Wimbledon has devaluated since the introduction of slow grass

Forehand Of Doom said:
Stakhovsky just beat defending champion Federer this year in Wimbledon. Same thing.
Click to expand...

No, Stakhowsky loss is balanced by Sampras' loss to Bastl. However, we are not talking about Stak or Bastl. We are taking about Sampras vs. Federer on fast grass. All else is speculation. The only data point is that Federer beat defending champion Sampras on fast grass. Period.
 
tennisaddict said:
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.
Click to expand...

What weapons does Federer have to have been able to trouble one of the best S/V players ever in real fast grass?

Federer was still winning majors last year and Nadal just beat him indoors. Does that mean anything to you?

And now you pull the "Player for all eras" false appeal to authority since you can't argue on logic terms. :)
 
tennisaddict said:
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.
Click to expand...

People said Nadal just beat Fed in AO 2009 because he was done, yet 3 1/2 years later he wins Wimbledon. Do you really think that when Fed beat Sampras he was anywhere near his best?

It's people like you who attempt to extract general conclusions from a single match who are wrong.

Nadal beat Fed on hardcourt in 2004. So what?
 
Who Am I? said:
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!
Click to expand...

The people who feel the need to exalt Wimbledon over the French Open as a contingency measure in case Nadal breaks the slam record are the losers. :)

Besides, nobody has disproven my thesis here. Sampras >>>>>> Federer in fast grass. Wimbledon has lost prestige.

Why is it that grass can slow enough for Nadal to beat Federer but not enough for Federer's achievements to be at least partially explained by that very same slowing of the grass?
 
Last edited:
KillerServe said:
No, Stakhowsky loss is balanced by Sampras' loss to Bastl. However, we are not talking about Stak or Bastl. We are taking about Sampras vs. Federer on fast grass. All else is speculation. The only data point is that Federer beat defending champion Sampras on fast grass. Period.
Click to expand...

And Nadal beat Federer in 2004 on hardcourt. Therefore, according to your incredible logic, Nadal >>>>> Federer on hardcourt.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Yes. The fact you needed to have it pointed out to you highlights, yet again, your ongoing muppetry.
Click to expand...

How is something improved by its popularity? And by that I mean, does popularity of a tournament make success on it more valuable abstractly, from a pure tennis perspective?

You are a muppet. I bet I would beat you in 3 easy sets in plexicushion.
 
Forehand Of Doom said:
How is something improved by its popularity? And by that I mean, does popularity of a tournament make success on it more valuable abstractly, from a pure tennis perspective?
Click to expand...
I didn't say popularity, you did.

Historical significance and popularity are not the same thing. Regardless of that, Wimbledon is the most popular major both in terms of which tennis players (on average) aspire to and in reverence amongst tennis followers and non-followers.
Forehand Of Doom said:
You are a muppet. I bet I would beat you in 3 easy sets in plexicushion.
Click to expand...
I kinda doubt that. Given the sort of threads you bring up all I'd need to do to beat you would be to ask between each point something inane like "do you think gravity unevenly affects each end of the court?" and you'd stop playing to start a thread here.
 
Bobby Jr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only according to an anglocentric vision.

Anyway, I don't think Wimbledon has devalued at all because of the change in grass, quite the contrary really.
 
Crisstti said:
Only according to an anglocentric vision.
Click to expand...
Please, leave the cultural bias/hegemony implications for something which actually warrants it. Wimbledon is the event by which tennis is known globally. Globally.

Every other tennis reference or tournament else pails by comparison no matter where you're from other than maybe a few towns in Spain, France and Italy. :p
 
Bobby Jr said:
Please, leave the cultural bias/hegemony implications for something which actually warrants it. Wimbledon is the event by which tennis is known globally. Globally.

Every other tennis reference or tournament else pails by comparison no matter where you're from other than maybe a few towns in Spain, France and Italy. :p
Click to expand...

I won't leave them because it's blatantly obvious. Nope, Wimbledon is not THE event by which tennis is known globally. And it's not only in places like Spain, France and Italy that it's not the most popular.
 
Crisstti said:
I won't leave them because it's blatantly obvious. Nope, Wimbledon is not THE event by which tennis is known globally. And it's not only in places like Spain, France and Italy that it's not the most popular.
Click to expand...
It is. You are wrong.

As a further example of the prestige of Wimbledon, if a player won 20 majors but never won a Wimbledon title they would always have that omission over their. Were it another major they were missing with the same total it would be far less an issue. Wimbledon is the one title you have to have in order to be regarded as an all-time great. All others are almost optional until you get right down to nitty-gritty side-by-side comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
I didn't say popularity, you did.

Historical significance and popularity are not the same thing. Regardless of that, Wimbledon is the most popular major both in terms of which tennis players (on average) aspire to and in reverence amongst tennis followers and non-followers.
Click to expand...

Historical significance which was built on fast grass.

This thread was a response to the other thread which somebody started claiming that a Wimbledon title is worth more than other slam titles. Which is a very thinly veiled attempt to say that Federer's 7 Wimbledon titles are worth mor than 7 French Open titles in Nadal's resume.
 
Last edited:
fascinating-please-go-on.jpg
 
I kind of agree with the op on this one. I've mentionned this before, but I still can't understand how Wimbledon, originally a fast surface suited for offensive players is now dominated by grinders. How can Nadal, a clay court specialist make the final of the event 5 times and win it twice is beyond me. Samething can be said of Djokovic and even Murray. Fact of the matter is, if grass would be fast again like in the Sampras/Agassi era, those guys would be lucky to even make it to the QF of the tournament and they wouldn't stand a chance at winning it unless they'd make a drastic change to they're style.
 
The Wimbledon champions board never care to mention if the winners won on fast or slow grass. A win is a win. Only legends win the holy grail of tennis - deal with it.
 
Roddick85 said:
I kind of agree with the op on this one. I've mentionned this before, but I still can't understand how Wimbledon, originally a fast surface suited for offensive players is now dominated by grinders. How can Nadal, a clay court specialist make the final of the event 5 times and win it twice is beyond me. Samething can be said of Djokovic and even Murray. Fact of the matter is, if grass would be fast again like in the Sampras/Agassi era, those guys would be lucky to even make it to the QF of the tournament and they wouldn't stand a chance at winning it unless they'd make a drastic change to they're style.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Djokovic/Nadal/Murray would adapt on fast grass just as they do on fast HC.
 
Steve0904 said:
Yes, that is abundantly clear.
Click to expand...

When this was first mentioned it got my interest so I went through some old threads from TLW. I appreciate the comparison, since he was a brilliant poster. But I'm nothing like him. He was always getting in trouble and arguing with everybody for one. Some of those old posts are golden. :)
 
Roddick85 said:
I kind of agree with the op on this one. I've mentionned this before, but I still can't understand how Wimbledon, originally a fast surface suited for offensive players is now dominated by grinders. How can Nadal, a clay court specialist make the final of the event 5 times and win it twice is beyond me. Samething can be said of Djokovic and even Murray. Fact of the matter is, if grass would be fast again like in the Sampras/Agassi era, those guys would be lucky to even make it to the QF of the tournament and they wouldn't stand a chance at winning it unless they'd make a drastic change to they're style.
Click to expand...

Roddick and Safin were two of the players who got the wrong end of the stick. I do see them taking Federer down in fast grass. Federer benefited much more than Nadal or Djkokovic/Murray with the change of grass.
 
The value of the French Open has fluctuated often enough in its history. If anything, the value of Wimbledon is greater than ever, if not relatively then absolutely, because of the amazing global popularity that legendary multiple winners of the event have garnered for the sport (Federer and Nadal).
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
The value of the French Open has fluctuated often enough in its history. If anything, the value of Wimbledon is greater than ever, if not relatively then absolutely, because of the amazing global popularity that legendary multiple winners of the event have garnered for the sport (Federer and Nadal).
Click to expand...

Do you feel at all that the slowing down of the grass has affected Wimbledon's prestige in any way?
 
Forehand Of Doom said:
Hi man, how have you been?
Click to expand...

Hi! I've been very busy but good. ;) And who might you be sir? Are you a fan of the

a) soon to be GOAT left-hander and an aspiring poker star?

b) the swiss ballerina in white semi-suit over-alls? or

c) that media whoring abortion who had a fluke year in 2011?

I hope you choose a) :D
 
The-Champ said:
Hi! I've been very busy but good. ;) And who might you be sir? Are you a fan of the

a) soon to be GOAT left-hander and an aspiring poker star?

b) the swiss ballerina in white semi-suit over-alls? or

c) that media whoring abortion who had a fluke year in 2011?

I hope you choose a) :D
Click to expand...

Definitely a) :)
 
Forehand Of Doom said:
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.
Click to expand...


That is one area where I feel Federer fans have a case of foot in the mooth syndrome. They drill this point as a way to devalue and diminish Nadal. Yet Nadal only has 2 Wimbledon titles. While Federer would be better suited to fast grass than Nadal, there is no way of knowing he would be nearly as strong on it as superior servers and volleyers such as Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic in the days of the fast grass, or if the faster conditions wouldnt even help some others (like possibly Roddick) far more against him. Like you said it could well be Nadal 0 titles and Federer 3, but this would hurt Federer alot more than it would Nadal.
 
The-Champ said:
Hi! I've been very busy but good. ;) And who might you be sir? Are you a fan of the

a) soon to be GOAT left-hander and an aspiring poker star?

b) the swiss ballerina in white semi-suit over-alls? or

c) that media whoring abortion who had a fluke year in 2011?

I hope you choose a) :D
Click to expand...

OMG at c) :D

Be careful they might ban you for that. Är du från Sverige? Jag tål inte heller c), vilken hemsk människa :twisted:
 
If anything the "fast" grass devalued Wimbledon with so many players skipping it.

Bobby Jr said:
It is. You are wrong.

As a further example of the prestige of Wimbledon, if a player won 20 majors but never won a Wimbledon title they would always have that omission over their. Were it another major they were missing with the same total it would be far less an issue. Wimbledon is the one title you have to have in order to be regarded as an all-time great. All others are almost optional until you get right down to nitty-gritty side-by-side comparisons.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm not wrong, you're posting completely subjective thoughts and passing them as facts.

Any major missing is a hole in an all time great's career. We all know about Borg not winning the USO, McEnroe not winning RG, Lendl not winning Wimbledon. It is not less of an issue in any case.
 
Forehand Of Doom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you if the grass is faster Fed will play more S&V? Luckily there was an actual match between Fed and Pete on W grass.
 
driscoll said:
That is one area where I feel Federer fans have a case of foot in the mooth syndrome. They drill this point as a way to devalue and diminish Nadal. Yet Nadal only has 2 Wimbledon titles. While Federer would be better suited to fast grass than Nadal, there is no way of knowing he would be nearly as strong on it as superior servers and volleyers such as Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic in the days of the fast grass, or if the faster conditions wouldnt even help some others (like possibly Roddick) far more against him. Like you said it could well be Nadal 0 titles and Federer 3, but this would hurt Federer alot more than it would Nadal.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly my point. Another thing which prompted me to create this thread is that other thread where some Fed fans were proposing that Wimbledon is more valuable than other slams, which seems like another attempt to diminish Nadal's achievements.
 
Forehand Of Doom said:
Roddick and Safin were two of the players who got the wrong end of the stick. I do see them taking Federer down in fast grass. Federer benefited much more than Nadal or Djkokovic/Murray with the change of grass.
Click to expand...

Maybe Roddick, but Safin?!! Safin was terrible grass court player and he thanked the Wimbledon organizers for slowing the courts down in 2008 (when he reached the SF, his personal best result). No way he would be defeating Federer on fast grass.


"This tournament is a joke. Grass is for cows, I'm never coming back."-Marat Safin on Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:
Backspin1183 said:
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".
Click to expand...

With full respect to Nadal, what would he know of the Wimbledon tournament 2001 and earlier?
 
moonballs said:
Did it ever occur to you if the grass is faster Fed will play more S&V? Luckily there was an actual match between Fed and Pete on W grass.
Click to expand...

Of course he would. And what makes you think he would be competitive against Sampras playing S/V? That single match they played?

Evaluate every single facet of the game he would need to be competitive playing S/V. Serve, Passing Shots, net approach, volleys. Does he seem superior to Sampras in any case? Nadal has no problem passing Federer at will, for example. His serve is good, but not Sampras good. And so on. This mythical image of "Fed, the last bastion of S/V who was actually hurt by the homogeneization of surfaces" is an illusion.
 
Sid_Vicious said:
Maybe Roddick, but Safin?!! Safin was terrible grass court player and he thanked the Wimbledon organizers for slowing the courts down in 2008 (when he reached the SF, his personal best result). No way he would be defeating Federer on fast grass.


"This tournament is a joke. Grass is for cows, I'm never coming back."-Marat Safin on Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

That "grass is for cows" line was invented by Manolo Santana, the Spanish player from the 60s.

Perhaps you are right about Safin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NoleIsBoat
  • Poll Poll
How many Wimbledon titles does Djokovic need to be slow grass GOAT?
2
Replies
79
Views
5K
TMF
TMF
K
my thoughts on slow grass
Replies
3
Views
913
newnuse
N
Blinkism
Why I think Wimbledon is not slow grass.
10 11 12
Replies
597
Views
41K
LPShanet
L
thalivest
How can grass now be that slow?
Replies
16
Views
2K
superstition
superstition
H
How Many Wimbledon Titles Would Raonic Win On "Fast" Grass?
2 3
Replies
114
Views
10K
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Back
Top