Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Except that was one match. Rosol will never play like that again, and even if he does he'll never keep it up for 7 Best of 5 set matches.
How Many Wimbledon Titles Would Raonic Win On "Fast" Grass?
- Thread starter HoyaPride
- Start date
Except that was one match. Rosol will never play like that again, and even if he does he'll never keep it up for 7 Best of 5 set matches.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
+1
same for Stakhovsky, monfed's post (#45) was hilarious. Stakhovsky played a great match one day, then got his *ss kicked by Melzer in 3 or 4 sets (forgot :lol: )
L
Laurie
Guest
Even if you put that in capital letters it simply wont get through to some people, they really have to be more observant and stop making silly pronouncements for the hell of it.
0
Who has seen Raonic on grass knows why
He sucks on grass, it is his worst surface, he is HC-courter - best indoors, where he has more control over his serve - that means higher FS%
The same goes for Isner he sucks on grass too.
Raonic´s movement on grass-footwork is joke, his ROS is joke- yes he had some flashy return winners lately but not on grass. Also in baseline rallies on grass he is not comfortable. Raonic would´t benefit from ,,older,, grass. He would howewer benefit from ,,older,, faster USO - which is his best slam surface wise
Who has seen Raonic on grass knows why
He sucks on grass, it is his worst surface, he is HC-courter - best indoors, where he has more control over his serve - that means higher FS%
The same goes for Isner he sucks on grass too.
Raonic´s movement on grass-footwork is joke, his ROS is joke- yes he had some flashy return winners lately but not on grass. Also in baseline rallies on grass he is not comfortable. Raonic would´t benefit from ,,older,, grass. He would howewer benefit from ,,older,, faster USO - which is his best slam surface wise
Halle is supposed to be "green clay."
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=332885
Put Raonic on fast grass against Fed and he serves 50+ aces.
sliceroni
Hall of Fame
0 titles. As mentioned his movement , ROS, volleys wouldn't be good enough. But of course we'll never know. Also why people would pick him over Federer is beyond me. They obviously haven't watched young Fed vs Sampras in 2001. Crushing 1st and 2nd serves back for winners . Also serve and volleying on all his 1st serves and most of his 2nd serves. I was a huge Sampras fan and I remember shaking my head and couldn't believe the level I was seeing.
Death Master
Banned
big fat ZERO.
M
monfed
Guest
Even the headcase Ivanisevic won Wimby as a wildcard, what amazing competition. :lol:
Federer only beat Sampras because they changed the grass that year. It's the same way the AELTC conspired against Federer in 2008.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=424025
mike danny
Bionic Poster
actually it was 2002. henman complained about the grass in 2002 and not 2001. proof? the final in 2001 featured 2 S&V players in ivanisevic and rafter while in 2002 it featured 2 baseliners hewitt and nalbandian
mike danny
Bionic Poster
and fed S&V-ed as well in 2001 so the grass was still the same
L
Laurie
Guest
The semifinals that year was Rafter v Agassi and Goran v Henman. Both semis and final were 5 set thrillers, or are you saying these are not good players?
As this is Tennis Warehouse you may well find a way to refute that observation
L
Laurie
Guest
Don't know about Raonic but wasn't Agassi the only guy to win Wimbledon while on 'fast grass'?
Do you mean the only pure baseliner? Then yes, Connors and Borg both came to net a lot on grass.
Nope. In 2001, the courts were 100% perennial rye instead of the mixture of rye grass and red fescue from 2000.
And Tim Henman made it to the Semis in 2002. And Rafter and Ivanisevic didn't even play Wimby in 2002. So yeah...
mike danny
Bionic Poster
i was talking about 2001. what you said clearly ilustrates my point. the S&V players which were seen in 2001 in SF and F were nowhere to be seen the following year. so like i said this shows grass was still the same in 2001 while they changed it in 2002
L
Laurie
Guest
Pat Rafter didn't play because he was on a sabbatical and eventually retired. Goran Ivanisevic couldn't defend his title due to injury, I think a shoulder problem, so neither played the tournament.
I'm talking about 2001. That was the year they changed the grass from a mixture of perennial rye and red fescue to 100% perennial rye.
http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/about_aeltc/201205091336575251545.html
So no, the grass was not the same in 2001. It was, as many of Fed's acolytes like to say, "Green Clay."
And two of the S&V players from that era did not even play Wimbledon that year. It's hard to have a semi-final and final with S&V players if there are hardly any S&V players in the draw to begin with.
Look how Henman kicked Federer's butt in 2001. Fed was slipping and sliding all over the place. Lucky for Federer the courts got even slower after that. This match proves that Federer could not handle a true S&V player in the prime of his career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki6tJ4JRKs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki6tJ4JRKs0
Mainad
Bionic Poster
That wasn't the kind of 'grass' I was referring to unless you're telling me something about Connors and Borg I never knew about until now! :wink:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Or maybe it merely proves that 2001 Federer had not yet matured into the consistent player he would become a couple of years later?
Or it just proves that Federer could only win Wimbledon on green clay.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...815724,00.html
And yet people say Federer played on "fast" grass. Puhleeeze. Federer is the greatest beneficiary of the slow court era.
W
Wim
Guest
None Wimbledon trophies for him.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
People always act like the Wimbledon slowdown happened overnight. In 2002 it was "slow," yes, but I didn't see that in any of the years Federer won. 2002 was an anomaly at the time. Was it 90's fast from 2003 on? No, but it wasn't "slow" either. Lets not forget also that Nadal made Wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007 when it was perhaps faster in the second week than it is these days. It's not a slight on him since he was obviously good enough to win those finals if he was able to make it that far.
Everybody in this era has benefited from the slowing of the courts including Federer, but he's benefited the least, not the most. Saying otherwise is just biased nonsense. The consistency in this era is partly a product of the general slowing of the courts. Of course that's true, but like I said, it baffles me when people act like this slowing happened overnight. It did not. I could tell visibly that Wimbledon was playing significantly slower in 2009 than it was in 2003 or 2004 for example.
Same thing with the AO and the USO. Just as an example, go watch the 05 USO final, and then watch Nadal-Djokovic from 2010 or 2011. I mean, they barely look like the same sport to be brutally honest, and the slowing at the AO might be the worst of all given how slow it is these days. Again look at Federer's matches against Nalbandian, Safin, and Agassi in 04 and 05. Then look at Nadal-Djokovic in 2012 or better yet Murray-Federer in 2010. Again, barely the same sport.
Everybody in this era has benefited from the slowing of the courts including Federer, but he's benefited the least, not the most. Saying otherwise is just biased nonsense. The consistency in this era is partly a product of the general slowing of the courts. Of course that's true, but like I said, it baffles me when people act like this slowing happened overnight. It did not. I could tell visibly that Wimbledon was playing significantly slower in 2009 than it was in 2003 or 2004 for example.
Same thing with the AO and the USO. Just as an example, go watch the 05 USO final, and then watch Nadal-Djokovic from 2010 or 2011. I mean, they barely look like the same sport to be brutally honest, and the slowing at the AO might be the worst of all given how slow it is these days. Again look at Federer's matches against Nalbandian, Safin, and Agassi in 04 and 05. Then look at Nadal-Djokovic in 2012 or better yet Murray-Federer in 2010. Again, barely the same sport.
Last edited:
I think this "slow court" non-sense is something latched onto by desperate Fed fans to explain away bad losses, particularly the Wimbledon 2008 loss to Nadal. That loss made Fed fans around the world drop a load in their pants. Completely soul shattering. Since Fed fans can't accept that loss, they've come up with this theory that the 2008 grass at Wimbledon was somehow slower than the 2007 and 2006 grass, which enabled Nadal to win that year (even though he had already come close the prior year).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2001 Federer wasn't prime Federer at all. Even 2002 Federer wasn't exactly in his prime. Only after 2003 would I argue Federer was in his prime, but it extended until 2010. Federer also performed brilliantly after his prime (2010-2013) and can still hold it together in patches to take out big names (only last year did he beat Djokovic and Murray in a row to win Wimbledon) and just the other day he lost a close match with Del Potro, who is in his prime right now.
I meant Henman's prime. Federer could not handle a prime S&V player like Rafter or Henman. So if Henman was thrashing Federer on indoor/fast hard courts well into 2003 and 2004, then imagine what a prime Sampras or Rafter could have done to him.
On fast grass, I'd say Roger would reach a decent number of quarters and semis. He'd be respectable.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Henman might not even get to Federer if they played prime for prime. Henman was Hewitt's pigeon, and Hewitt was Federer's pigeon.
Sampras and Federer are comparable prime for prime, but the fact of the matter is that the speed of the grass did not always go Sampras' way. Even during his prime years. In 1996, Krajicek beat Sampras in the semifinals at Wimbledon, and Federer is unbeaten in Wimbledon semifinals. And Krajicek, while being a great player, wasn't any better than the opposition Federer faced, (Hewitt, Roddick, ect).
And who's to say Henman wasn't playing better tennis in 2003-2004 than in 2001?
On grass, Krajicek was a hell of a lot better than Hewitt and Roddick. He served just as big as Roddick (with better spin and placement). He had a much better netgame than both (with good touch). He moved very well for a big guy (when healthy like he was in 96). Krajicek had a game that was tailor-made for blinding fast Wimbledon grass. Nobody could have beaten him during that fortnight.
I mean, do you really think Hewitt or Roddick could take out a prime Sampras on fast grass in 1996? Get real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibgjPMNVkSc
2001-2002 was his best tennis. And despite not playing his best tennis, he was still able to thrash Federer in 2003. It's also important to note, as many of you have already, that the courts began to slow down even more during this time, which undoubtedly made things tougher for Henman.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Like I said, it's pretty clear the courts have slowed, but it did not happen overnight. It is quite clear that while the courts may not have been "90's fast" they were not exactly slow in Federer's early years of winning Wimbledon. Nadal was getting closer each year at Wimbledon. It was quite obvious he would win at least 1. You can make your own judgements on how fast or slow the court was.
I am not continuing with this debate if you keep trying to bait me.
But someone pointed out that Hewitt and Nalbandian--two baseline grinders--were in the final in 2002. That's so-called "evidence" of the grass having been slowed down.
I mean, if Hewitt won Wimbledon on grass in a year where the courts were presumably faster than the year Federer first won his first title, then shouldn't that cast a cloud of suspicion over ALL of Federer's Wimbledon titles? :?
This is the blazing fast grass that Federer would have taken Nadal to school on? How fast could the grass have been if Hewitt won it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNVCJvVIXc8
The guy who really got screwed was Mark Philippoussis. On fast grass, he probably would've beaten Federer. But on grass that Lleyton Hewitt could win a Wimbledon title on? No way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNVCJvVIXc8
The guy who really got screwed was Mark Philippoussis. On fast grass, he probably would've beaten Federer. But on grass that Lleyton Hewitt could win a Wimbledon title on? No way.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
As Steve pointed out, Wimbledon 2002 was a blip on the radar, so to speak. There's little evidence to suggest otherwise.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer won 7 W titles deal with it
Federer def sampras when both S&V-ed. Deal with it.
Don't try to find explanations and try to explain all of fed's wins. If it was so easy to win 7 W others would have done it by now
BHud
Hall of Fame
Exactly! He has yet to prove himself a champion.
The "evidence" is that the grass was changed from a 70/30 mixture of perennial rye and creeping red fescue to 100% perennial rye.
L
Laurie
Guest
I see............
Yes. He won 7 Wimbledon titles on green clay.
Yep. On the 100% perennial rye surface that Federer won his 7 titles on. Not the 70/30 perennial rye/creeping red fescue "fast" grass Sampras won his titles on.
Don't try to find explanations as to why Federer lost against Nadal in 2008, then. Nadal took him out on the same slow grass that helped Federer in the past.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
You clearly don't know Hewitt very well. He prefers faster surfaces that he can use the pace of because he never did generate a ton of power being a bit short for the tour. As a counter puncher he likes faster surfaces. You just have to use your eyes. It's very evident visibly that if you watch Federer-Scud from 2003 Wimbledon and then Federer-Roddick from 2004 compared to say Federer-Roddick in 2009 that the court was probably in the middle speed between the 90's and what it is today.
Federer actually primarily S&V his way to his first and partly second Wimbledon titles, and it's hard or impossible to know his mindset sure, but I'm pretty sure he never did it only because he could. He did it because he had to.
I sense that your another one of those people that don't give Hewitt or Roddick the credit they deserve, particularly on grass.
Oh and btw, Scud doesn't beat Federer on any kind of grass that day. Federer played an incredible match.
Last edited:
When was the last time a Wimbledon final featured two baseline sluggers without a single S&V point? The same grass that helped Hewitt and Nalbandian reach the Wimbledon Final is the same grass that Federer won his 7 titles on. I mean, you can't possibly be claiming that the courts he won on were faster than the courts that year.
No, it's not very evident. For starters, I was probably watching Wimbledon on analog in 2003 as opposed to the digital LED flatscreen TV I watched the Wimbledon Final on in 2009.
Besides, anyone who plays tennis knows that the speed of the game depends on a number of variables of which the court surface is just one. Were the same balls used? Were they decompressed for the same amount of time? Was the temperature the same? Was the humidity the same? It's not just court surface that matters.
And simply eyeballing a match and saying "It was faster then!" is about as far from a scientific process as possible. All we know for sure is that the AELTC changed the grass in 2001. That's a fact.
One was a counterpuncher and the other had a woefully deficient volley. No way they come close to sniffing a Wimby title in the 90s.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
But I actually am. 2002 was an anomaly. I've never met anybody until you that disputed this. Besides that, you never did refute my point about Hewitt. He likes faster surfaces because of the reasons I mentioned.
I'm not going point for point with you. I don't have time for that. If I can't quote or multiquote you once, don't bother quoting me 3 times because I'll only respond to one of them.
I'm not going point for point with you. I don't have time for that. If I can't quote or multiquote you once, don't bother quoting me 3 times because I'll only respond to one of them.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about Raonic's return game which is essential in winning
grass court matches pre-2003 eras.
Up until 2003, Federer was striggling against attacking players on fast courts,
which coincidentally disappeared from 2003-2004.
I don't think Federer would be as successful on pre-2003 fast courts. Federer,
Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. They are all same type of baseline players, perfect
for current conditions: medium-to-slow, homogenized surfaces.
grass court matches pre-2003 eras.
Up until 2003, Federer was striggling against attacking players on fast courts,
which coincidentally disappeared from 2003-2004.
I don't think Federer would be as successful on pre-2003 fast courts. Federer,
Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. They are all same type of baseline players, perfect
for current conditions: medium-to-slow, homogenized surfaces.
Last edited:
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Zero............
mike danny
Bionic Poster
i never found excuses for fed losing to nadal in 2008 . you must ve mistaken me with somebody else probably in your thread comparing grass seasons
But it wasn't an anomaly. Sebastien Grosjean made it to the semis two years in a row. 2001 was the last attacking tennis we saw at Wimby. After that, it's been a flurry of long baseline exchanges. Federer and Roddick's matches have been a lot of heavy hitting from the baseline with few S&V points in between. Before 2001, the grass was not even firm enough to sustain a 20 shot rally. Since then, however, Wimbledon has been dominated by baseline play.
I mean, if you consider Andy Roddick an "attacking" player, then that's a really sad commentary on the state of men's tennis. Boris Becker was an attacking player. Tim Henman was an attacking player. Pat Rafter was an attacking player. Andy Roddick is a suped up Jim Courier with an even worse net game.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
