Ok. Fair enough. Everybody is a product of their era though. Like you said, the grass didn't sustain long rallies so they had to attack the net. If all those guys played today and wanted to win in this era they would have to be baseliners. It's not a slight on any of them. It's just a fact.
Yeah, then why all of the complaining about "slow" grass. I remember reading an article a few years back where Federer said he preferred to play from the back of the court rather than serve and volley because "you have a lot less control of the point at net." The courts are firmer now, which means Federer doesn't have to play seven consecutive matches of S&V tennis. Instead, he can mix it up, and break players with more powerful games with extended baseline rallies.
If he had to play every Wimbledon on truly "fast" grass, then his odds of winning Wimbledon would diminish. If you had a really slick, low bouncing court that couldn't sustain rallies, then the only way someone like Milos Raonic would lose (if his serve was on fire) would be in tiebreaks. And having to beat a guy with a serve as big as his in three tiebreaks is a tall order. Anything less than your best service game could mean a quick death. Raonic may not win the whole thing, but he'd definitely be much more dangerous on fast grass. One hot day and he'd take someone like Djokovic out with relative ease.
IMO, service breaks at Wimbledon meant more back in the 90s. If you lost serve to Ivanisevic on a good day, then you'd be better off just saving your energy and conceding the set. You were finished. In the 2000s, however, you see service breaks traded back and forth much more often. And it's not because the ROS got so much better. The ball sits higher and the grass is slower.
