Sample size is always a real thing my friend. There are many variables in play the simple presentation did not take into account.
Federer highly benefited from the slowdown of the 2000s, just like Djokodal benefited from the slowdown of the 2010s. The difference is that Federer's style was not hampered much, if at all, by the 2010s, whereas the serve and volley style went extinct with the 2000s slowdown.
The 00’s were his prime/peak tho. Fed’s prime ended in 2012 at the absolute latest.
Only because of the rain. The change of grass already happened in 2001.
Yes it does, because as everyone has told you for years, the serves are not identical. They cannot be. It is impossible to hit 2 serves in a row, let alone years apart that are identical. That is why in a match, we determine someone's serve speed using averages, rather than just one serve, as representative of their serve speed - and even this method has shortcomings. That's why case studies use sample sizes.
they didn’t think players would change their games lol
No.
Fed, who has the talent to take the ball early, needed preparation time? What?
No, it wasn't. The court was evened out specifically to reduce bad bounces, and the ball probably bounced higher as well.
It didn't regardless. The new grass reduced bad bounces, and the ball likely bounced a bit higher too.
Stich, Kracijek, and Ivanisevic were all great players who might have won more titles if not for some bum named Pete Sampras.
Why are you so obsessed by that 2003 and 2008 stat with Federer's serve? I said before that weather also influences the conditions, as does the tennis equipment, not just the surfaces per se.
That was the year Wimbledon changed the grass, promoting an even bounce that assisted returners. So much for that theory!
2001 Wimbledon was clearly the old grass, with serve and volleying pretty widespread still. 2002 Wimbledon was the big change in conditions, where serve and volleyers were struggling more on grass somewhat and some baseliners were beating them. Malisse beating Rusedski and Krajicek raised an even bigger flag than Nalbandian reaching the final.
I will give you a full hour to ponder why he might be so obsessed with that stat. And if you need more time, then by all means, just say the word.
Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic were all great players, who forlornly and hopelessly looked for the second slam! I wonder if Wimbledon ever had twice three only-slam winners within a 11-year period? Probably, not!
2001 Wimbledon was new grass. Check, "The Grass" from Wimbledon's website.
Having great players who can cause upsets is the sign of a strong, not weak era. These three players in particular are strong grass courters who could hand any champion of any era - including Djokovic - an upset.
It was installed in 2001, i.e. after the tournament.
Meh. It might have started the year before, but it got noticeably slower from 2001 to, say, 2005.
No, at the time the Telegraph reported that it was sown prior to the 2001 edition.
Yeh, but they only won their lone slams in that period! So how could you say they were great, they won because the peculiar circumstances suited them?
Murray never won in Australia or France. Is he not great? Besides, Stich made the finals at the USO and RG. Krajicek made the semis in France and Australia. Quite clear both were at least solid players.
Very much so. Enough to mislead people into believing Roger's beautiful game was "cut out" for classic grass.
I'm not saying they weren't solid players which they were, especially Stich, who was ranked #2 at some point. I'm saying they were only-slam winners, which they were, those players who won only one slam their entire careers. Murray won 2 WB's and an US, regardless of circumstances.
Of course, but you seem to suggest there's something wrong with those great grass players winning only 1 slam. Their ability to break through the best to cinch a trophy is a sign that an era is deep, not weak. If you had folks like Hewitt winning Wimbledon every few years, then yes, we'd be in trouble.
It was before that. I stopped watching for years after watching Sampras and Courier in a final that was continually boring because it was two or three shots and done.
There were 3 only-slam winners in 11 years from '91 to '01. To me, that's weak! How come there was no only-slam winners in the last 25 years where there were Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Alcaraz and Sinner!
*Sigh*
padel is pretty awesome
yes this makes more sense. so far a lot of bs in this thread with lots of contradictions of common sense. Novak and Rafa aided by slowdown, fed not aided by slowdown, facing at more advanced age. Fed was a golden goose had to do with Nadal rivalry and/or making sure top players have most consistent chance to make it deep and sell tickets (ad revenue)
Grass didn't all the sudden went from completely fast to completely slow overnight. The slowing down was gradual over the years. Federer played baseline because it was slow enough to suit that style since serve/volley wasn't favorable anymore. Servers are punished and baseline grinders rewarded. The slow grass is a tremendous advantage for the returner: The ball is slower, arrives later and sits up
Another reason why Pete fans don't like Federer because he and his peers put the 90s players into retirement
Federer was seeded 15th in '01 WB when he defeated Sampras, it was more like Sampras hadn't lived to the ranking. Federer was seeded 7th in '02 WB, and 4th in '03 WB when he won for the 1st time.
