So now that Pete and Roger have 7 Wimbledons..

[War Safin!]

Dude, you are going in circles.

Again, every reasonable poster on this boards thinks, that neither Sampras, nor Federer was at their best, when they met. They met and Federer won, displaying in the process some of the qualities, that made him famos later in his career. Sampras was on his game, so do not try do downgrade Federer's win, just like noone in his right mind is trying to downgrade a champion like Sampras, just because he lost to the future 7 times winner there.

As for Henman vs. Federer. I remember that Henman was on fire in that match (I take it, that, when he saw, that Sampras went down, he probably thought that that is his chance for a title there and was extra motivated), displaying his splendid grasscourt game and lobbing Federer to death. And let us not forget, that Federer lost two tie-breaks in that match. In one of them he held two setpoints and the other was 5-2 or 5-3 (if memory serves) in his favour, before the importance of the occasion took its toll. The other set, that Henman won he broke Federer in the last possible moment. So, having in mind, that Henman was no slouch on grass, we can surely assume, that Federer displayed a fairly high level of tennis against him.

Sampras was not on his game for a large % of 2001:
* Didnt win a title all year
* Only made one final in the first 6 months
* Lost early in the AusO
* Came into Wimbledon with a 25-10 season
* Taken to 5 sets by the World #256 in that same Wimbledon tournament

He only raised his game following Wimbledon, making 3 finals..oh yes, and losing all of them.

He was clearly on-the-slide and for the reat of his career really only showed up for the US Open in 2002.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sampras was not on his game for a large % of 2001:
* Didnt win a title all year
* Only made one final in the first 6 months
* Lost early in the AusO
* Came into Wimbledon with a 25-10 season
* Taken to 5 sets by the World #256 in that same Wimbledon tournament

He only raised his game following Wimbledon, making 3 finals..oh yes, and losing all of them.

He was clearly on-the-slide and for the reat of his career really only showed up for the US Open in 2002.

I was talking about that one match with Federer. Chill.

 

[MariaRafael]

Roger did fine on the previous grass and would have if it had never changed. Sampras would be lucky to get to the 2nd week consistently on this stuff with these rackets and strings.

Roger didn't do anything on the previous grass. It was replaced in 2001. He won Wimbledon for the first time in 2003.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Roger didn't do anything on the previous grass. It was replaced in 2001. He won Wimbledon for the first time in 2003.

That is not true. Federer was Wimbledon junior champion in singles and in doubles. All achieved on the old fast and slick grass.

 

[War Safin!]

I was talking about that one match with Federer. Chill.

The same match that everyone brings up when talking Sampras v Federer.

 

[Rhino]

Lets work it out using the current points system used at Wimbledon for reaching each round (2000/1200/720/360/180/90/45/10).

Both men have played Wimbledon a total of 14 times.

Pete:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x semifinal (720 points)

1 x quarterfinal (360 points)

1 x 4th round (180 points)

2 x 2nd round (90 points)

2 x 1st round (20 points)

Pete's points total = 15370

Roger:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x final (1200 points)

3 x quarterfinal (1080 points)

3 x 1st round (30 points)

Roger's points total = 16310

Roger wins.

 

[sbengte]

Lets work it out using the current points system used at Wimbledon for reaching each round (2000/1200/720/360/180/90/45/10).

Both men have played Wimbledon a total of 14 times.

Pete's points total = 15370

Roger's points total = 16310

Roger wins.

LOL. Let's see what convoluted counter argument someone can come up with for that one.
/thread.

 

[Zarfot Z]

Lets work it out using the current points system used at Wimbledon for reaching each round (2000/1200/720/360/180/90/45/10).

Both men have played Wimbledon a total of 14 times.

Pete:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x semifinal (720 points)

1 x quarterfinal (360 points)

1 x 4th round (180 points)

2 x 2nd round (90 points)

2 x 1st round (20 points)

Pete's points total = 15370

Roger:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x final (1200 points)

3 x quarterfinal (1080 points)

3 x 1st round (30 points)

Roger's points total = 16310

Roger wins.

lolworthy argument

 

[BeHappy]

Lets work it out using the current points system used at Wimbledon for reaching each round (2000/1200/720/360/180/90/45/10).

Both men have played Wimbledon a total of 14 times.

Pete:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x semifinal (720 points)

1 x quarterfinal (360 points)

1 x 4th round (180 points)

2 x 2nd round (90 points)

2 x 1st round (20 points)

Pete's points total = 15370

Roger:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x final (1200 points)

3 x quarterfinal (1080 points)

3 x 1st round (30 points)

Roger's points total = 16310

Roger wins.

Competition and conditions?

 

[fed_rulz]

Competition and conditions?

sure:

competition: Federer beat more top 10 players in his victories. also Federer beat another GOAT-worthy candidate in two of his wins, while Sampras never beat a fellow GOAT-candidate in any of his wins. so Federer wins

conditions: sampras has never lost a wimbledon final, but Federer has, so it appears that conditions favor Sampras. Also, fast grass suits sampras more than slow grass suits Federer. Federer has performed relatively better than Sampras in less favorable conditions, so Federer wins.

 

[sbengte]

Sampras didn't have to beat a single top 20 player for his 7th Wimbledon and his semifinal opponent was ranked 237 ! That is some tough competition alright :neutral:
Remind me again who Fed had to beat in the semifinals and finals for his 7th title.

In summary, for 7 titles

Sampras
avg opponent rank : 67 , avg SF opponent rank : 45, avg final opp rank : 15

Fed
avg opponent rank : 43 , avg SF opponent rank : 18 , avg final opponent rank : 9

 

[fed_rulz]

Sampras didn't have to beat a single top 20 player for his 7th Wimbledon and his semifinal opponent was ranked 237 ! That is some tough competition alright :neutral:
Remind me again who Fed had to beat in the semifinals and finals for his 7th title.

In summary, for 7 titles

Sampras
avg opponent rank : 67 , avg SF opponent rank : 45, avg final opp rank : 15

Fed
avg opponent rank : 43 , avg SF opponent rank : 18 , avg final opponent rank : 9

wow, the bolded tells a good story

for wimbledon wins, the typical opponent that Federer met was ranked higher than Pete's typical SF opponent!!!

** now waits for BeHappy or some other Pete-clown to claim that rankings are not relevant while considering competition **

 

[TMF]

Roger didn't do anything on the previous grass. It was replaced in 2001. He won Wimbledon for the first time in 2003.

Roger would still rule Wimbledon(if not more) had they never changed the grass. He's proven that he can play attacking tennis. In fact, for a 1 handed bh, I think it would be even more easier for him on a slicker, lower bounce surface against the 2 handed bh like Nadal or Nole.

 

[roberttennis54]

Think this has to go to Federer. He has the extra Wimbledon final and has the victory over Pete in the final. It is pretty close, but that is enough to tip the scale in Federer's favour for me.

 

[TMF]

Lets work it out using the current points system used at Wimbledon for reaching each round (2000/1200/720/360/180/90/45/10).

Both men have played Wimbledon a total of 14 times.

Pete:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x semifinal (720 points)

1 x quarterfinal (360 points)

1 x 4th round (180 points)

2 x 2nd round (90 points)

2 x 1st round (20 points)

Pete's points total = 15370

Roger:

7 x title (14000 points)

1 x final (1200 points)

3 x quarterfinal (1080 points)

3 x 1st round (30 points)

Roger's points total = 16310

Roger wins.

Someone posted the win/loss record at their exact same age, and Fed is 67-7 and Pete was 63-7.

 

[pistolPete2012]

sure:

competition: Federer beat more top 10 players in his victories. also Federer beat another GOAT-worthy candidate in two of his wins, while Sampras never beat a fellow GOAT-candidate in any of his wins. so Federer wins

conditions: sampras has never lost a wimbledon final, but Federer has, so it appears that conditions favor Sampras. Also, fast grass suits sampras more than slow grass suits Federer. Federer has performed relatively better than Sampras in less favorable conditions, so Federer wins.

When Federer beat Nadal, Nadal was nowhere near the player on grass he is now. Was lucky to even make the final in 07. Soon as Nadal upped his game on grass Federer lost. Nadal is not a grass court player is the same level as Becker, Ivanesevich or even Rafter. Rankings have only became relevent on grass courts in the last ten years. No coincidence that conincides with grass courts slowing down.

 

[pistolPete2012]

wow, the bolded tells a good story

for wimbledon wins, the typical opponent that Federer met was ranked higher than Pete's typical SF opponent!!!

** now waits for BeHappy or some other Pete-clown to claim that rankings are not relevant while considering competition **

The average opponent being two places higher is irrelevent. Now if the average was 100 higher you may have a point. Two places is the difference between Nadal and his bunny Federer.

 

[helloworld]

Sampras didn't have to beat a single top 20 player for his 7th Wimbledon and his semifinal opponent was ranked 237 ! That is some tough competition alright :neutral:
Remind me again who Fed had to beat in the semifinals and finals for his 7th title.

In summary, for 7 titles

Sampras
avg opponent rank : 67 , avg SF opponent rank : 45, avg final opp rank : 15

Fed
avg opponent rank : 43 , avg SF opponent rank : 18 , avg final opponent rank : 9

Ranking comparison is useless when you know that they are from different eras. Grass in the 90s was so fast that any player were much more prone to get upset. Grass now is basically green clay where upset rarely happens, so highly ranked players are now much less prone to get upset on grass. In the end, it's just useless when you try to compare different eras because everything has changed so much that it is pointless to compare, like apples and oranges...

 

[sbengte]

The average opponent being two places higher is irrelevent.

Reading comprehension fail. Please go re-read the post.

 

[sbengte]

Ranking comparison is useless when you know that they are from different eras. Grass in the 90s was so fast that any player were much more prone to get upset. Grass now is basically green clay where upset rarely happens, so highly ranked players are now much less prone to get upset on grass. In the end, it's just useless when you try to compare different eras because everything has changed so much that it is pointless to compare, like apples and oranges...

While you can bring in several arguments to say why ranking is not the perfect way to compare the quality of competition, it is the best available way. Rankings don't lie and have been around as a way of bench marking a players ability for a good reason.

The surface slow down argument is a different one altogether. Federer has done well on faster surfaces so it is fair to say he would have won nearly as many Wimbledons in the Sampras era.
Sampras' clay record on the other hand paints a not so rosy picture if you extrapolate what he would have won on today's 'green clay'.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

The surface slow down argument is a different one altogether. Federer has done well on faster surfaces so it is fair to say he would have won nearly as many Wimbledons in the Sampras era.
Sampras' clay record on the other hand paints a not so rosy picture if you extrapolate what he would have won on today's 'green clay'.

Fed could even have won more with a faster grass as he is one of the best fast-court player now. People like to mention that he is a baseline player, but he could still beat some Llodra or Mahut on a fast grass Wimbledon.

 

[helloworld]

While you can bring in several arguments to say why ranking is not the perfect way to compare the quality of competition, it is the best available way. Rankings don't lie and have been around as a way of bench marking a players ability for a good reason.

The surface slow down argument is a different one altogether. Federer has done well on faster surfaces so it is fair to say he would have won nearly as many Wimbledons in the Sampras era.
Sampras' clay record on the other hand paints a not so rosy picture if you extrapolate what he would have won on today's 'green clay'.

Not if the rankings are taken from two different eras. Player ranked 1000 from era A may as well beat player ranked 1 in era B, so it is useless to compare.

 

[Mainad]

EQUALLING someone else's record is one thing but Federer now has to try and CREATE a new one of his own by going out and winning an EIGHTH Wimbledon title!

He is a record setter, not just a mere equaliser!

(PS. Though not at Murray's expense, I hope!).

 

[helloworld]

EQUALLING someone else's record is one thing but Federer now has to try and CREATE a new one of his own by going out and winning an EIGHTH Wimbledon title!

He is a record setter, not just a mere equaliser!

(PS. Though not at Murray's expense, I hope!).

I agree. Sampras didn't aim to just tie Borg's Wimbledon record. He aimed to surpass Borg's record by quite some margin.(Let's leave William Renshaw out of this, we know he played 1 match to win his titles against amateurs..). If Federer is really the great player that they say, he should aim to Surpass Sampras' record, not just to tie with him...

 

[MTF07]

I agree. Sampras didn't aim to just tie Borg's Wimbledon record. He aimed to surpass Borg's record by quite some margin.(Let's leave William Renshaw out of this, we know he played 1 match to win his titles against amateurs..). If Federer is really the great player that they say, he should aim to Surpass Sampras' record, not just to tie with him...

And you don't think that's a goal of Fed's?

 

[sbengte]

Not if the rankings are taken from two different eras. Player ranked 1000 from era A may as well beat player ranked 1 in era B, so it is useless to compare.

For a set of players in a given era, the playing conditions etc are all the same. Their rankings are and indication of how good they were in their era, how well they adapted to the conditions that existed then which was the same for everyone. If Sampras on an average got to face relatively lower ranked player in his own era , it is fair to assume he had it easier. We are only bringing in the comparison of relative ranking for Sampras and his generation of opponents and Federer and his generation of opponents, so it is not exactly pointless.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Sampras didn't have to beat a single top 20 player for his 7th Wimbledon and his semifinal opponent was ranked 237 ! That is some tough competition alright :neutral:
Remind me again who Fed had to beat in the semifinals and finals for his 7th title.

In summary, for 7 titles

Sampras
avg opponent rank : 67 , avg SF opponent rank : 45, avg final opp rank : 15

Fed
avg opponent rank : 43 , avg SF opponent rank : 18 , avg final opponent rank : 9

Really interesting stat but I think this has more to do with the fact that there was true surfaces variation between grass, clay, and HC...not to mention alot more indoor HC. Upsets were common because there really were surface specialists. A low ranked clay grinder could take out a top player on clay or guy with nothing but a serve could take out a top player on grass etc. Today, its much more uniformed and there are no real specialists anymore. Everyone plays kind of clay court game now. It would be interesting to see similar stats for Borg at Wimby and FO and Nadal at FO to see if they corroborate.

 

[pistolPete2012]

For a set of players in a given era, the playing conditions etc are all the same. Their rankings are and indication of how good they were in their era, how well they adapted to the conditions that existed then which was the same for everyone. If Sampras on an average got to face relatively lower ranked player in his own era , it is fair to assume he had it easier. We are only bringing in the comparison of relative ranking for Sampras and his generation of opponents and Federer and his generation of opponents, so it is not exactly pointless.

No it isn't fair to say he had it easier. This era is dominated by three players, and a couple of decent ones lagging just behind in Murray and Tsonga.

 

[fed_rulz]

When Federer beat Nadal, Nadal was nowhere near the player on grass he is now. Was lucky to even make the final in 07. Soon as Nadal upped his game on grass Federer lost. Nadal is not a grass court player is the same level as Becker, Ivanesevich or even Rafter. Rankings have only became relevent on grass courts in the last ten years. No coincidence that conincides with grass courts slowing down.

And Becker was nowhere the player that he was when sampras was beating him; and Ivanisevic was a ZERO slam winner all the times that Pete him. Does not stop Pete-apologists from claiming superior competition, now does it?

 

[fed_rulz]

No it isn't fair to say he had it easier. This era is dominated by three players, and a couple of decent ones lagging just behind in Murray and Tsonga.

you don't have any points to make -- you just keep going in circles.

 

[dh003i]

Federer and Sampras are clearly the two candidates for the greatest of all time on grass. Comparing them is difficult.

Who'd win more if they played eachother in 10 W finals? Who'd take more W victories in the 90s if they both played then? If they both played now? (remember Sampras was initially a baseliner and converted to being a S&V player; he would do fine in this era).

We don't know the answers to these questions and anyone who thinks they do is wrong.

 

[pistolPete2012]

And Becker was nowhere the player that he was when sampras was beating him; and Ivanisevic was a ZERO slam winner all the times that Pete him. Does not stop Pete-apologists from claiming superior competition, now does it?

And nobody has faced Federer in the final as a previous Wimbledon winner.

 

[merlinpinpin]

And nobody has faced Federer in the final as a previous Wimbledon winner.

This argument is as silly as it gets. Don't be surprised if someone answers that Sampras never beat a seven-time winner at Wimbledon... :roll:

My advice to Sampras fans: go for generalizations such as "they're roughly equal and it's pretty hard to say who is the best", and whatever you do, *don't* ever try and put forward arguments such as "level of competition" and all that rubbish. Cause, as you've seen repeatedly, the figures favour Federer. And I mean, *all* of them. Played an additional final, won their only match, beat higher-ranked opponents overall, beat more top 10 players, beat higher-ranked opponents at the latter stages of the tournament, has a better win-loss ratio, won under a roof, won the year where the stadium was more windy because the roof was a work in progress, etc., etc.

Stay away from facts and numbers at all cost, they will only hurt your case by pointing clearly the way you don't want them to point.

(On a personal note, I would have said roughly equal, as I didn't think Federer had the edge in just about every category. Now the Sampras fans really have me wondering--maybe good old Pete is clearly number two, after all...)

 

[pistolPete2012]

Playing an additional final doesn't account for much because he got owned by a clay court specialist on green clay. Federer did beat Sampras and then lost to Henman who Pete beat twice at Wimbledon in the SF when Henman and Pete were both at their prime. The top 10 rankings don't mean anything because back in the 90's there's was almost like a different rank for grass. Now it's all the same for every slam. Nadal losing to Rosol being the exception, but really it's like 90% guaranteed who the semi-finalists for every slam are. At Wimbledon it never was that way until early 2000's. As I said on one on my first posts. If Sampras-Federer play on 90's grass it favours Sampras, his serve comes more into it for a start. On todays grass it favours Federer. But it's either way close and that was shown by a past it Sampras and a young inconsistent Federer going 5 sets.

 

[smoledman]

Playing an additional final doesn't account for much because he got owned by a clay court specialist on green clay. Federer did beat Sampras and then lost to Henman who Pete beat twice at Wimbledon in the SF when Henman and Pete were both at their prime. The top 10 rankings don't mean anything because back in the 90's there's was almost like a different rank for grass. Now it's all the same for every slam. Nadal losing to Rosol being the exception, but really it's like 90% guaranteed who the semi-finalists for every slam are. At Wimbledon it never was that way until early 2000's. As I said on one on my first posts. If Sampras-Federer play on 90's grass it favours Sampras, his serve comes more into it for a start. On todays grass it favours Federer. But it's either way close and that was shown by a past it Sampras and a young inconsistent Federer going 5 sets.

Remember Pete won all his Wimbledons on the old grass. AELTC changed to the rye-hybrid grass in 2001 and it's no coincidence Roger beat Pete on that new grass and Roger has of course won all 7 on the new stuff.

 

[mellowyellow]

Remember Pete won all his Wimbledons on the old grass. AELTC changed to the rye-hybrid grass in 2001 and it's no coincidence Roger beat Pete on that new grass and Roger has of course won all 7 on the new stuff.

Too add to that, Fed did not seem capable on the ridiculously high bounce and slower grass of last few more recent years...

 

[fed_rulz]

Playing an additional final doesn't account for much because he got owned by a clay court specialist on green clay. Federer did beat Sampras and then lost to Henman who Pete beat twice at Wimbledon in the SF when Henman and Pete were both at their prime. The top 10 rankings don't mean anything because back in the 90's there's was almost like a different rank for grass. Now it's all the same for every slam. Nadal losing to Rosol being the exception, but really it's like 90% guaranteed who the semi-finalists for every slam are. At Wimbledon it never was that way until early 2000's. As I said on one on my first posts. If Sampras-Federer play on 90's grass it favours Sampras, his serve comes more into it for a start. On todays grass it favours Federer. But it's either way close and that was shown by a past it Sampras and a young inconsistent Federer going 5 sets.

translation: anything objective data that favors Federer does not count; only subjective Pete-fanboi opinions count.

got it!

 

[West Coast Ace]

translation: anything objective data that favors Federer does not count; only subjective Pete-fanboi opinions count.

got it!

+1. Medical Science needs to step in and do something about SJSS - Sampras Jock Sniffing Syndrome. It is tragic disease that must be eradicated.

 

[timnz]

Grass Change after the 2001 tournament was completed

Remember Pete won all his Wimbledons on the old grass. AELTC changed to the rye-hybrid grass in 2001 and it's no coincidence Roger beat Pete on that new grass and Roger has of course won all 7 on the new stuff.

Actually that's not correct. The grass wasn't changed until after the tournament was completed, later in 2001 (happened August/September). That is why the grass change was first noted in the 2002 tournament by players such as Tim Henmen who noticed a massive slowdown. I think it goes to partially explaining Sampras' early loss in the 2002 tournament (along with his indifferent form). 2001 sadly was the last Wimbledon tournament played on fast court grass. No concidence that two fast court players made the 2001 finals - Goran and Rafter - as it was still on fast grass.

It's amazing how whole tennis careers are dependent on court surface. Doubt whether Sampras would have won 7 times if they had made the change to slow grass 10 years earlier. He would still have won a fair bit given his awesome talent though. If it had been made 15 years before - Lendl I believe would have won Wimbledon a few times. (Upon close analysis Lendl didn't have a problem holding serve, his problem was breaking serve on the old fast grass - the slow down would have been enormously helpful). To look it the other way - it is doubtful that Nadal would have won any Wimbledon's if we were still on the fast grass (look at his record at the WTF which is on a far slower surface than pre-2002 Wimbledon). So again, it is amazing how careers are reputations hang on court surfaces and speeds.

 

[fed_rulz]

+1. Medical Science needs to step in and do something about SJSS - Sampras Jock Sniffing Syndrome. It is tragic disease that must be eradicated.

LOL -- it appears to be turning into an epidemic in the tribe that lives in Pete cave. Symptoms include denial, hallucination, tendency to indulge in hyperbole over the mundane

 

[pistolPete2012]

translation: anything objective data that favors Federer does not count; only subjective Pete-fanboi opinions count.

got it!

Of course you're obviously a neutral with your username. Not a fanboy at all you. Everything you post is biased towards Federer. Becker was an inferior grass court player to Roddick of course. Ivanisevic was a joke of a player on grass compared to the great Mark philippoussis.

 

[pistolPete2012]

+1. Medical Science needs to step in and do something about SJSS - Sampras Jock Sniffing Syndrome. It is tragic disease that must be eradicated.

Federer Fellatio is abundant on here.

 

[fed_rulz]

Of course you're obviously a neutral with your username. Not a fanboy at all you. Everything you post is biased towards Federer. Becker was an inferior grass court player to Roddick of course. Ivanisevic was a joke of a player on grass compared to the great Mark philippoussis.

learn to read -- i said "objective data" not "objective poster" -- there is no objective poster.

you continue to skirt the issue on Becker vs Roddick -- Roddick of 2004 >> Becker of 1993, 95 and 97. I never made any comparison b/n the scud and ivanisevic, so feel free to do so.

 

[fed_rulz]

Federer Fellatio is abundant on here.

not as rampant as Sampras suckage..

 

[pistolPete2012]

learn to read -- i said "objective data" not "objective poster" -- there is no objective poster.

you continue to skirt the issue on Becker vs Roddick -- Roddick of 2004 >> Becker of 1993, 95 and 97. I never made any comparison b/n the scud and ivanisevic, so feel free to do so.

Of course, you don't want to mention anything about your boyfriends easy ride to his first slam. Obviously a past it Becker is inferior to a prime Roddick who won his first US open before he met Federer at Wimbledon compared to Becker who lost twice before he won his last slam that was a US open.

 

[pistolPete2012]

not as rampant as Sampras suckage..

You're joking right? If Federer was gay he'd look no further then here for his next butt buddy.

 

[fed_rulz]

Of course, you don't want to mention anything about your boyfriends easy ride to his first slam. Obviously a past it Becker is inferior to a prime Roddick who won his first US open before he met Federer at Wimbledon compared to Becker who lost twice before he won his last slam that was a US open.

ahh, the irony of it, coming from pistolpete2012 , who signed up on these boards exclusively to protect Pete's honor. Here's your very "first" post on these boards:

What the heck. I had to sign up because I can't believe all the crap being spouted on here about Pete. ....

as to the 2nd sentence, i have no clue on what you're talking about. perhaps, the butt hurt is impeding your ability to articulate??

 

[SLD76]

Actually that's not correct. The grass wasn't changed until after the tournament was completed, later in 2001 (happened August/September). That is why the grass change was first noted in the 2002 tournament by players such as Tim Henmen who noticed a massive slowdown. I think it goes to partially explaining Sampras' early loss in the 2002 tournament (along with his indifferent form). 2001 sadly was the last Wimbledon tournament played on fast court grass. No concidence that two fast court players made the 2001 finals - Goran and Rafter - as it was still on fast grass.

It's amazing how whole tennis careers are dependent on court surface. Doubt whether Sampras would have won 7 times if they had made the change to slow grass 10 years earlier. He would still have won a fair bit given his awesome talent though. If it had been made 15 years before - Lendl I believe would have won Wimbledon a few times. (Upon close analysis Lendl didn't have a problem holding serve, his problem was breaking serve on the old fast grass - the slow down would have been enormously helpful). To look it the other way - it is doubtful that Nadal would have won any Wimbledon's if we were still on the fast grass (look at his record at the WTF which is on a far slower surface than pre-2002 Wimbledon). So again, it is amazing how careers are reputations hang on court surfaces and speeds.

\

/thread.


we have some lovely partings gifts waiting.

 

[kiki]

Actually that's not correct. The grass wasn't changed until after the tournament was completed, later in 2001 (happened August/September). That is why the grass change was first noted in the 2002 tournament by players such as Tim Henmen who noticed a massive slowdown. I think it goes to partially explaining Sampras' early loss in the 2002 tournament (along with his indifferent form). 2001 sadly was the last Wimbledon tournament played on fast court grass. No concidence that two fast court players made the 2001 finals - Goran and Rafter - as it was still on fast grass.

It's amazing how whole tennis careers are dependent on court surface. Doubt whether Sampras would have won 7 times if they had made the change to slow grass 10 years earlier. He would still have won a fair bit given his awesome talent though. If it had been made 15 years before - Lendl I believe would have won Wimbledon a few times. (Upon close analysis Lendl didn't have a problem holding serve, his problem was breaking serve on the old fast grass - the slow down would have been enormously helpful). To look it the other way - it is doubtful that Nadal would have won any Wimbledon's if we were still on the fast grass (look at his record at the WTF which is on a far slower surface than pre-2002 Wimbledon). So again, it is amazing how careers are reputations hang on court surfaces and speeds.

I can´t agree more.Indoors and Grass have completley reversed its conditions ( while hard and clay have changed relatively less), so it is umpossible to maje any serious choice between the old grass ( till late 90´s) and the 21 century grass courts.

Nadal wouldn´t get past the quarters on old grass, just as Vilas never got beyond the quarters at Wimbledon.

 

[pistolPete2012]

ahh, the irony of it, coming from pistolpete2012 , who signed up on these boards exclusively to protect Pete's honor. Here's your very "first" post on these boards:



as to the 2nd sentence, i have no clue on what you're talking about. perhaps, the butt hurt is impeding your ability to articulate??

That's all you needed to say.