Wimbledon has devaluated since the introduction of slow grass

[Forehand Of Doom]

I think the change from fast grass to slow grass greatly diminishes the value of Wimbledon titles for the past decade.

Even Nadal detractors have pointed out this fact. The problem is they haven't fully explored its implications regarding Fed's resume.

I firmly believe that if Federer had competed in fast grass against the likes of Sampras he would not even have half of the Wimbledoin titles he has.

Sampras had one of the best S/V games ever, and Federer would struggle against him and others. Federer is mainly a baseliner. His serve, while good, can't compare to Pistol Pete's cannonballs, which even in second serves were an amazing weapon. Even Nadal can pass Federer at the net because Nadal is a very good passer, and Federer is not an all time great at the net either. Thinking that things wouldn't have been much worse for Federer in fast grass against Sampras is a little delusional.

So, while the value of the French Open has remained constant, if we are going to relativize the worth of different slams, I think it's only reasonable to point out that Wimbledon is not what it used to be.

 

[Who Am I?]

How many would Nads win on fast grass against the likes of Sampras, Becker, Goran and even Federer?

The answer is a big fat 0.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

How many would Nads win on fast grass against the likes of Sampras, Becker, Goran and even Federer?

The answer is a big fat 0.

Nadal would lose 2 titles and Federer 4 in my estimation. Sampras >>>>>> Federer in fast grass. Federer couldn't even win against Henman's S/V game.

 

[Annie]

I appreciate your knowledge,depth of understanding, experience in trolling but still weak attempt. 5/10 for this one,next time be prepared with some new intelligent ****.

 

[mental midget]

meh. still grass, still wimbledon. you could just as easily argue tennis has been devalued since the introduction of poly strings.

i sympathize with the nostalgic reasoning of your point, i'd prefer they kept it on the fast stuff as well, but i think at the end of the day, it's still green, gorgeous, and historic.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I appreciate your knowledge,depth of understanding, experience in trolling but still weak attempt. 5/10 for this one,next time be prepared with some new intelligent ****.

As usual you soil this thread with your pressence instead of trying to offer a valid counterargument to my thesis.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Nadal would lose 2 titles and Federer 4 in my estimation. Sampras >>>>>> Federer in fast grass. Federer couldn't even win against Henman's S/V game.

And yet he managed to win against Sampras' game.

Why do people assume that Fed's (or Nadal's) games would not change at all with slightly different surfaces, strings, etc?

 

[jg153040]

Didn't grass slowed down in 2002 if memory serves me?

So 2001 teen Fed defeated defending champ Sampras with his brilliant all-court game on FAST GRASS.

Someone confirm this, before I start to gloat

 

[Who Am I?]

Nadal would lose 2 titles and Federer 4 in my estimation. Sampras >>>>>> Federer in fast grass. Federer couldn't even win against Henman's S/V game.

It's not unreasonable to suggest that Fed and Sampras would split titles, had they both played each other during their peaks on grass. So given that both guys have 7 titles each, to say that one would have 4 and the other 3 makes sense.

But to say that Fed is worse than Sampras on fast grass is pretty stupid, as Fed never had the chance to play on it during his peak/prime. But in that short time he played on FG, he was able to defeat Sampras, who wasn't exactly great on fast grass either in his first few years.

And just to let you know, Fed lost in the 1st round of 2002 Wimby, the first year they slowed down the grass.

 

[NatF]

Didn't grass slowed down in 2002 if memory serves me?

So 2001 teen Fed defeated defending champ Sampras with his brilliant all-court game on FAST GRASS.

Someone confirm this, before I start to gloat

This is true. 19 year old Federer beat defending champion Sampras. I expect them to be even in the 90's on grass.

 

[Indio]

. Federer couldn't even win against Henman's S/V game.

That happened in 2001, two years before Federer began his run at Wimbledon. One could similarly say that Sampras couldn't even win against Rostagno's game (1991 Wimbledon), so you can see that its value in your argument is about nil.

 

[NatF]

That happened in 2001, two years before Federer began his run at Wimbledon. One could similarly say that Sampras couldn't even win against Rostagno's game (1991 Wimbledon), so you can see that its value in your argument is about nil.

He's also ignoring the fact that Federer beat Sampras in the previous round...

 

[Backspin1183]

I don't think the grass at Wimby has slowed down a lot like some fans think.

Nadal was once asked if the grass is slow at Wimby, to which he just smiled and said, "no, it's still fast. Maybe people say it's slow because I won (smiles) two times there".

 

[octobrina10]

Didn't grass slowed down in 2002 if memory serves me?
So 2001 teen Fed defeated defending champ Sampras with his brilliant all-court game on FAST GRASS.

Nope!
Wimbledon website:
¤ The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm (since 1995) is the optimum for present day play and survival.
¤ Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game.
¤ 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.
¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Fed's first results at Wimbledon:
1999 - R1
2000 - R1
2001 - QF (the grass was changed)
2002 - R1
2003 - W

 

[Who Am I?]

Delete.....

 

[jg153040]

Nope!
Wimbledon website:
¤ The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm (since 1995) is the optimum for present day play and survival.
¤ Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game.
¤ 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.
¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Fed's first results at Wimbledon:
1999 - R1
2000 - R1
2001 - QF (the grass was changed)
2002 - R1
2003 - W

Eddie Seaward, the head groundsman at the All England Club, has told The Tennis Space that it is myth that the grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than they used to be. “I don’t think the grass has slowed down – the ball still comes off the grass at the same speed.” What has changed, said Seaward, is that the ball now bounces a little higher and that helps when you are trying to return a 140mph serve.

 

[edberg volleys]

Nope!
Wimbledon website:
¤ The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm (since 1995) is the optimum for present day play and survival.
¤ Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game.
¤ 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.
¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Fed's first results at Wimbledon:
1999 - R1
2000 - R1
2001 - QF (the grass was changed)
2002 - R1
2003 - W

http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

 

[TMF]

What Is The Most Prestigious Grand Slam Tennis Tournament? (5/30/2012)

1. Wimbledon
2. U.S. Open
3. French Open
4. Australian Open

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

meh. still grass, still wimbledon. you could just as easily argue tennis has been devalued since the introduction of poly strings.

i sympathize with the nostalgic reasoning of your point, i'd prefer they kept it on the fast stuff as well, but i think at the end of the day, it's still green, gorgeous, and historic.

There is another thread arguing not all slams are worth the same, and I think it's only fair that after Wimbledon changed to slow grass its value is not what it used to be either.

 

[tennisaddict]

OP, Weak attempt.

^^^¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Federer leads Sampras at Wimbledon . End of story.

If anything he is better , since he has 1 more final there and very very consistent there.

You should be really happy Nads got the 2008 Wimb. If they had delayed the match to next day because of the light after the 4th set, Nadal would not have won that. Nadal lucked out there , similar to 2012 FO against '7 up'.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

And yet he managed to win against Sampras' game.

Why do people assume that Fed's (or Nadal's) games would not change at all with slightly different surfaces, strings, etc?

Fed beat a washed out Sampras. Nadal beat Federer at the WTF this year. Do you see the similarities?

Fed could change his game, but Fed wouldn't win coinsistently against Sampras in fast grass prime to prime.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Didn't grass slowed down in 2002 if memory serves me?

So 2001 teen Fed defeated defending champ Sampras with his brilliant all-court game on FAST GRASS.

Someone confirm this, before I start to gloat

Not really.

Also, Stakhovsky beat defending champion Fed in 2012. Does that mean Stakhovsky would have consistently beat Fed in Wimbledon if their primes coincided?

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed beat a washed out Sampras. Nadal beat Federer at the WTF this year. Do you see the similarities?

Fed could change his game, but Fed wouldn't win coinsistently against Sampras in fast grass prime to prime.

How do you say washed out ? Can you prove ? Same Sampras beat Agassi and a bunch of others to win USO , one year after that ?

 

[Bud]

Nope!
Wimbledon website:
¤ The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm (since 1995) is the optimum for present day play and survival.
¤ Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game.
¤ 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.
¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Fed's first results at Wimbledon:
1999 - R1
2000 - R1
2001 - QF (the grass was changed)
2002 - R1
2003 - W

Eddie Seaward, the head groundsman at the All England Club, has told The Tennis Space that it is myth that the grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than they used to be. “I don’t think the grass has slowed down – the ball still comes off the grass at the same speed.” What has changed, said Seaward, is that the ball now bounces a little higher and that helps when you are trying to return a 140mph serve.

I've repeated these same things on the site quite a few times. Nobody listens

They want to devalue certain players' titles on grass. It's clearly obvious that grass is still grass as Nadal now struggles on the surface with his hindered movement due to his knee. A player still has to move well on grass to win.

As stated, the only difference now is the bounce height due to the more compacted soil.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

It's not unreasonable to suggest that Fed and Sampras would split titles, had they both played each other during their peaks on grass. So given that both guys have 7 titles each, to say that one would have 4 and the other 3 makes sense.

But to say that Fed is worse than Sampras on fast grass is pretty stupid, as Fed never had the chance to play on it during his peak/prime. But in that short time he played on FG, he was able to defeat Sampras, who wasn't exactly great on fast grass either in his first few years.

And just to let you know, Fed lost in the 1st round of 2002 Wimby, the first year they slowed down the grass.

Fed had a nice run against washed out defending champion Sampras just like Stakhovsky had a nice run against defending champion Federer.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I've repeated these same things on the site quite a few times. Nobody listens

They want to devalue certain players' titles on grass. It's clearly obvious that grass is still grass as Nadal now struggles on the surface with his hindered movement due to his knee. A player still has to move well on grass to win.

As you stated, the only difference now is the bounce height due to the more compacted soil.

Federer won 7 titles in slow grass vs 2 for Nadal. If anything, this affects Federer's legacy and not Nadal's.

 

[Omega_7000]

Federer won 7 titles in slow grass vs 2 for Nadal. If anything, this affects Federer's legacy and not Nadal's.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer won 7 titles in slow grass vs 2 for Nadal. If anything, this affects Federer's legacy and not Nadal's.

Nadal's FO lacks value because his main competitor was 'Also Ran' Federer.

These are not my words .. But Nadal fans have said Fed is an 'Also Ran' at FO for his 5 FO finals / 1 win.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

What Is The Most Prestigious Grand Slam Tennis Tournament? (5/30/2012)

1. Wimbledon
2. U.S. Open
3. French Open
4. Australian Open

Sampras won his 7 titles in fast grass. Not Federer. Even you have cried about the slowing of the grass when Nadal won Wimbledon. Did it just magically slow down the years Nadal won it and then sped up again?

 

[fundrazer]

I don't think the grass at Wimby has slowed down a lot like some fans think.

Nadal was once asked if the grass is slow at Wimby, to which he just smiled and said, "no, it's still fast. Maybe people say it's slow because I won (smiles) two times there".

And then other players come out and say the opposite. Didn't Marat comment about how it slowed down when he made his 2008 run? Other than the grass is for cows stuff.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Sampras won his 7 titles in fast grass. Not Federer. Even you have cried about the slowing of the grass when Nadal won Wimbledon. Did it just magically slow down the years Nadal won it and then sped up again?

Federer would be a multi Wimbledon champ on any grass. He won 2003W by serve and volleying. Nadal only managed to win Wimbledon when it was turned to clay.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

OP, Weak attempt.

^^^¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Federer leads Sampras at Wimbledon . End of story.

If anything he is better , since he has 1 more final there and very very consistent there.

You should be really happy Nads got the 2008 Wimb. If they had delayed the match to next day because of the light after the 4th set, Nadal would not have won that. Nadal lucked out there , similar to 2012 FO against '7 up'.

Those who were successful in fast grass played S/V. Federer wouldn't have been able to succeed against them.

Nadal didn't win because of poor light in 2008. Unless you mean that Nadal won the first 2 sets because of mono, then Federer recovered from mono in sets 3 and 4, and then the failking light (which apparently didn't affect Nadal who must have infrared vision) decided set 5.

 

[KillerServe]

LOL, the only actual real data regarding Federer Sampras on fast grass shows Federer leading 1-0 (the whole grail of Nadalite metrics) when Pete was the defending champion! LOLLLLLLL

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

How do you say washed out ? Can you prove ? Same Sampras beat Agassi and a bunch of others to win USO , one year after that ?

Nadal just beat Federer at the WTF. Is Federer washed out?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Nadal's FO lacks value because his main competitor was 'Also Ran' Federer.

These are not my words .. But Nadal fans have said Fed is an 'Also Ran' at FO for his 5 FO finals / 1 win.

Federer is a good clay player, just not up to Nadal's standards of excellence.

 

[tennisaddict]

Those who were successful in fast grass played S/V. Federer wouldn't have been able to succeed against them.

.

Dont engage in hypothetical.

Fact remains Fed leads Sampras in H2H. Sampras won a major 1 year after that.

Nothing to indicate Fed would have fared badly.

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal just beat Federer at the WTF. Is Federer washed out?

You accused of Sampras being washed out. Prove it first.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Federer would be a multi Wimbledon champ on any grass. He won 2003W by serve and volleying. Nadal only managed to win Wimbledon when it was turned to clay.

Which great S/V player did Federer beat in 2003? The highest ranked S/V legend he beat was Roddick, ranked 6. He beat Philippoussis, ranked 48 in the Final.

People complain about Nadal's weak draws, but... Man, did Federer get a joke of a draw in Wimbledon 2003!

 

[octobrina10]

You should be really happy Nads got the 2008 Wimb. If they had delayed the match to next day because of the light after the 4th set, Nadal would not have won that.

In 2006 Rafa took one set from Fed, in 2007 - two, in 2008 - 3. Rafa improved his game every year. Simple.
2008 Wimbledon, final, Nadal vs Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7/8/, 9-7
2007 Wimbledon, final, Federer vs Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon, final, Federer vs Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

LOL, the only actual real data regarding Federer Sampras on fast grass shows Federer leading 1-0 (the whole grail of Nadalite metrics) when Pete was the defending champion! LOLLLLLLL

Stakhovsky just beat defending champion Federer this year in Wimbledon. Same thing.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nope!
Wimbledon website:
...

Yep, the list only covers the broad strokes - mostly what we know about from new items etc, it's not necessarily a comprehensive list of what has gone on. For example, the year to year differences in the balls could be deliberate but not announced - as was the case with the FO ball between 2011 and 2012. In 2012 they were quite fast out of the can, faster at least than the clay court guys expected compared to the different brand ball used in the lead-up that year. The following year it was noticeably slower. The batches of balls for all the majors are made specifically for the tournament so it's probable there are year to year differences which we are not told about.

As another example, the head groundsman at Wimbledon has said that they have done nothing specific to slow Wimbledon between year X and Y and yet the conditions still got slower. This was because the seasonal differences in weather leading up to the tournament have a huge impact on the way the grass grows, how dry the grounds are etc.

In short, I wouldn't take the changes listed on the Wimbledon website as the definitive list of what's gone on over the years at all. They're just the major, announced ones.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Dont engage in hypothetical.

Fact remains Fed leads Sampras in H2H. Sampras won a major 1 year after that.

Nothing to indicate Fed would have fared badly.

Explain how Fed would have counteracted Sampras all time best (along with Pancho Gonzalez) S/V game in fast grass. I can't see it.

Federer has made out like a bandit with the slowing of Wimbledon grass. And yet Fed fanatics have the nerve to start a thread saying Wimbledon is more valuable than Roland Garros to pump up Fed's achievements and diminish Nadal's.

 

[Bobby Jr]

The OP, being his usual troll self, has framed a situation which we'll never know the answer to. Federer clearly was better than at least anyone other than Sampras in Sampras' era on grass. In this era's conditions however Sampras would be even more hamstrung.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Nope!
Wimbledon website:
¤ The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm (since 1995) is the optimum for present day play and survival.
¤ Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game.
¤ 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.
¤ There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression.

Fed's first results at Wimbledon:
1999 - R1
2000 - R1
2001 - QF (the grass was changed)
2002 - R1
2003 - W

I should perhaps add that the new grass was changed (ie sown) AFTER the 2001 final. At least from what I read.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

You accused of Sampras being washed out. Prove it first.

You can't apply different logic to suit your purposes. It is dishonest.

 

[Bobby Jr]

...Federer has made out like a bandit with the slowing of Wimbledon grass. And yet Fed fanatics have the nerve to start a thread saying Wimbledon is more valuable than Roland Garros to pump up Fed's achievements and diminish Nadal's.

This has nothing to do with the surface characteristics. It's to do with historical significance.

A sole Wimbledon title is worth so much more than a sole French Open title it's not even a close comparison. The players prefer Wimbledon and the prestige you earn globally in the media - either mainstream or niche - cannot even be compared. Wimbledon is the one that makes you most famous.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

This has nothing to do with the surface characteristics. It's to do with historical significance.

A sole Wimbledon title is worth so much more than a sole French Open title it's not even a close comparison. The players prefer Wimbledon and the prestige you earn globally in the media - either mainstream or niche - cannot even be compared. Wimbledon is the one to win.

So Wimbledon is "better" because of historical significance (popularity) but it is no tougher to win than the French Open? I can agree with that.

 

[tennisaddict]

Explain how Fed would have counteracted Sampras all time best (along with Pancho Gonzalez) S/V game in fast grass. I can't see it.

Federer has made out like a bandit with the slowing of Wimbledon grass. And yet Fed fanatics have the nerve to start a thread saying Wimbledon is more valuable than Roland Garros to pump up Fed's achievements and diminish Nadal's.

No, you are the one that has to prove Fed cannot beat Sampras. not the other way around.

Fact remains in the one time they met , when Sampras was still winning majors, Federer was the winner.

Accusing a 7 time Wimbledon winner , where players like Borg, Sampras, Laver , Becker agree as a 'Player for all eras' is what is bs.

 

[tennisaddict]

You can't apply different logic to suit your purposes. It is dishonest.

What is dishonest ? You said Fed beat washed out Sampras and that doesnt mean anything.

When Sampras was winning a major after that loss what makes you believe he was washed out ? If you are calling Sampras as 'washed out' , onus is on you to prove so. I have given the counter argument.

 

[Who Am I?]

This guy is butt hurt because someone puts Wimby above FO in terms of prestige and so he has to make this thread diminishing Fed and his 7 Wimby titles. What a loser!