I doubt Nadal would ever have won Wimbledon on traditional grass.

HunterST

Hall of Fame
The WTF final showed me how much Nadal's game depends on the height of the bounce on the court. Sure, slow courts help as well, but how high he can get his shots is really the crucial factor.

On the new Wimbledon grass, he can still get decent height. I remember a graphic that showed his shots bounced lower at wimbledon than the French, but it was only slightly.

On traditional grass courts, like the ones Mcenroe and Borg played, the bounces got almost no height. I think it was Brad Gilbert that said when players got high lobs, they could never let it bounce first (as the Roddick did during the match) because the ball would only bounce up to about waist height.

This lack of height would have made it very difficult for Nadal to win Wimbledon. Federer might have gotten a few because his game is a little more fit for serve and volley, but I doubt he would have gotten as many as he has.

This is just another example of why the Wimbledon/French Open double is so much easier to accomplish these days.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Nadal is the natural surface king, Nadal loves running on Natural surfaces, he never tires on the grass so there's nothing to worry about.
 

T1000

Legend
Nadal is the natural surface king, Nadal loves running on Natural surfaces, he never tires on the grass so there's nothing to worry about.

Yea almost getting knocked out by Hasse and Kendrick and having to cheat your way to beat Petzchesner really makes him the king
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
I doubt Fed would have ever won FO on traditional slow clay from the past. Now we have fast clay at the FO and ballbashers like Sod can reach the finals. Not in the past.
 

big ted

Legend
i probably agree. the surface used to be faster and lower bouncing. i think the tennis is better to watch with the new grass tho.. if they never changed it, i dont think hewitt would have a wimbledon title either and nalbandian wouldnt have gotten to the finals. federer would be serving and volleying ALOT more, and roddick may have had at least 1-2 titles by now.

the same could be said for the other gs tournaments tho -
agassi wouldnt have had so many AO titles if it was still on grass
vilas won his only us open when it was played on clay, .. etc..

the only surface that hasnt changed is the french open apparently, tho it might be a thinner layer
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
I doubt Fed would have ever won FO on traditional slow clay from the past. Now we have fast clay at the FO and ballbashers like Sod can reach the finals. Not in the past.


you do know that attacking players like Stich, Agassi and Edberg have reached the finals, and Agassi won it too...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I disagree. Federer is built to hit low, waist height ball. His bh is more effective when it’s low, where he can slice or hit through it. Anyone who watch Federer would know he is more comfortable handling low bounce surface.
 

T1000

Legend
i probably agree. the surface used to be faster and lower bouncing. i think the tennis is better to watch with the new grass tho.. if they never changed it, i dont think hewitt would have a wimbledon title either and nalbandian wouldnt have gotten to the finals. federer would be serving and volleying ALOT more, and roddick may have had at least 1-2 titles by now.

the same could be said for the other gs tournaments tho -
agassi wouldnt have had so many AO titles if it was still on grass
vilas won his only us open when it was played on clay, .. etc..

the only surface that hasnt changed is the french open apparently, tho it might be a thinner layer

Hewitt loves pace and is one of the best passers to ever play the game. If Agassi can win Wimbledon than Hewitt could've too
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
I doubt Fed would have ever won FO on traditional slow clay from the past. Now we have fast clay at the FO and ballbashers like Sod can reach the finals. Not in the past.

I wasn't sure if the speed of the courts at the French have changed. I can't see how crushed red brick could modified all that much.

However, if it has changed, then I think that's just another argument that they're making the French/Wimbledon double easier to accomplish.

They need to make wimbledon fast and low bouncing and the French slow and traditional. Otherwise, if a player accomplishes a CYGS, it's not going to be that much of an accomplishment.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Thanks Rock.

Why did they change?

To extend the rallies and weaken the dominance of big serves. In August/September 2001, Wimbledon relayed the surface as they always do at that time of year, but when they relayed the surface in 2001, they used 100% Rye instead of 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue.
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
All you ever wanted to know about the Wimbledon turf.

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/infosheets/grasscourts_general.html


About Wimbledon - Information Sheets

Grass courts general information

Staff
# Head Groundsman - Eddie Seaward (since 1991).
# 14 permanent ground staff. A further 16 join for the period of The Championships.

Courts
# 19 courts in total for 2009 (Centre + Nos 1-19, except for Court 13 removed as part of works for the remodelling of southern end of the grounds).
# Centre, No.1, 2, 3, 4 & 18 are Show Courts.
# There are 22 grass practice courts. Courts are not floodlit as dew on the grass would make them too slippery for play.

Court Preparation
# The courts are prepared in a similar manner each year to produce the highest quality playing surface for the world’s best players in the modern game to display their full range of skills.
# That means the courts must have even and consistent bounce, as well as the ability to withstand prolonged wear and tear for a minimum of 13 days.

Court Durability
# The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better 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 without affecting the perceived speed of the court.

The Grass
# The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
# The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.

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.
# The perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time as well as the weather before and during the event.

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.
# If the court is too soft, when the players run, jump and slide, the pimples on their shoes will damage the surface and increase the chance of an irregular bounce.

The Effects of Atmospheric Conditions
# Unlike other surfaces grass is a living plant in an outdoor environment when weather varies throughout the year. Weather conditions in the run up to The Championships will have some effect on the way the courts ultimately play.
# The atmosphere can also have an effect on the ball which will seem heavier and slower on a cold damp day and conversely lighter and faster on a warm dry day.

The Ball
# The last time the specification of the ball was changed was in 1995, which was a minimal alteration in compression.
# Balls are opened on court – the first set immediately before the match and thereafter just before each scheduled ball change.

Court Maintenance
# Court grass composed of 100% rye grass (chosen for its durability).
# 1 tonne of grass seed is used each year.
# Maximum of 3,000 gallons of water used during the Fortnight - weather permitting.
# All courts re-lined, rolled and mown daily during Championships.
# Court wear, surface hardness and ball rebound are all measured daily. In general, the men are tougher on the courts than the ladies.
# The Championships playing height of grass is 8mm.

Hawk-Eye
# Adopted in 2007 on Centre and No.1 Courts to decide on line-calls.
# Adopted on new Court 2 in 2009.

Service Line Monitors
# Nicknamed ‘Cyclops’ - the full name is the CPE Service Line Monitor.
# Adopted first on Centre and No.1 Courts in 1980 and on No. 2 Court in 1981.
# Only used for service line calls and is also used at other tournaments.
# Phased out in 2008 with adoption of Hawkeye.

Lines
# Paint is not used to mark the lines on the court. A transfer wheel marker is used to apply a white compound (500 gallons used yearly) containing china clay to make it durable.
# All the lines are 50mm wide, except the baselines, which are 100mm.

Covers
# All courts have been provided with covers since 1971.
# Centre Court received a new cover in 1998. Weighs 1 ton (wet and dry) and takes 17 people approx 22-28 seconds to cover the court. Made from a translucent material, the cover allows a greater amount of light to the grass. Air ventilation under the cover is aided by four large fans (two at either end).
# No.1 Court received a new cover in 1999. Properties similar to that on Centre Court.
# Extra fans provided on Courts 2, 3, 11 and 18 to quicken the drying of the grass after rain.

Centre Court Roof

* Design of the new fixed roof ensures that conditions for grass growth are better than those experienced with the old roof since the aperture is wider thus allowing more sunlight onto all parts of the court, particularly the southern end.

Court Coverers
# 160 Court Coverers.
# Trained two weeks prior to The Championships.
# Gradual training, which then builds up on the speed.
# Safety is paramount, but speed essential – approx timings 22-28 seconds.
# Pushing the umpire’s chair with umpire still in it introduced in 2001 for the first time.

Centre/No 1 teams
# 17 people to cover the court
# 2 to remove the nets
# 2 to remove umpire/linespersons chairs

Outer Courts teams
# Cts 2, 11 and 18: 11 persons
# Others: 6 persons

Rain preparations
# System of numbers used to alert and instruct the court coverers if rain or bad weather is expected:
1. Court covering teams to be courtside
2. Cover at Chair Umpire’s discretion
3. Compulsory cover as soon as possible
4. Inflate the covers
5. Deflate the covers
6. Uncover
7. Dress the courts
# Referee inspects a court once the covers are taken off and before the court is dressed with the net etc. Decision on timing of process made by the Head Groundsman or Referee.

Court Dimensions
# Total area of grass on each of Centre & No.1 Courts is 41m x 22m.
# Singles Court is length 23.77m (78’) x width 8.23m (27’).
# Doubles Court is length 23.77m (78’) x width 10.97m (36’).
 
Last edited:

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Another factor is the balls. Tennis balls surely didn't used to be quite the same either - bouncing less.
 
Last edited:

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
The WTF final showed me how much Nadal's game depends on the height of the bounce on the court. Sure, slow courts help as well, but how high he can get his shots is really the crucial factor.

On the new Wimbledon grass, he can still get decent height. I remember a graphic that showed his shots bounced lower at wimbledon than the French, but it was only slightly.

On traditional grass courts, like the ones Mcenroe and Borg played, the bounces got almost no height. I think it was Brad Gilbert that said when players got high lobs, they could never let it bounce first (as the Roddick did during the match) because the ball would only bounce up to about waist height.

This lack of height would have made it very difficult for Nadal to win Wimbledon. Federer might have gotten a few because his game is a little more fit for serve and volley, but I doubt he would have gotten as many as he has.

This is just another example of why the Wimbledon/French Open double is so much easier to accomplish these days.



The grass changed ~2001, as for Nadal he has won Queens and that is old fast grass.

But with that statement you would also be seriously questioning Roger's chances of winning since he earned the majority of his points not at the net, but at the base line.
 

namelessone

Legend
Because all the clay court players whined too much.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the fact that WB had become a servefest.

It was one thing to do S&V in the 70's-80's with wood rackets and quite another in the modern racket era.

They won't say it but they slowed it down cause they wanted to see more rallies.

It benefited the claycourters so greatly that most of them only go 1-2 rounds further in WB than on the old grass. It's obvious that the baseliner has an advantage now but as proven by guys like haas(with djoker), llodra, mahut, haase, petzchner, kendrick etc, S&V can still be done, it's just that many prefer the safe option. In fact I would say that the only place outside of Paris/Basel/Lyon where the server has a big advantage is in wimbledon.

The bounce is bigger but the courts still look very fast to me, especially in the first week when there is more grass.
 

TennezSport

Hall of Fame
Very true........

The bounce is bigger but the courts still look very fast to me, especially in the first week when there is more grass.

This is very true during the first week and the footwork is also trickier due to the moist grass. However, by the second week the courts slow down considerably in very dry conditions. When the air has more moisture the grass lasts longer.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:
 

namelessone

Legend
This is very true during the first week and the footwork is also trickier due to the moist grass. However, by the second week the courts slow down considerably in very dry conditions. When the air has more moisture the grass lasts longer.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

And the thing that benefits a lot of players(including cc'ers) is that by second week the area behind the baseline is earth,clay if you will.

The grass on the rest of the court is still pretty thick but there is basically no grass left around the baseline by second week.

Nadal and Murray have said that the problem at WB is how fast the ball comes off the ground. You can reach it easier cause it bounces more than in the past but quick reflexes are needed still.

But as you said, the weather conditions make a big impact.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
The grass changed ~2001, as for Nadal he has won Queens and that is old fast grass.

But with that statement you would also be seriously questioning Roger's chances of winning since he earned the majority of his points not at the net, but at the base line.

You guys need to read the original post before you make this counterargument. I already said that I didn't think Roger would have as many wimbledons if the grass was the same.
 

timnz

Legend
He was comfortable on the fast grass

You guys need to read the original post before you make this counterargument. I already said that I didn't think Roger would have as many wimbledons if the grass was the same.

Disagree. The grass didn't change until 2002. The way he played Sampras in 2001 shows me that he was very comfortable on the fast grass.
 

Kaz00

Semi-Pro
I believe the Spanish Tennis Federation paid off the ATP to slow down all the courts and make them bounce high. That is why Spain is now bankrupt and unemployment is high, the green job reason is a lie!
 
No offense to the OP but your view is purely circumstantial, while I am no Nadal fan, in fact I hate him but I respect him. And he has proven everyone wrong by constantly winning titles everyone said he couldnt. I truly believe no matter the surface Nadal would find a way to win that title, even if it was just once.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Disagree. The grass didn't change until 2002. The way he played Sampras in 2001 shows me that he was very comfortable on the fast grass.

Good point. My line of thinking was just that his serve isn't nearly as big as other guys and I thought that would put him at a bit of a disadvantage.

No offense to the OP but your view is purely circumstantial, while I am no Nadal fan, in fact I hate him but I respect him. And he has proven everyone wrong by constantly winning titles everyone said he couldnt. I truly believe no matter the surface Nadal would find a way to win that title, even if it was just once.

Just for the record guys, I'm talking about REALLY traditional grass, haha. As in, the kind that Borg won his double on.

I'm not trying to put Nadal down. I'm just trying to point out that the F/W double is really losing its credibility.

Think about how much more of an accomplishment it would be if Nadal won the french and then went and won on a court that had hardly any bounce and played crazy fast.
 
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
I have heard AND read in some tennis-magazine that they will speed up the clay...uhm sorry, the grass-courts at AELTC
 
Just for the record guys, I'm talking about REALLY traditional grass, haha. As in, the kind that Borg won his double on.

I'm not trying to put Nadal down. I'm just trying to point out that the F/W double is really losing its credibility.

Think about how much more of an accomplishment it would be if Nadal won the french and then went and won on a court that had hardly any bounce and played crazy fast.

I know what grass you are talking about, and I still say Nadal could pull it off. I would hate to watch it but he would do it. And the F/W is still a huge accomplishment because its winning 2 slams in a row, if that isn't credibility idk what is. And personally I believe they still are two different surfaces for 1 week at least

And the wimbledon grass isnt that slow the first few days, I remember Hasse and Nishikori playing Nadal, and he wasnt able to move well/get to balls he would have on other surfaces. The fact is if Nadal is gonna lose that tournament its gotta be some lower ranked player taking him out early like how Gulbis tried in 08 and Hasse and Petzschner tried also. Once the grass becomes worn in and starts to disappear that is where Nadal starts to benefit. This wouldve happened on old grass too if old players grinded on the baseline
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
and this is a debate, why? That's what everyone's been saying, with his style he owes it all to tech and slower surfaces..

On the flip side, you can also debate on how a short laver and rosewall can handle with a higher bounce, more pace, more power, more spin, more running, more aces...
 

namelessone

Legend
Honestly I don't think the double is losing that much credibility.

Yes, Fed and Nadal did it three years in a row.

Now please tell who out of the current lot could do that if we take fedal out?

Djoker - pretty good on clay but can get taken out on grass by lesser players.
Murray - constantly improving on grass but I can't see him taking RG.
Delpo - will be very good on clay, so far sucks on grass
Roddick - sucks ass on clay but made 4 finals on "green clay".
Daveydenko - good on clay, not good on grass.
Dasco - good on clay, good on grass, no way he wins either slam.
Soderling - very good in clay, good on grass. He can win maybe RG but not WB.
Berdych - good form on both clay and grass but no mental strength to win both.
Ferrer - good on clay, decent on grass. Can't win either slam.

So tell me, is the WB-RG double really all much easier nowadays?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
On the flip side, you can also debate on how a short laver and rosewall can handle with a higher bounce, more pace, more power, more spin, more running, more aces...

let's break it down:

higher bounce: they'd adapt, they are two of the greatest of all time, and that's not for nothing

more pace: again, they'd adapt. Remember, they played on wood, so that wasn't slow by any means

more power: serves, according to Chopin was it?, reached 130mph+ with the woodies, that wouldn't be much of a problem

more spin: they would adapt and use it to their advantage

more running: they played Borg, plus they ran just as much, if not more, in some rallies

more aces: they played Pancho Gonzalez and other powerhouses, they could deal with it I believe
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
let's break it down:

higher bounce: they'd adapt, they are two of the greatest of all time, and that's not for nothing

more pace: again, they'd adapt. Remember, they played on wood, so that wasn't slow by any means

more power: serves, according to Chopin was it?, reached 130mph+ with the woodies, that wouldn't be much of a problem

more spin: they would adapt and use it to their advantage

more running: they played Borg, plus they ran just as much, if not more, in some rallies

more aces: they played Pancho Gonzalez and other powerhouses, they could deal with it I believe

Everything you pointed out are all speculation. They never dealt with this kind of hostile conditions and nothing can support their ability to handle today's players. One thing is for sure...there are more depth and talented players in this era than in the past.

I don't remembered what Chopin said, but I clearly disagree with Tilden serve 163mph and Rosewall's bh slice 80mph.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Everything you pointed out are all speculation. They never dealt with this kind of hostile conditions and nothing can support their ability to handle today's players. One thing is for sure...there are more depth and talented players in this era than in the past.

I don't remembered what Chopin said, but I clearly disagree with Tilden serve 163mph and Rosewall's bh slice 80mph.

i disagree with those to as well, but remember that the players with woodies were playing as well as if not better than players with steel frames. Coincidence? I think not. In fact, I believe it was they, the players of yesteryear, who had more natural talent.

and it is not speculation. They played against a more diverse range of players than those nowadays, and they adapted. They played Borg, heavy topspin. They played Roche, slicing. They ran to the net, got lobbed, ran back, ran forwards again, ran around the court. They could do everything these guys can do nowadays, and more so.
 

Polvorin

Professional
Good point. My line of thinking was just that his serve isn't nearly as big as other guys and I thought that would put him at a bit of a disadvantage.

He's always shown that despite not having the highest velocity on his serve, his placement and variety more than make up for it. Also, he hits a very heavy ball that doesn't lose as much pace after it bounces compared to most other players. I'd take his serve over Roddick's at Wimbledon, even if it is 10mph slower.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
i disagree with those to as well, but remember that the players with woodies were playing as well as if not better than players with steel frames. Coincidence? I think not. In fact, I believe it was they, the players of yesteryear, who had more natural talent.

and it is not speculation. They played against a more diverse range of players than those nowadays, and they adapted. They played Borg, heavy topspin. They played Roche, slicing. They ran to the net, got lobbed, ran back, ran forwards again, ran around the court. They could do everything these guys can do nowadays, and more so.

Ok, this is your opinion and i'll treated as any other regular tennis fans.

However, here is what Kramar said about Federer today.

"I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can."

Many of you old timers tends to discredit younger fan's opinions b/c we haven't seen live tennis in the past, but Kramar have seen everything. In fact, he's old enough to be your dad.:)
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
he's old enough to be my great-grand-dad lol

I'm only 17, I'm no old timer

yeah, but remember, Jack Kramer didn't give much commentary on Laver, and I don't think he mentioned him much, though his adversaries said he had no weaknesses. So I still go with Laver
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
he's old enough to be my great-grand-dad lol

I'm only 17, I'm no old timer

yeah, but remember, Jack Kramer didn't give much commentary on Laver, and I don't think he mentioned him much, though his adversaries said he had no weaknesses. So I still go with Laver

You are not a good liar MD.

Why did he not mentioned much about laver? Perhaps he think laver wasn't that good? Maybe so.

And every players have weaknesses. For some to say he has "no weakness" means he's comparing to the playing field. Anyway, those quotes were the old days...where Fed, even Sampras wasn't around.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
To extend the rallies and weaken the dominance of big serves. In August/September 2001, Wimbledon relayed the surface as they always do at that time of year, but when they relayed the surface in 2001, they used 100% Rye instead of 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue.

No, they changed it in late 2000 for the championships in 2001. All credible sources state this.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Honestly I don't think the double is losing that much credibility.

Yes, Fed and Nadal did it three years in a row.

Now please tell who out of the current lot could do that if we take fedal out?

Djoker - pretty good on clay but can get taken out on grass by lesser players.
Murray - constantly improving on grass but I can't see him taking RG.
Delpo - will be very good on clay, so far sucks on grass
Roddick - sucks ass on clay but made 4 finals on "green clay".
Daveydenko - good on clay, not good on grass.
Dasco - good on clay, good on grass, no way he wins either slam.
Soderling - very good in clay, good on grass. He can win maybe RG but not WB.
Berdych - good form on both clay and grass but no mental strength to win both.
Ferrer - good on clay, decent on grass. Can't win either slam.

So tell me, is the WB-RG double really all much easier nowadays?

Yes.

A lot of the guys you mentioned the problem is not that they can't win on two different surfaces, but that they can't win a slam, period. They definitely couldn't win two in a row even if they were on hard court.

Also, if we're taking out Fed and Nadal, then I wouldn't think it would be impossible for a player like Soderling, Murray or Djokovic to get the double. Most of their chances are ruined by the fact that they have to go through federer or nadal.

the double is still amazing, but mostly just because it's winning two slams in a row. The players don't really have to alter their games that much for the tournaments to win.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
No, they changed it in late 2000 for the championships in 2001. All credible sources state this.

No they didn't, Bud. Have you watched 2001 and 2002 Wimbledons? They changed the surface in August/September 2001, and some journalists/sources have falsely taken the fact that it was 2001 to mean that 2001 Wimbledon had the new grass, when it didn't.

http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/

After playing for the first time on the new perennial rye lawns at Wimbledon in 2002, now-retired British player Tim Henman, (known for his serve-and-volley game) commented, "I’m on a grass court and it’s the slowest court I’ve played on all year".
 
Last edited:

Dilettante

Hall of Fame
Also, if we're taking out Fed and Nadal, then I wouldn't think it would be impossible for a player like Soderling, Murray or Djokovic to get the double. Most of their chances are ruined by the fact that they have to go through federer or nadal.

I'm not saying this only because of you or your post, but the "woulda coulda shoulda" stuff is killing any remain of intelligence in sports analysis, if ever was one.

Some players' chances have been ALWAYS ruined by better players. That's history of the sports. People always talk about surfaces as a major factor, but the fact is: players who win several slams on various surfaces do it because they're able to overcome most types of rivals in different occasions. That's because they are better overall. Best players often succeed in more than one type of surface, winning a slam or at least getting to a final out of their favorite surface.

That's the difference between Federer/Nadal and the rest of the pack. Fed and Nadal are able to succeed in every kind of surface. They might do it more or less, but they did it several times (in fact Federer did it all the time on every surface).

After every Fed's and (specially) Nadal's victory you have people talking about how surfaces changed, about an easy draw, about luck, about whatever circunstances. But when you look back by now, circunstances always favored the same guys again and again. For some odd reason, the same guys -Federer and Nadal- are almost always in later rounds, finals and trophy ceremonys. And that odd reason is: they're the best. Surfaces change for everyone, but not everyone wins 16 or 9 slams.

So no, Soderling, Murray or Djokovic wouldn't have got the double for a simple reason: you can't take the better players from the equation, that's unrealistic. Player have to go through everything, including better players. That's the reality, parallel realities are for science fiction novels. Because you could go on with that argument and say: if the top 50000 didn't exist to ruin Dilettante's chances, Dilettante would have 25 slams by now.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying this only because of you or your post, but the "woulda coulda shoulda" stuff is killing any remain of intelligence in sports analysis, if ever was one.

Some players' chances have been ALWAYS ruined by better players. That's history of the sports. People always talk about surfaces as a major factor, but the fact is: players who win several slams on various surfaces do it because they're able to overcome most types of rivals in different occasions. That's because they are better overall. Best players often succeed in more than one type of surface, winning a slam or at least getting to a final out of their favorite surface.

That's the difference between Federer/Nadal and the rest of the pack. Fed and Nadal are able to succeed in every kind of surface. They might do it more or less, but they did it several times (in fact Federer did it all the time on every surface).

After every Fed's and (specially) Nadal's victory you have people talking about how surfaces changed, about an easy draw, about luck, about whatever circunstances. But when you look back by now, circunstances always favored the same guys again and again. For some odd reason, the same guys -Federer and Nadal- are almost always in later rounds, finals and trophy ceremonys. And that odd reason is: they're the best. Surfaces change for everyone, but not everyone wins 16 or 9 slams.

So no, Soderling, Murray or Djokovic wouldn't have got the double for a simple reason: you can't take the better players from the equation, that's unrealistic. Player have to go through everything, including better players. That's the reality, parallel realities are for science fiction novels. Because you could go on with that argument and say: if the top 50000 didn't exist to ruin Dilettante's chances, Dilettante would have 25 slams by now.

Great post!!!! To bad this will mostly fall on deaf ears. I noticed thats the way it works on TW the moment you make an intelligent post its ignored, but you say something stupid and everyone is all ready to quote you
 
Last edited:

Chopin

Hall of Fame
i disagree with those to as well, but remember that the players with woodies were playing as well as if not better than players with steel frames. Coincidence? I think not. In fact, I believe it was they, the players of yesteryear, who had more natural talent.

and it is not speculation. They played against a more diverse range of players than those nowadays, and they adapted. They played Borg, heavy topspin. They played Roche, slicing. They ran to the net, got lobbed, ran back, ran forwards again, ran around the court. They could do everything these guys can do nowadays, and more so.

What you said is not speculation is actually speculation...you can't say that Laver had more talent than Federer or vice versa, and not have it be speculation...
 
Top