The Kings of Grass

[Zara]

You're glossing over the fact that this occurred after 2001. A far greater achievement was Agassi winning in 1992 by beating Forget, McEnroe and then Goran on fast grass, without type 3 balls and without poly. As far as achievements by baseliners at Wimbledon go, that's second only to Borg.

Yes but McEnroe was not in his prime and Goran was only getting there and Agassi’s game was quite suitable on fast grass, so that was not highly unexpected. Once Sampras peaked, of course, Agassi had no chance. He was lucky he got the Wimbledon out of the way otherwise he would have been short of that.

 

[Hitman]

What do you think, should Lendl have tried to win Wimbledon in Agassi style and not attempting the for him rather unnatural serve&volley style?

I think he should have tried. Lendl's game was highly modified from his natural game for the grass, which allowed the more natural grass players to beat him. It kind of reminds me of Becker on the clay, instead of sticking to his game, and building around it, he chose to grind points out, and as result he got hurt. Take for example McEnroe, Rafter, Edberg, they got very deep into RG playing their game, heck even Henman did. Lendl had a very good baseline game, probably the best of his time, he should have believed in it more IMO. Add the S and V for surprise and calculated attacks and play, but don't stray too far away from the fundamentals of your game. Agassi believed in his game.

 

[Zara]

So when they say Nadal would be able to win on 90s grass, because he would find a way to win, we can't assume that either, it is just imaginary stuff, right? Fair enough.

Of course, we can never underestimate a champion’s mindset but still, highly unlikely. I just can’t be 100% sure. I just won’t say anything for sure.

 

[ForehandRF]

@Zara The speed of the surface is not an excuse.I talked about it in the context with the user I replied.He put a dig on Federer because he lost to a 'clay court specialist' (incorrect to call Nadal that way) and compared that case with another case in the 90s, when grass was different.I'm not excusing Fed's loss so you missed my point.I always credited Nadal for his victory.

 

[ForehandRF]

If Lendl played on grass post 2001, he would have likely won Wimbledon also.

Yeah, I believe the same thing.He would have won the title from the baseline.

 

[NatF]

The point is, when Nadal beat Federer, he was primarily a clay specialist and Wimbledon was his first big win outside clay and he beat Federer, the apparent grass king who was at his peak at the moment.

On the other hand, Sampras was beaten by Kraijack who was also great on grass or had the game to be lethal on grass and upset anyone even Pete.

It would have been unheard of to be beaten by a clay specialist on grass in the final no less in the 90s. Especially if you take into a player like Federer into account who’s supposed to be the grass king.

No excuses please.

Nadal was a two time Wimbledon finalist by then how many Wimbledon finals had Krajicek made in 1996?

I have no interest in discussing this with you, the one makng excuses is you - not to mention the disrespect you're showing to Nadal. Calling him a clay specialist in 2008 when he made more Wimbledon finals in that three year spell than in the 11 years since.

Again the only reason I brought up Krajicek is because of the double standards I saw...

 

[Zara]

@Zara The speed of the surface is not an excuse.I talked about it in the context with the user I replied.He put a dig on Federer because he lost to a clay court specialist at the time and compared that case with another case in the 90s, when grass was different.I'm not excusing Fed's loss so you missed my point.I always credited Nadal for his victory.

Regardless, I am saying Federer should have not allowed this if you want to call him the king of grass which is the title of this thread.

When we call Nadal the undisputed king of clay, it makes 100% sense. But we can’t call Federer the undisputed grass king because his resume has that loss to Nadal and Sampras is too close to him who won 7 Wimbledon in 8 years span. It’s not a clear cut title.

 

[ForehandRF]

Regardless, I am saying Federer should have not allowed this if you want to call him the king of grass which is the title of this thread.

When we call Nadal the undisputed king of clay, it makes 100% sense. But we can’t call Federer the undisputed grass king because his resume has that loss to Nadal and Sampras is too close to him who won 7 Wimbledon in 8 years span. It’s not a clear cut title.

Fed's overall grass resume is superiour to Pete's, but you can argue who is the Wimbledon King if you want.Sampras was more dominant in the finals, but Federer won there more titles, won 5 in a row and reached 7 consecutive finals.Now Federer lost more to his rivals, but he played longer than Pete and in the 90s there weren't players of Rafole's calibre anyway.If you look at their overall grass resume, Federer is the undisputed King on the surface.Then again, you can argue who is the Wimbledon King but it's tough to go against 8 titles and 12 finals.

 

[Hitman]

Yeah, I believe the same thing.He would have won the title from the baseline.

Lendl was an incredible player, he just needed to have more faith in his own game on the grass.

 

[Zara]

Nadal was a two time Wimbledon finalist by then how many Wimbledon finals had Krajicek made in 1996?

I have no interest in discussing this with you, the one makng excuses is you - not to mention the disrespect you're showing to Nadal. Calling him a clay specialist in 2008 when he made more Wimbledon finals in that three year spell than in the 11 years since.

Again the only reason I brought up Krajicek is because of the double standards I saw...

I believe 70% of Nadal’s titles are on clay. Safe to say he’s a clay specialist first. This is not a myth but a fact.

Of course two things helped Nadal to make the Wimbledon finals: 1) the slow surface, 2) the lack of depth on grass at that time. @helterskelter would agree with me on this I sure.

But that doesn’t mean Federer would allow Nadal to beat him at Wimbledon. Just like Nadal never allowed Federer to beat him on clay or at RG.

Even Djokovic beat Federer at Wimbledon a few times now and we had always thought that was his least favourite surface. But then again I see Federer past his prime so I typically don’t read too much into those wins.

Btw, it’s very clever of you to say that I am disrespecting Nadal by calling him a clay specialist when it’s a fact that that’s his best surface. It’s almost like you want to turn Nadal fans against me. I have nothing but huge respect for Nadal and for all of them in fact

This is just a discussion but you seem to get personal at the mere mention of it. Pity, really.

 

[Sabrina]

I still think Sampras is a better grass-courter than Federer. Obviously Fed is clearly greater than him now. I just feel that Sampras is more of a grass player and having a higher peak level.

 

[Zara]

Fed's overall grass resume is superiour to Pete's, but you can argue who is the Wimbledon King if you want.Sampras was more dominant in the finals, but Federer won there more titles, won 5 in a row and reached 7 consecutive finals.Now Federer lost more to his rivals, but he played longer than Pete and in the 90s there weren't players of Rafole's calibre anyway.If you look at their overall grass resume, Federer is the undisputed King on the surface.Then again, you can argue who is the Wimbledon King but it's tough to go against 8 titles and 12 finals.

Results are a fact but there are also a lot of subjective elements to it. Sampras retired when there was no one chasing him so he didn’t need to play longer, for example. If he did, where would have that led him if he had a rival breathing down on his neck constantly? Also, the 90s field had a greater depth whereas, Federer main rival in those days was Nadal, primarily a clay courter; albeit a greater champion. So the grass field lacked a certain depth (no true grass couters etc.).

So these subjective elements do not allow for a clear choice on grass. Nadal is the clear choice as far as clay and RG is concerned. That much I can say with authority.

 

[Enceladus]

What are you getting at?

From 1961-1969, Laver won 4 out of 4 Wimbledons and 4 out of 5 Wembly Pros - played on wood, the speed of which anyone who started watching tennis within the last 20 years can't even begin to imagine.

From 1960-1962, Laver made the final of every AO, Wimbledon and USO, all on grass. Of course in 1962 he won a calendar year grand slam, winning on the grubby dirt as well.

He then turned pro for 5 years, eligible to enter 15 pro slams. He made the final of 14 of those 15 pro slams. In 1967 he won the pro circuit calendar year grand slam.

In 1969, he won an Open calendar year grand slam. During that entire period, he was facing players like Rosewall, Emerson, Roche, Newcombe, Stolle, Fraser, Fletcher, Gonzeles, Okker, Drysdale, Smith, etc .. and dominating.

There's a reason Sampras and Federer idolise Laver, despite punks thinking he only won two Open Era Wimbys.

The message, which I responded to was message with a list of Wimbledon titles in the Open Era. And in this list missed Laver and Newcombe, who won two Wimbledon titles in the Open Era. That they both won Wimbledon before the Open era is another matter.

 

[NatF]

I believe 70% of Nadal’s titles are on clay. Safe to say he’s a clay specialist first. This is not a myth but a fact.

Of course two things helped Nadal to make the Wimbledon finals: 1) the slow surface, 2) the lack of depth on grass at that time. @helterskelter would agree with me on this I sure.

But that doesn’t mean Federer would allow Nadal to beat him at Wimbledon. Just like Nadal never allowed Federer to beat him on clay or at RG.

Even Djokovic beat Federer at Wimbledon a few times now and we had always thought that was his least favourite surface. But then again I see Federer past his prime so I typically don’t read too much into those wins.

Btw, it’s very clever of you to say that I am disrespecting Nadal by calling him a clay specialist when it’s a fact that that’s his best surface. It’s almost like you want to turn Nadal fans against me. I have nothing but huge respect for Nadal and for all of them in fact

This is just a discussion but you seem to get personal at the mere mention of it. Pity, really.

When did I get personal?

Nadal still has an ATG career outside of clay, personally I do think his record is very clay skewed in many respects and that does influence how I rate him in historical terms a little - but I wouldn't call him a clay specialist.

You're not going to convince me that losing in five sets in the final to Nadal is much worse than losing in straight sets to Krajicek in the quarters. Krajicek was a man possessed and his game is more traditionally suited to grass but Sampras lost in straight sets - I'm sure if Fed got bombed out of Wimbledon in that fashion and it was Sampras losing to Andre in the final you'd be singing the opposite tune. If Fed losing to his biggest nemesis in five set final is a huge stain then so is losing in straights to Krajicek. That's it.

I don't really mind if you think Sampras is the king of grass, you're right it's no where near as indisputable as on clay. I just dislike the argument being used against Fed here. Better to focus on what made Sampras so great there and his record rather than trying to pick holes in Federer. It's rather irritating that in any discussion the first thing that comes up isn't "X did this so well" it's "Y sucks at this". I do think Federer is pretty solidly ahead in overall grass record, but for peak level you can make a great case for Sampras over anyone.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I believe 70% of Nadal’s titles are on clay. Safe to say he’s a clay specialist first. This is not a myth but a fact.

Of course two things helped Nadal to make the Wimbledon finals: 1) the slow surface, 2) the lack of depth on grass at that time. @helterskelter would agree with me on this I sure.

But that doesn’t mean Federer would allow Nadal to beat him at Wimbledon. Just like Nadal never allowed Federer to beat him on clay or at RG.

Even Djokovic beat Federer at Wimbledon a few times now and we had always thought that was his least favourite surface. But then again I see Federer past his prime so I typically don’t read too much into those wins.

Btw, it’s very clever of you to say that I am disrespecting Nadal by calling him a clay specialist when it’s a fact that that’s his best surface. It’s almost like you want to turn Nadal fans against me. I have nothing but huge respect for Nadal and for all of them in fact

This is just a discussion but you seem to get personal at the mere mention of it. Pity, really.

Novak is 3-0 in Wimbledon finals vs Fed if I am not wrong.
Rafa beat Fed in Feds 20s.
Sampras wasn’t beaten by his greatest rivals in Wimbledon. Sampras was a more dominant on grass than Federer was/is.
Fed had better longevity.

 

[ForehandRF]

Results are a fact but there are also a lot of subjective elements to it. Sampras retired when there was no one chasing him so he didn’t need to play longer, for example. If he did, where would have that led him if he had a rival breathing down on his neck constantly? Also, the 90s field had a greater depth whereas, Federer main rival in those days was Nadal, primarily a clay courter; albeit a greater champion. So the grass field lacked a certain depth (no true grass couters etc.).

So these subjective elements do not allow for a clear choice on grass. Nadal is the clear choice as far as clay and RG is concerned. That much I can say with authority.

Roddick was very good on grass though( unfortunately he never receives the adequate credit for that ) and his performances in 2004 or 2009 showed it, so it's not like only Nadal was a threat to Fed.You can say but Roddick couldn't do it, but there is a big difference on how Fed matched up with big servers on grass and how he matched up with a lefty forehand coming from a player like Rafa.That was the worst case scenario.
Yeah Rafa is something else on his home turf.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yeah, I believe the same thing.He would have won the title from the baseline.

Yep, remove volley from the equation and Lendl is almost as good at Wimbledon as he was elsewhere. His big serve would hold up great and his groundstrokes would shine on today's grass.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You're glossing over the fact that this occurred after 2001. A far greater achievement was Agassi winning in 1992 by beating Forget, McEnroe and then Goran on fast grass, without type 3 balls and without poly. As far as achievements by baseliners at Wimbledon go, that's second only to Borg.

Becker, not Forget. McEnroe beat Forget in QF. Beating Becker was huge, that I respect a lot. McEnroe though was past his prime and had a nice draw, his agility at net was well declined. Ivanisevic was strong but let himself down mentally in typical fashion, he wasn't as consistent on grass as Becker and had some stupid losses in his prime like Stoltenberg in 1996 so I don't think it's that incredible. Becker alone made it a great run though.

 

[NatF]

Roddick was very good on grass though( unfortunately he never receives the adequate credit for that ) and his performances in 2004 or 2009 showed it, so it's not like only Nadal was a threat to Fed.You can say but Roddick couldn't do it, but there is a big difference on how Fed matched up with big servers on grass and how he matched up with a lefty forehand coming from a player like Rafa.That was the worst case scenario.
Yeah Rafa is something else on his home turf.

Guys like Roddick and Hewitt were record holders at Queen's. It's also debatable that the slower grass means more depth as most of the field can play on it now. The talk of grass specialists in the 90's is well overblown, S&V outside of Wimbledon was already dying. The best grass courter besides Pete back then was probably Ivanisevic (as Becker was past his best), certainly he was formidable but he was also a bit of a headcase. The likes of Henman, older Becker, Philippoussis and later Rafter were all very good grass courts but it was hardly a murders row of grass court specialists when they didn't really overlap that much.

 

[Zara]

Roddick was very good on grass though( unfortunately he never receives the adequate credit for that ) and his performances in 2004 or 2009 showed it, so it's not like only Nadal was a threat to Fed.You can say but Roddick couldn't do it, but there is a big difference on how Fed matched up with big servers on grass and how he matched up with a lefty forehand coming from a player like Rafa.That was the worst case scenario.
Yeah Rafa is something else on his home turf.

Roddick was quite good but he never had the champion mindset. What Nadal could do Roddick couldn’t do even with a game that was ideal for grass. That’s the difference I suppose. I just don’t see Roddick a high calibre of a player. Certainly not a champion or a true threat or rival to those of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. He gave his 100% in each match and that made the match itself harder but that’s all there was.

 

[NoleFam]

Guys like Roddick and Hewitt were record holders at Queen's. It's also debatable that the slower grass means more depth as most of the field can play on it now. The talk of grass specialists in the 90's is well overblown, S&V outside of Wimbledon was already dying. The best grass courter besides Pete back then was probably Ivanisevic (as Becker was past his best), certainly he was formidable but he was also a bit of a headcase. The likes of Henman, older Becker, Philippoussis and later Rafter were all very good grass courts but it was hardly a murders row of grass court specialists when they didn't really overlap that much.

Pete had Ivanisevic, Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Philippoussis, and Agassi. So I would say that was a pretty strong field to deal with and 75% of them preferred grass as their best surface. So there were specialists back then but maybe not as many as some proclaim so I can agree with that. On the other hand, I don't know about slower grass meaning more depth and it's probably about the same. I do agree with Zara though that Nadal benefitted early on on grass because he was almost taken out by a qualifier in the 2nd round in 2006 and by Soderling, who was not a grass specialist by any means, in the 2007 3rd round. If he had a bit of a stronger field, would he have made those two finals?

 

[RS]

Roddick was quite good but he never had the champion mindset. What Nadal could do Roddick couldn’t do even with a game that was ideal for grass. That’s the difference I suppose. I just don’t see Roddick a high calibre of a player. Certainly not a champion or a true threat or rival to those of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. He gave his 100% in each match and that made the match itself harder but that’s all there was.

Roddick was quite a threat to Nadal/Djokovic. But not Murray or Federer he got stomped on by those 2 so.

 

[NatF]

Pete had Ivanisevic, Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Philippoussis, and Agassi. So I would say that was a pretty strong field to deal with and 75% of them preferred grass as their best surface. So there were specialists back then but maybe not as many as some proclaim so I can agree with that. On the other hand, I don't know about slower grass meaning more depth and it's probably about the same. I do agree with Zara though that Nadal benefitted early on on grass because he was almost taken out by a qualifier in the 2nd round in 2006 and by Soderling, who was not a grass specialist by any means, in the 2007 3rd round. If he had a bit of a stronger field, would he have made those two finals?

Nadal almost got taken out a couple of times in 2010 too, no need to talking about 2012-2017, so not just in his early years...

I'm glad you didn't include Edberg in that list of players like most people do I'm not saying that Sampras didn't have some deep draws, but I don't consider that field much better than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick etc...

Roddick was quite a threat to Nadal/Djokovic. But not Murray or Federer he got stomped on by those 2 so.

Arod won his biggest match with Muray doe

 

[RS]

Nadal almost got taken out a couple of times in 2010 too, no need to talking about 2012-2017, so not just in his early years...

I'm glad you didn't include Edberg in that list of players like most people do I'm not saying that Sampras didn't have some deep draws, but I don't consider that field much better than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick etc...



Arod won his biggest match with Muray doe

Roddick did win in the best match they played in 2009 but he go down in straights in 2006 even though that was not his best Murray was a teen.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal almost got taken out a couple of times in 2010 too, no need to talking about 2012-2017, so not just in his early years...

I'm glad you didn't include Edberg in that list of players like most people do I'm not saying that Sampras didn't have some deep draws, but I don't consider that field much better than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick etc...



Arod won his biggest match with Muray doe

He got pushed to 5 sets twice in 2010 but wasn't close to losing like he was in 2006 and 2007. I feel like we are opening another can of worms here though.

Oh I don't either but I would say he had specialists to deal with though.

 

[NatF]

Roddick did win in the best match they played in 2009 but he go down in straights in 2006 even though that was not his best Murray was a teen.

And that was Roddick at his best? Both were closer to their bests in 2009.

 

[RS]

And that was Roddick at his best? Both were closer to their bests in 2009.

Yeah i said Wimbeldon 2009 was the best match with both closest to the best form both were playing at. Murray played at a high level and still lost. Still it was a very close match Roddick actually edged it by 2 more points won.

 

[Sabrina]

Nadal almost got taken out a couple of times in 2010 too, no need to talking about 2012-2017, so not just in his early years...

I'm glad you didn't include Edberg in that list of players like most people do I'm not saying that Sampras didn't have some deep draws, but I don't consider that field much better than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick etc...



Arod won his biggest match with Muray doe

I prefer Sampras over Federer but yeah, Roddick 2009 or Nadal 2007 were far tougher than 1995 Becker who served 16 double faults in the F.

 

[NatF]

Yeah i said Wimbeldon 2009 was the best match with both closest to the best form both were playing at. Murray played at a high level and still lost. Still it was a very close match Roddick actually edged it by 2 more points won.

Well then, I don't see what a slumping Roddick back from an injury at the FO in 2006 and a young Murray has to do with it then...

 

[NatF]

I prefer Sampras over Federer but yeah, Roddick 2009 or Nadal 2007 were far tougher than 1995 Becker who served 16 double faults in the F.

I'd say 2004 Roddick as well. I'd put 1995 Ivanisevic as maybe the best of all of them but otherwise I think level of play wise Fed's opponents hold up very well.

 

[RS]

Well then, I don't see what a slumping Roddick back from an injury at the FO in 2006 and a young Murray has to do with it then...

I think i mentioned Roddick not being at his best in the first post even the i should have made it more clear since it was a level playing field for both i will just say the 1-1 at slams is fair.

 

[Zara]

Roddick did win in the best match they played in 2009 but he go down in straights in 2006 even though that was not his best Murray was a teen.

As a Murray fan who followed him very closely around that time, I’d say, that loss in 2009 had more to do with Murray than Roddick. But I am glad Roddick made the final as he gave a better final than Murray would have given. AM was just not ready for the big win yet whereas it was Roddick’s last chance.

 

[Zara]

He got pushed to 5 sets twice in 2010 but wasn't close to losing like he was in 2006 and 2007. I feel like we are opening another can of worms here though.

Oh I don't either but I would say he had specialists to deal with though.

Mote importantly, Federer 5 Wimbledon came from 2003 to 2007 and only Nadal was there as a true contender. Both Djokovic and Murray were only coming into the picture and were far from their prime. While Roddick was a solid player, he didn’t have the means or the mindset to beat a prime Federer. That leaves Hewitt who was washed up by that time. Though better than Roddick in terms of mentality, didn’t have the weapons or the health to hurt a prime Federer in the true sense. Not a true grass court player either.

 

[NoleFam]

The sad thing about Roddick is he actually had the weapons to achieve more but not the belief or mindset. His level in the 2004 Wimbledon final was mindblowing and he was just ripping the match from Federer's hands and then the rain delay happened, and he came back out without the intensity he had. That was the story of Roddick's career. I do agree though that the grass field in particular did not have many challengers early on and there was a void there until Djokovic and Murray matured.

 

[Hitman]

The sad thing about Roddick is he actually had the weapons to achieve more but not the belief or mindset. His level in the 2004 Wimbledon final was mindblowing and he was just ripping the match from Federer's hands and then the rain delay happened, and he came back out without the intensity he had. That was the story of Roddick's career. I do agree though that the grass field in particular did not have many challengers early on and there was a void there until Djokovic and Murray matured.

I have never seen peak Federer manhandled on grass in the way Roddick did at the start of that W 2004 final. He was like a hurricane, Federer was blown away.

 

[Sabrina]

The sad thing about Roddick is he actually had the weapons to achieve more but not the belief or mindset. His level in the 2004 Wimbledon final was mindblowing and he was just ripping the match from Federer's hands and then the rain delay happened, and he came back out without the intensity he had. That was the story of Roddick's career. I do agree though that the grass field in particular did not have many challengers early on and there was a void there until Djokovic and Murray matured.

Roddick was unlucky in the 2004 GS: Safin AO 2004, Federer Wimbledon 2004 and J.Johasson Us Open 2004. He could have won any of those matches.

 

[Zara]

And I don’t consider Djokovic a true grass courtrr either and it does feel strange when I say it given his 5 Wimbledon and perhaps 1 or 2 more.

I was though disappointed at his performance at this years Wimbledon. I was expecting a clear win over Federer but he ended up making a big mess out of it and not only that but was also on the verge of losing the match. But I also get that his performance was not quite there as he’d been a winning a lot and in that sense, Federer was fresher of the two and had the crowd support that gave him the extra lift.

 

[NoleFam]

I have never seen peak Federer manhandled on grass in the way Roddick did at the start of that W 2004 final. He was like a hurricane, Federer was blown away.

He was raining bombs on Centre Court that day. I was rooting for him and I actually thought he was going to win that one. That was before anyone emerged as the dominant force from that group of players. I never saw him reach that level of play again.

 

[Zara]

Roddick was unlucky in the 2004 GS: Safin AO 2004, Federer Wimbledon 2004 and J.Johasson Us Open 2004. He could have won any of those matches.

If he had the mindset he probably would have won those matches. But not all are all that and champions like Federer do tend to find their ways.

 

[NoleFam]

Roddick was unlucky in the 2004 GS: Safin AO 2004, Federer Wimbledon 2004 and J.Johasson Us Open 2004. He could have won any of those matches.

I missed the Safin match but I wish he had won it and we got a Federer/Roddick final which would have been much closer than the one we got imo. I remember bits of the Johan match.

 

[Hitman]

He was raining bombs on Centre Court that day. I was rooting for him and I actually thought he was going to win that one. That was before anyone emerged as the dominant force from that group of players. I never saw him reach that level of play again.

Yes, heading into that match, Roddick and Federer were seen as equals, with many others close behind. Roddick had massive belief in his game, and he was tearing the court apart, Federer was feeling the full force of those shots. The serves were bombs, the forehand was bullying Federer, it seemed like Andy had it.

 

[Sabrina]

Yes, heading into that match, Roddick and Federer were seen as equals, with many others close behind. Roddick had massive belief in his game, and he was tearing the court apart, Federer was feeling the full force of those shots. The serves were bombs, the forehand was bullying Federer, it seemed like Andy had it.

I read somewhere that Roddick would have also returned to No.1 if he had managed to win the 2004 Wimbledon. Though by my own calculation even if you reversed the Wimbledon 2004 F result, Roger would still be number 1.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, heading into that match, Roddick and Federer were seen as equals, with many others close behind. Roddick had massive belief in his game, and he was tearing the court apart, Federer was feeling the full force of those shots. The serves were bombs, the forehand was bullying Federer, it seemed like Andy had it.

Yep at that time it was basically Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, and then Hewitt behind them. Yea Federer could not read his serve at all, was getting outhit and Roddick had all the momentum. Tennis is a cruel sport in a lot of ways because it can just turn at the drop of dime. After the rain delay, it was totally reversed.

 

[NatF]

He got pushed to 5 sets twice in 2010 but wasn't close to losing like he was in 2006 and 2007. I feel like we are opening another can of worms here though.

Oh I don't either but I would say he had specialists to deal with though.

He was on the ropes against better players in 2007 at least. I don't remember the exact scores to know how in danger he was of losing though

 

[NoleFam]

He was on the ropes against better players in 2007 at least. I don't remember the exact scores to know how in danger he was of losing though

He was very close to losing to Soderling—a match that stretched over 3 or 4 days.

Edit—make that 5 days, just checked.

 

[NatF]

I think i mentioned Roddick not being at his best in the first post even the i should have made it more clear since it was a level playing field for both i will just say the 1-1 at slams is fair.

Yeah OK. I guess I'm just saying I think the 2009 is more like what I'd expect of a peak for peak match, a tough 4 or 5 set match going one way or the other.

 

[Hitman]

Yep at that time it was basically Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, and then Hewitt behind them. Yea Federer could not read his serve at all, was getting outhit and Roddick had all the momentum. Tennis is a cruel sport in a lot of ways because it can just turn at the drop of dime. After the rain delay, it was totally reversed.

Safin and Nalbandian were in that Hewitt bracket also.

I actually felt more bad for him at W 2004 than W 2009, because in 2004 it was an external factor that caused the massive change, where as in 2009 he made a massive critical mistake in that second set. Now while we will never know for sure, I feel Roddick was on the path to the title in 2004, Federer was struggling to contain him and needed a big drop in form from Andy. Also, Federer wasn't in his head at that time IMO. People think that was an easy for Fed, far from it.

 

[NatF]

He was very close to losing to Soderling—a match that stretched over 3 or 4 days.

Went 5 with Youzhny too IIRC?

I do recall Nadal being reasonably close to defeat in 2010 as well?

 

[Hitman]

Went 5 with Youzhny too IIRC?

I do recall Nadal being reasonably close to defeat in 2010 as well?

Yes, twice.

 

[Hitman]

I read somewhere that Roddick would have also returned to No.1 if he had managed to win the 2004 Wimbledon. Though by my own calculation even if you reversed the Wimbledon 2004 F result, Roger would still be number 1.

It is because Roddick lost in the semi in 2003, so winning the final in 2004 and Fed losing points would have tipped the scale in his favor quite a bit.