WI: Wimbledon 2002 under the same condition as Wimbledon 2001

#1
Wimbledon 2002 actually had the same type of grass as Wimbledon 2001. However, during the Wimbledon 2001, the weather was cool and wet whereas it was hot and dry during Wimbledon 2002.

What if the condition was still wet and cool. Who could have been the champion in this case? But anyway, the tournament would be far less of a joke with fat Nalby reaching final on his worst surface only to be thrashed in an even worse manner than Henman (Henman would have beaten anyway if we remove Hewitt).

Upper draw:
Lleyton Hewitt: he is still a big legit candidate, but now EscudeSchalken/Federer/Ancic could have actualy upset him under this condition. If he reached final he would be more likely to win, and in the lower draws only Sampras might have denied his win but unlikely due to his poor form.
Roger Federer: not sure because Ancic would be even more dangerous under this condition, but his game of S&V on both serves would be more effective.
Mario Ancic: might have actually taken advantage of his chance and meet Hewitt in the QF.
Tim Henman: he would have a nicer run to the SF, and the potential match against Hewitt would be more competitive, but his chance of winning is very low. If he met Fed/Schalken/Ancic/Escude (Fed and Ancic I think was not ready at that time), he would bag his first and only Slam final. In the final, he would win if he met someone like fat Nalby. But Sampras/Agassi/Krajicek/Phillippoussis? NOPE.
Feliciano Lopez: could have beaten Sa in 4R to reach QF, but likely to lose to Henman.

Lower draw:
Rusedski: likely to actually beat Malisse to reach QF to face Agassi/Phillippoussis/Krajicek. I would not pick him in the QF because he was a worse grasscourter than any of them.
Malisse: if he actually beat Rusedski, he would lose to Agassi/Phillippoussis and even Krajicek (on this condition I would pick Krajicek over Malisse).
Kafelnikov: if he managed to scrap to QF, he would be gunned down there.
Agassi/Phillippoussis/Krajicek: Hardest to predict. If Agassi beat Srichaphan in 2R, he would beat Krajicek in 3R (but the match is likely to be tough), but is more likely to lose to Phillippoussis, but the lost would be similar to their 2003 match. If Krajicek reached 4R, the match would be a toss up like in real life but I would lean towards Krajicek, who led h2h over Mark.
Sampras: would likely to pull off a victory against Bastl, and if so he would reach SF thanks to an easy draw (the only other guy who might potentially upset him was Wayne Arthur) to wait for Krajicek/Agassi/Phillippoussis/Rusedski. I think if he meet Richard or Mark he would lose, but he would beat Agassi.
 

Mikael

Professional
#3
I don't think the final outcome would change much. If anything, faster and lower conditions might have benefited Hewitt even more, he liked that, and in 2002 he had a mental edge against most guys in the draw no matter what. Maybe Agassi could have threatened him since he beat him at the USO later that year ?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#4
I don't think the final outcome would change much. If anything, faster and lower conditions might have benefited Hewitt even more, he liked that, and in 2002 he had a mental edge against most guys in the draw no matter what. Maybe Agassi could have threatened him since he beat him at the USO later that year ?
I'd favour Hewitt over Agassi still, their 2002 USO SF was a weird match - Hewitt had numerous leads in sets but managed to squander them, I think the pressure of defending his title got to him a little. At Wimbledon I think Hewitt was too dialled in.
 
#5
I don't think the final outcome would change much. If anything, faster and lower conditions might have benefited Hewitt even more
I know that Hewitt preferred faster courts, since he loved pace. But, ever faster courts combined with extremely low and irrational bounces like pre-2002 Wimbledon might work against his counter-punching game, which obviously requires truer bounces so that he could redirect pace accurately.

I think his actual favourite surface was something resembled old USO American hardcourt, fast but without bad bounces. Real life Wimbledon 2002-2005 was exactly like that.

The first bold line above was the difference between old Wimbledon and Queens, which explained why Thomas Muster reached Queens SF but could not win a Wimbledon match.

Of course Hewitt is still a legit candidate, but his chance would be lower. But in his draws there were players who either actually or nearly upsetted him during 2001-2002, and they were all-court players rather than pure net rushers.

And among the lower draw candidates, Agassi is the most likely to be eliminated early in this scenario.

I'd favour Hewitt over Agassi still, their 2002 USO SF was a weird match - Hewitt had numerous leads in sets but managed to squander them, I think the pressure of defending his title got to him a little. At Wimbledon I think Hewitt was too dialled in.
If Agassi meets Hewitt on grass I will pick the latter.
 

Mikael

Professional
#6
I'd favour Hewitt over Agassi still, their 2002 USO SF was a weird match - Hewitt had numerous leads in sets but managed to squander them, I think the pressure of defending his title got to him a little. At Wimbledon I think Hewitt was too dialled in.
Agree, I was surprised Agassi won that USO match. What a godsend for Pete...
 
#9
There were simply too few great serve and volley players that year, and federer and roddick were still in development, thats why we had hewitt vs. Nalbandian. Though hewitt would be very tough to beat by even the best s&v players.

But look at the field: the 2001 finalists rafter and ivanisevic didnt play. Sampras was a shadow oh his best. Krajicek and philippoussis met in the 1/16, and krajicek prevailed in 5. But he was not at the top of his game and lost in the quarters.

So only henman left. But no matter how good he played, his peal was never as good as the players above. And he was no match to hewitt.

2002 just had a weak grass field from the start.
 
#10
There were simply too few great serve and volley players that year, and federer and roddick were still in development, thats why we had hewitt vs. Nalbandian. Though hewitt would be very tough to beat by even the best s&v players.
Yeah, but on fast grass Hewitt's draw would be harder, I mean there were guys capable of upsetting him. Let's say Escude, who beat him twice on grass in 2001, upset him the 3rd time also in 5 sets. And if Hewitt was out, the winner would not be Henman but someone from the lower draw since any of them would beat Henman in the final.

Sampras was a shadow oh his best.
On fast grass he might survive that Bastl match, and his draw to SF would be open. His draw after that was too easy, you know, with guys like Arthur, Lapenti, Pavel, Safin, Clement, Rochus. Nalby? In 2003 even a not-in-a-good-form Henman (losing to Grosjean of all people) took him out.

Krajicek and philippoussis met in the 1/16, and krajicek prevailed in 5. But he was not at the top of his game and lost in the quarters.
Krajicek was not at his best, but a faster condition would make things easier, e.g. allowing him to beat Blake in straight instead of in 5. And he could actually beat Malisse/Rusedski in this scenario, and I expect him to beat any of his SF opponents, who (except for Pete) were easier opponents on grass than Phillippoussis/Rusedski/Malisse, and even if that guy was Sampras.

I expect big K to reach final, and repeat the Ivanisevic miracle if he avoids Hewitt.
 
Top