How many Wimbledons would have Roddick won on the old faster grass?

[Zaragoza]

Since the general consensus on this board seems to be that grass at Wimbledon was slowed down after 2001 and a new era of slower and high bouncing grass started, I was wondering how Roddick would have done since 2002 had the grass stayed extremely fast and low bouncing.
Considering how big his serve is (biggest serve until Karlovic emerged) it would have been really tough to break on the old grass. Karlovic could be another one but Roddick´s game is much better outside the serve and he has been a top player for a long time so I think his chances at Wimbledon would have been much better on the old grass.
These are Roddick´s results at Wimbledon from 2002 (start of the new grass era):

2002- 3rd round (lost to Rusedski in straights).
2003- Semifinalist (lost to Federer in straights).
2004- Finalist (lost to Federer 6-4 5-7 6-7 4-6).
2005- Finalist (lost to Federer in straights).
2006- 3rd round (lost to Murray in straights).
2007- Quarterfinalist (lost to Gasquet 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 6-8 ).
2008- 2nd round (lost to Tipsarevic in 4 sets).

So considering his performances all these years on the slow and high bouncing grass how do you think he would have performed on the old fast grass? Would have he won Wimbledon any year? Not necessarily the years he made the final but any other year. Please vote.

 

[Charlie_Boy]

Considering he's made it to two finals on this "slow" grass, I really don't think a faster court would make too much of a difference.

Just throwing this out there, NO ONE that hasn't played on Wimbledon's grass has any right to call it slow or fast.

 

[Cloudy]

what about a none because Roddick just isn't that great option.

 

[Nadal_Monfils]

what about a none because Roddick just isn't that great option.

I second this vote.

 

[rolandg]

He would have won 512.

 

[Voltron]

All of them.

 

[oranges]

What does it matter to Roddick all that much? His serve would be even more powerful, but he wouldn't suddenly start to S/V, use slice effectively to go to the net or whatever else might come to mind.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

I dunno. You need much more than a serve to win Wimbledon. He'd have to be on with his forehand, and on mentally.

 

[NamRanger]

I'd say one at the very least, maybe two.

 

[WHSTENNIS]

He would have won alot more because of his serve and volley.

Didn't it slow down like 13 mph in like 6 years when the serve got to the baseline?

 

[laurie]

Well first of all Roddick never served and vollyed. And Roddick can't serve and volley either.

I've been reading Sampras' book.

He goes into quite some detail that the balls and the properties of the grass were starting to change since 1995. There was such an uproar after the 1994 final between himself and Goran that the All England club felt obliged to do something. I do remember 1994 well because that was a very hot early summer, so the ball was flying. As you've seen the last 10 years, not one Wimbledon final has been played in hot weather, that would assist the conditions as well for someone like Roddick.

Sampras said that the changes were not all that noticeable initially because the serve and volleyers were still around, culminating in 2001 when the old guard were starting to tip over the other side of their careers - Stich, Becker and Edberg were retired, Rafter was in his last year, Goran was so fullfilled and had a shoulder problem that his career was effectively over after winning that Wimbledon, Krajicek missed 2001 with injury, Nicholas Escude and Taylor Dent's careers wre cut short with injury - both were committed to serve and volley on grass and more importantly, Escude was very talented.

So with the old guard been all retired by 2003, the new guard simply didn't grow up serving and volleying. Henman and Rusedski were still around but no longer factors on the grass. The last serve and volley final was 2003 between Federer and Phillipousis, but Federer had taken out Roddick in the semis anyway, and n fact, 2003 was the last year where the weather was actally warm bordering on hot which should have favoured Roddick's serve but Federer still came through.

Now to answer the question, the answer is No, Roddick could not win regardless of the grass. And I base my reason on this.

I often said (all the time actually) that it's the return of serve that wins Wimbledon, not the serve, probaly the reason Agassi was able to win in 1992 on real fast grass.

Sampras says the same, he said there have always been guys that serve big, like Roscoe Tanner he mentioned. But it's how you return and move on the grass which makes the difference. He's right, all the guys who have won Wimbledon are great movers - even the one slam Wimbledon winners like Krajicek, Hewitt, Cash and Stich all move very well and return serve very well and all had great results on surfaces away from grass.

And this is where Roddick fails - he's not a good mover, he's not very athletic either and he's not really got a solid baseline game even though he's a baseliner. His backhand is not very versatile for instance. The closest comparison to Roddick would be Goran - however Goran did have a good return of serve on the backhand and a decent ground game as he grew up on Eurpenan clay.

Even players who have won Wimbledon once have had technically very good games. And Rafter who lost two finals was a bit unlucky but had a very good grass game. I don't see Roddick as having a good return game, or a good or creative ground game.

That's why I think Roddick is not good enough to win Wimbledon and the pace of the grass is not a factor in this.

 

[JanusB]

what about a none because Roddick just isn't that great option.

That's why.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

None. He has no volley game and that was pretty important on the old grass. The lower bouncing grass of the 90's would not be enough for Roddick against Federer imo.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I'd say Roddick never even makes a final in a previous era.

 

[Cloudy]

I just dont think he stood any chance against Federer who was on fire since 2003 on any surface. He just isn't good enough. Their win loss record during that period is something like 14-1 or 14-2.

 

[certifiedjatt]

the belief that grass is slower at wimbledon is just a belief, and hearsay. some say it's slower, others (like federer) think it hasn't changed. so....just because "experts" here agree that it's slower, doesn't make it so. if it is slower, someone must have actual data/facts on this. but, until those data are produced, let's not give roddick any benefit of the doubt.

 

[matchmaker]

I honestly think he would not have won a single Wimbledon. Apart from his big serve he does not have many grass court tools. He game is a much better suit for HC.

 

[oranges]

Any particular reason why there is no option it wouldn't matter enough for Roddick?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

the belief that grass is slower at wimbledon is just a belief, and hearsay. some say it's slower, others (like federer) think it hasn't changed. so....just because "experts" here agree that it's slower, doesn't make it so. if it is slower, someone must have actual data/facts on this. but, until those data are produced, let's not give roddick any benefit of the doubt.

I did the data and it proves it hasn't slowed down.

 

[Grimjack]

Federer never said it hasn't slowed down. He said it hasn't slowed down since he played Sampras. He played Sampras in 2001 -- the first year with the new grass.

 

[10sbune]

I second this vote.

I third this vote......

 

[daddy]

Anyways idiotic thread. Why ? Most of the wimby champs prior the 2001 which seems to be the key year in slowing surface dealings - was acomplished volleyer and excelent mover to add to their enormous serves, with exception of a few greats like agassi.

 

[Murray_Maniac]

No matter how fast the surface would've been, he still would've never defeated Federer. Federer was accustomed to the fast grass & a master vollier, but since the surface slowed, he had to work more on his ground game. Fast or slow surface, Federer is still superior to Roddick. Now if the surface was fast & he only faced Nadal-type players, sure he would've won a few.

 

[Eviscerator]

To the 13 that voted so far about the grass not being slower, you are deluding yourself. Heck the surface was slowed even before 2002 as commented on by all the top pros, it is just that it was slowed even more in 2002. Furthermore, it is not only the slower grass, but the under-surface that was changed to allow the balls to bounce much higher than ever before.

As to the OP's point, he might have gotten 1, but he is too one dimensional to have done much better considering his competition.

 

[El Diablo]

The conventional wisdom on this board seems to be that Roddick has underachieved by not winning more slams. I see him differently, believing he has overachieved by winning one. He is a good player, but in many respects a one-trick pony. His groundstrokes are not exceptional, he plays too far back in the court to run people around, his return seems average, and his volleying at times is embarassing. Let's agree that his first serve can be a potent weapon. Why do people expect this poor guy to win a bunch of slams. He's having a nice career as a top-10 player and people should not have all this anger we sometimes see directed at him for not doing more than that.

 

[tom_asdelonge182]

none because Roddick is not a great mover and he will not be able to play his aggressive baseline game with all those S n V

 

[laurie]

Anyways idiotic thread. Why ? Most of the wimby champs prior the 2001 which seems to be the key year in slowing surface dealings - was acomplished volleyer and excelent mover to add to their enormous serves, with exception of a few greats like agassi.

Indeed.

Like I said, the key was not the surface change, the key was that was really the last year the serve and volleyers made a real impression. After that year, most of them retired or were about to come to the end of their careers and no longer a factor.

That is the big difference. The new grass court generation didn't grow up serving and volleying so that's when people said the grass was different from 2002 onwards but it had already changed beforehand.

 

[Bundey]

He would have won alot more because of his serve and volley.

Didn't it slow down like 13 mph in like 6 years when the serve got to the baseline?

Why do you say "more"? He never one Wimby. Also I can't recall him ever serve and volleying.

 

[reytol]

None. He will be out by second round in the old grass. Roddick has benefitted as well from the so called "slowed down grass" version of WIMBLEDON, that's he made the final twice. Well for all Roddick fans to be happy, let's give the guy, say 3? : )

 

[reytol]

None. He will be out by second round in the old grass. Roddick has benefitted as well from the so called "slowed down grass" version of WIMBLEDON, that's why he made the final twice. Well for all Roddick fans to be happy, let's give the guy, say 3? : )