thinking of the OP and Raonic, I thought the discussion was about a big guy having a big serve and able to win Wimbledon because of that, not taking into aacount the even more important return of serve equation. Do you mean Johnasson's serve? Well for a guy around 5 ft 9, average height for many, short in tennis terms, he had a very fast 1st serve if I recall. Because he was shorter he had a skiddy serve, used the slice a lot if I recall, especially into the body.

2002 was an interesting year; Johnasson and Costa win the Aussie and French, Hewitt and Sampras win Wimbledon and US Open. Its fair to say that since then both the Aussie and French have much higher profiles for the casual tennis fan, marquee players win those slams now.

Johansson was a very good player, suffered a lot of injuries unfortuntaley like many Swedish players.

 

[coloskier]

None, because outside of his serve he's still not good enough to win a slam no matter how fast the court is.

I think his serve is good enough, but his return is terrible. He is too slow for fast grass. Both Isner and Raonic actually have better results on slower surfaces than on fast surfaces because they have time to get to the ball on slower surfaces and can hit through the slow surfaces. Same with Berdych.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Oh, umm, well....

I have to think about this. In terms of Wimbledon? He got to the semis in 2005 didn't he?

Thinking of the OP and Raonic, I thought the discussion was about a big guy having a big serve and able to win Wimbledon because of that, not taking into aacount the even more important return of serve equation. Do you mean Johnasson's serve? Well for a guy around 5 ft 9, average height for many, short in tennis terms, he had a very fast 1st serve if I recall. Because he was shorter he had a skiddy serve, used the slice a lot if I recall, especially into the body.

2002 was an interesting year; Johnasson and Costa win the Aussie and French, Hewitt and Sampras win Wimbledon and US Open. Its fair to say that since then both the Aussie and French have much higher profiles for the casual tennis fan, marquee players win those slams now.

Johansson was a very good player, suffered a lot of injuries unfortuntaley like many Swedish players.

Lol sorry Laurie, i was not expecting you to asnwer seriously :lol: read the previous messages from "10is" and me, you will understand of course T Johansson was not specifically a huge server, he was a kind of server like Baghdatis is today more or less, still good

 

[HoyaPride]

Goran had an even better server than Raonic (at over 40 he is still serving 140+ mph) and a better ground game - but only managed to win 1 wimbledon on fast grass. He was a threat to win Wimbledon however for a whole decade. But there you have it Goran > Raonic - but only got 1 wimbledon on fast grass.

I don't think Goran had a better serve than Raonic. Raonic may have racked up the same number of aces (or more) if he played on the same surfaces Ivanisevic played on.

 

[Laurie]

Lol sorry Laurie, i was not expecting you to asnwer seriously :lol: read the previous messages from "10is" and me, you will understand of course T Johansson was not specifically a huge server, he was a kind of server like Baghdatis is today more or less, still good

Yeah thanks I have, this person was trying to be ironic? Anyway, Johnansson was not 5ft 11, which is just under 1 inch from 6ft, so what's the difference there? He was around 5ft 9. Baghdatis is a good comparison height wise.

 

[10is]

Anyway, Johnansson was not 5ft 11.

I hope you realize you're wrong.

 

[chjtennis]

I think Raonic is too big and slow for Wimbledon. It is even harder for the big guys to move around on grass because it's slippery. I think Raonic's best surface is fast hard courts.

 

[newpball]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how "slow" grass has helped certain players (i.e., Nadal) to the detriment of other players (i.e., Federer). I haven't seen much discussion about how "slow" grass has really hurt the players that would benefit the most from faster grass: the cannon servers.

So let's step back in time and make the grass at Wimbledon between 2003-2008 just as fast as it was in 1995. And I'm talking about slick, low-bouncing, inconsistent bouncing, chewed up grass here.

Let's also say that Milos Raonic was born in 1981, making him the same age as Federer.

How many of those Wimbledon titles do you think Raonic would have claimed during this period? What other current players do you think would have benefited from "fast" grass?

Wimbledon is currently making the grass 'Raonic' ready:

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

None.

Overhyped.

 

[tennis_pro]

I'd say Raonic would take out Fed in the 4th Round.

7-6 (7-4), 6-3, 7-5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPLj0QHnq2M

The grass would be too fast and patchy to sustain the long baseline rallies Fed would need to beat Raonic. Raonic would only need a couple of huge cuts at Federer second serves to put the match away easily.

Ehmmm Fed beat Raonic in Halle last year which is played on fast grass. I'm not even sure Raonic could beat Federer this year if they played, let alone beat any Fed of 2001, 2003-2012

 

[monfed]

If the great Michael Steech could win one then I'm sure Stakhovsky,Raonic and JJ could win multiple Wimbys.

 

[Laurie]

Stich got to a French Open and US Open final, won the end of year championships (World Tour finals) and won titles on all surfaces. Don't see any of these chaps mentioned doing that.

But of course I realise I am wasting my time because most posts on this forum are never serious anyway.

 

[Booyow!]

He would win between 0 and 5 Wimbledon Titles.

 

[MasturB]

I actually think Murray would do well on fast grass.

His first serve he can hit absolute BOMBS compared to Djokovic and Nadal.

I also think he's a better returner than Djokovic or Rafa because he can chip as well.

Also the fact that I think Murray is a way better volleyer than Rafa or Nole.

 

[MasturB]

Also, the way he played against Rafa last year, Rosol could probably win one with the bombs he was hitting.

 

[coloskier]

On fast grass if you can't volley EXTREMELY well, you can't win. I don't think there is ANYONE on tour right now who you can say volleys extremely well. Except maybe the Bryans.