Wimbledon has devaluated since the introduction of slow grass

[Sid_Vicious]

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

Perhaps you are right about Safin.

Q. Do you think you'll come back, or do you think you'll just give up on Wimbledon?

MARAT SAFIN: No, I give up on Wimbledon. Is definitely not the tournament for me. I give up on spending time on this courts. I give up on practicing before the tournament, just to prepare myself for better results. I hate. I hate this. I have to admit it. I'm not really enjoying playing on this courts. So I just, you know, come like other people - Friday, Saturday before the tournament. Practice a couple of days, then I play. I'm not gonna spend my time, not gonna waste my time on that knowing, though, that I will not play well.

Q. Have you always felt this way about grass?

MARAT SAFIN: I never could move. That's what's my problem. Was always a problem for me. I was sliding. Bounce is very low for me. Just I hate also when it's like very low bounce, and sometimes bad bounces. I mean, it's for everybody it's like this. But for me, especially for my game, I cannot adjust to this. You have to be really focus in your mind, but it's not my territory.

 

[Crisstti]

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.

Lol, how many players said grass is for cows?.

With full respect to Nadal, what would he know of the Wimbledon tournament 2001 and earlier?

Well, he played the juniors 2001 Wimbledon, which must surely have been played on the same grass. Unless it was in 2002...?, I'm pretty sure it was 2001.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Your Swedish is perfect A dedicated immigrant can learn the Swedish language in 3 months. I know a 15-year old filipino who did just that. No weird accent whatsoever.:shock:

That's incredible. I thought Swedish would be very hard. From what you are saying it sounds like it would be easier than German. I learned that line from a friend who used to frequent the forum.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Q. Do you think you'll come back, or do you think you'll just give up on Wimbledon?

MARAT SAFIN: No, I give up on Wimbledon. Is definitely not the tournament for me. I give up on spending time on this courts. I give up on practicing before the tournament, just to prepare myself for better results. I hate. I hate this. I have to admit it. I'm not really enjoying playing on this courts. So I just, you know, come like other people - Friday, Saturday before the tournament. Practice a couple of days, then I play. I'm not gonna spend my time, not gonna waste my time on that knowing, though, that I will not play well.

Q. Have you always felt this way about grass?

MARAT SAFIN: I never could move. That's what's my problem. Was always a problem for me. I was sliding. Bounce is very low for me. Just I hate also when it's like very low bounce, and sometimes bad bounces. I mean, it's for everybody it's like this. But for me, especially for my game, I cannot adjust to this. You have to be really focus in your mind, but it's not my territory.

Thank you, Sid. Movement in grass is completely different from hardcourts, that's for sure.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Thank you, Sid. Movement in grass is completely different from hardcourts, that's for sure.

I just needed an excuse to post some of Safin's awesome press conferences.

 

[Incognito]

That's incredible. I thought Swedish would be very hard. From what you are saying it sounds like it would be easier than German. I learned that line from a friend who used to frequent the forum.

Both my parents speak German fluently and according to them it's not difficult to learn at all. That Filipino kid though is damn impressive. He speaks his own language, Swedish, English, Spanish, Greek and now he is learning Russian. He wants to outdo his mom who speaks and teaches 9 languages.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Both my parents speak German fluently and according to them it's not difficult to learn at all. That Filipino kid though is damn impressive. He speaks his own language, Swedish, English, Spanish, Greek and now he is learning Russian. He wants to outdo his mom who speaks and teaches 9 languages.

Yes, that's not typical. They must be geniuses.

I would like to learn German. What seems a little scary are the 3 genders, declinations, and compound words. By compound words I mean stuff like Schreibenpapierinstrument to say fountain pen LOL BTW I just made up the German word. Combining multiple words in a glob is difficult for a reader, but maybe it's a question of practice.

 

[mental midget]

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.

yeah but the prestige bestowed on wimbledon by tennis culture, and the broader sporting culture generally, isn't predicated on the speed of the grass. the roots of the tournament extend far back beyond the current debate over surface characteristics.

it was wimbledon, the championships, before the nuances of the surface and the game required to play it vis a vis the other majors became a talking point among tennis aficionados.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

yeah but the prestige bestowed on wimbledon by tennis culture, and the broader sporting culture generally, isn't predicated on the speed of the grass. the roots of the tournament extend far back beyond the current debate over surface characteristics.

it was wimbledon, the championships, before the nuances of the surface and the game required to play it vis a vis the other majors became a talking point among tennis aficionados.

From this point of view I agree.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

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.

well , sampras that year made the uso final , federer this year was really bad.

at least stak won 4 titles and all of that titles were in vert fast surfaces incluiding titles on grass...... , when sampras lost to federer he not had a single title like professional.

but you are talking without sense saying that federer took more advantage of slow grass than murray , djoko or nadal!!!

in 2001 , 2003 , 2004 or 2005 grass , nadal or djokovic would not play a wimbledon final.

in 2007 the grass was even more slow than the previous years , in 2008 this was proved too

federer won wimbledon playing serve and volley and beated sampras with that game in 2012 he beated murray playing very much in the net too , nadal or djoko winning wimbly playing serve and volley??? impossible.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

and maybe sampras is better than fed in fast grass , but I am sure than peak federer on fast grass would be much more hard rival than all the grass player of the 90s

 

[Crisstti]

Yes, that's not typical. They must be geniuses.

I would like to learn German. What seems a little scary are the 3 genders, declinations, and compound words. By compound words I mean stuff like Schreibenpapierinstrument to say fountain pen LOL BTW I just made up the German word. Combining multiple words in a glob is difficult for a reader, but maybe it's a question of practice.

This. I studied German for a while and never understood how declensions worked

I guess I'll give it another try sometime.

Compound words look funny/intimidating but there's no real difficulty to them imo.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

well , sampras that year made the uso final , federer this year was really bad.

at least stak won 4 titles and all of that titles were in vert fast surfaces incluiding titles on grass...... , when sampras lost to federer he not had a single title like professional.

but you are talking without sense saying that federer took more advantage of slow grass than murray , djoko or nadal!!!

in 2001 , 2003 , 2004 or 2005 grass , nadal or djokovic would not play a wimbledon final.

in 2007 the grass was even more slow than the previous years , in 2008 this was proved too

federer won wimbledon playing serve and volley and beated sampras with that game in 2012 he beated murray playing very much in the net too , nadal or djoko winning wimbly playing serve and volley??? impossible.

Who told you the grass was slower in 2008 than it was in 2007? Some data, please.

And the grass has been equally slow since at least 2002. In 2004 Nadal didn't play the final because he had just celebrated his 18th birthday.

This concept that the grass was slower when Nadal won than when Federer won is wrong.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

This. I studied German for a while and never understood how declensions worked

I guess I'll give it another try sometime.

Compound words look funny/intimidating but there's no real difficulty to them imo.

Thank you Crisstti. I guess compound words just take time getting used to.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Do you feel at all that the slowing down of the grass has affected Wimbledon's prestige in any way?

Not really. I've been watching Wimbledon since the 90's and it's always felt incredibly special every single year. Especially though, the Federer Nadal rivalry brought some temporary added prestige to the tournament. I think for the most part it just depends on who is winning. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic winning the AO between them so much over the last 10 years has certainly amplified the prestige of the event and now people talk about it as being more or less as important as any other Major -- the renovations certainly helped, also. In short, because the view on tennis achievements are even more Slam-centric than ever these days, some of the events have caught up to others in terms of importance or prestige, but those that were say a 10 on the prestige scale, still remain a 10 (AO used to be like a 5 but now it's a 8-10).

 

[TMF]

Who told you the grass was slower in 2008 than it was in 2007? Some data, please.

And the grass has been equally slow since at least 2002. In 2004 Nadal didn't play the final because he had just celebrated his 18th birthday.

This concept that the grass was slower when Nadal won than when Federer won is wrong.

No it's not.

The 2008[grass] serve goes 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.
http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

 

[MichaelNadal]

Q. Do you think you'll come back, or do you think you'll just give up on Wimbledon?

MARAT SAFIN: No, I give up on Wimbledon. Is definitely not the tournament for me. I give up on spending time on this courts. I give up on practicing before the tournament, just to prepare myself for better results. I hate. I hate this. I have to admit it. I'm not really enjoying playing on this courts. So I just, you know, come like other people - Friday, Saturday before the tournament. Practice a couple of days, then I play. I'm not gonna spend my time, not gonna waste my time on that knowing, though, that I will not play well.

Q. Have you always felt this way about grass?

MARAT SAFIN: I never could move. That's what's my problem. Was always a problem for me. I was sliding. Bounce is very low for me. Just I hate also when it's like very low bounce, and sometimes bad bounces. I mean, it's for everybody it's like this. But for me, especially for my game, I cannot adjust to this. You have to be really focus in your mind, but it's not my territory.

:lol: tell us what you really feel Marat!

 

[Bobby Jr]

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.

Wrong. Historical significance based on tradition, longevity, and the fact Wimbledon being regarded long-term as the unofficial world championship of tennis. In fact if you weren't such a dedicated dunce who spends more time talking than listening you'd know that the Wimbledon trophy has the inscription "All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Championship of the World", and has had since 1887.

Insofar as it being held on fast grass, I don't supposed you think the fact they used unpressurised balls for so long or wooden racquets is irrelevant?

 

[TMF]

Lendl was the one who said "grass is for cows" in 1982.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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.

If anything Rafter and Henman would have benefited more from fast grass than Roddick or Safin.

 

[Bobby Jr]

If anything the "fast" grass devalued Wimbledon with so many players skipping it.

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.

Nope. I was right. You chose to ignore the greater historical significance of Wimbledon compared to the other majors.

Wimbledon is the tennis world championships and has been for generations - it even says so on the trophy and I've never heard of anyone or any other tournament having issues with that claim.

In any iteration of achieving success at three majors having Wimbledon as the missing trophy in your cabinet is the biggest hole compared to any of the others.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Not really. I've been watching Wimbledon since the 90's and it's always felt incredibly special every single year. Especially though, the Federer Nadal rivalry brought some temporary added prestige to the tournament. I think for the most part it just depends on who is winning. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic winning the AO between them so much over the last 10 years has certainly amplified the prestige of the event and now people talk about it as being more or less as important as any other Major -- the renovations certainly helped, also. In short, because the view on tennis achievements are even more Slam-centric than ever these days, some of the events have caught up to others in terms of importance or prestige, but those that were say a 10 on the prestige scale, still remain a 10 (AO used to be like a 5 but now it's a 8-10).

I understand, thanks. Have you ever attended the championship? I imagine tickets for the Men's Final must be pretty expensive, but probably worth it if you can make it.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

No it's not.

The 2008[grass] serve goes 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.
http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

That's a very unscientific study, if you can even call it that. It looks like they are comparing 2 serves from Federer, one from 2003 and another from 2008. One of them has a slighter different incidence angle. No mention of spin RPM on the ball, temperature, humidity, etc. If it's just two serves the sample is small. I'm watching without sound. Do they describe the method, is it different from what it looks like?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Lendl was the one who said "grass is for cows" in 1982.

Santana said it in the 60s.

 

[Crisstti]

Nope. I was right. You chose to ignore the greater historical significance of Wimbledon compared to the other majors.

Wimbledon is the tennis world championships and has been for generations - it even says so on the trophy and I've never heard of anyone or any other tournament having issues with that claim.

In any iteration of achieving success at three majors having Wimbledon as the missing trophy in your cabinet is the biggest hole compared to any of the others.

Wimbledon being somewhat older doesn't translate to it having today more prestige than the other slams or being more important.

Missing Wimbledon is only the biggest hole if you have an anglocentric vision of tennis as you obviously do.

 

[Crisstti]

Santana said it in the 60s.

Ríos said it in the 90's

 

[Roddick85]

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.

Enlighten me, how can Federer have benefitted from slower grass more than Djokovic/Nadal/Murray? The type of player that benefits the most from a slow surface/higher bouncing surfaces are defensive players, which is exactly what Djokovic and Nadal are, even Murray to some extent but not as much. Now are you telling me Federer is a defensive player? Last time I checked, he's one of the greatest shotmaker of all time with an offensive all court game. The fact is, when grass was fast, no one was winning RG on slow clay and then winning Wimbledon 4 weeks later playing the same way, which is exactly what Nadal did. Slow grass is Djokovic's worst surface, the guy loves slow hard court, so I don't see how he could do well on low bouncing fast grass.

 

[jhhachamp]

Why do you think so?

When Federer beat a past his prime Sampras at Wimbledon 2001, Federer himself was also far away from his prime. When Nadal beat a past his prime Federer at the WTF this year, Nadal was the number 1 player in the world, in his prime, and had recently played played the best hard court tennis of his career. How do you think these events are similar?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Enlighten me, how can Federer have benefitted from slower grass more than Djokovic/Nadal/Murray? The type of player that benefits the most from a slow surface/higher bouncing surfaces are defensive players, which is exactly what Djokovic and Nadal are, even Murray to some extent but not as much. Now are you telling me Federer is a defensive player? Last time I checked, he's one of the greatest shotmaker of all time with an offensive all court game. The fact is, when grass was fast, no one was winning RG on slow clay and then winning Wimbledon 4 weeks later playing the same way, which is exactly what Nadal did. Slow grass is Djokovic's worst surface, the guy loves slow hard court, so I don't see how he could do well on low bouncing fast grass.

In fast grass Federer would have not had to play Nadal, he would have had to play some S/V specialist. Why do you think Federer would have been successful against Sampras in fast grass playing S/V? Serve, net approach, volleys, passing shots are all weaker compared to Sampras.

Federer benefitted the most because he won 7 Wimbledon titles. If we transplant Nadal and Federer to the 90s, I do see Nadal still being the king of clay, but I don't see Federer having nearly as much success as he had in Wimbledon.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

When Federer beat a past his prime Sampras at Wimbledon 2001, Federer himself was also far away from his prime. When Nadal beat a past his prime Federer at the WTF this year, Nadal was the number 1 player in the world, in his prime, and had recently played played the best hard court tennis of his career. How do you think these events are similar?

You can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from a single match. A Nadal very far from his prime beat a prime Federer in Miami in 2004 on hardcourt. What conclusion do you draw from that?

 

[jhhachamp]

You can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from a single match. A Nadal very far from his prime beat a prime Federer in Miami in 2004 on hardcourt. What conclusion do you draw from that?

I am very confused. Your post seems to have nothing to do with my post which you quoted. You are the one who wrote that Nadal's match with Federer at the WTF this year was similar to Federer's match with Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and I responded to let you know that I thought the comparison was ridiculous as the matches were not at all similar. As far as I am concerned you have ignored my post.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I am very confused. Your post seems to have nothing to do with my post which you quoted. You are the one who wrote that Nadal's match with Federer at the WTF this year was similar to Federer's match with Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and I responded to let you know that I thought the comparison was ridiculous as the matches were not at all similar. As far as I am concerned you have ignored my post.

You objected that Federer was also far from his prime in 2011, so I gave you another example of why you can't rely on a single match. Does that make sense?

 

[NatF]

In fast grass Federer would have not had to play Nadal, he would have had to play some S/V specialist. Why do you think Federer would have been successful against Sampras in fast grass playing S/V? Serve, net approach, volleys, passing shots are all weaker compared to Sampras.

Federer benefitted the most because he won 7 Wimbledon titles. If we transplant Nadal and Federer to the 90s, I do see Nadal still being the king of clay, but I don't see Federer having nearly as much success as he had in Wimbledon.

Federer's passing shots and return are all better than Sampras'. Playing in the 90's Federer would have improved his net play and his serve is extremely effective as it is. Let alone in faster conditions. Sampras faced Agassi and Courier in finals at Wimbledon, hardly S&V specialists. You don't know what you're talking about.

Sampras never faced a guy like Federer either, it's a two way street. I could easily say that Nadal is lucky he never had to face Borg of any of the other great claycourters.

 

[jhhachamp]

You objected that Federer was also far from his prime in 2011, so I gave you another example of why you can't rely on a single match. Does that make sense?

That doesn't make sense because I never made the argument that a single match is important. I simply responded to your claim that Fed/Sampras in 2001 was somehow comparable to Fed/Nadal in 2013, as I thought the two matches were not at all similar. I have offered some reasons why I think they are different and asked you why you thought they were comparable; you have continued to ignore that question by posing off topic questions back to me.

 

[TMF]

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

No it's not similar, far from it. Sampras/Fed are 10 years apart but Fed/Nadal are 5 years apart. When Sampras/Fed played in 2001, Fed was only 19, 2 years before he win his 1st slam. Meanwhile Sampras was a 4 times defending champion with all the experience in his backyard. Sampras was heavily favorite to win Wimbledon, never mind a teenage Fed going to beat him.


Nadal 2013 WTF was #1 in the world and Fed was a few years past his prime. It would be embarrassing for Nadal to lose to him again at the WTF.

If you want a similar comparison, it would be prime 2006 Fed playing 2001 Sampras, which means they are 5 years apart.

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

Your biased opinion is not fact. And Wimbledon 2001 proved you wrong.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

That doesn't make sense because I never made the argument that a single match is important. I simply responded to your claim that Fed/Sampras in 2001 was somehow comparable to Fed/Nadal in 2013, as I thought the two matches were not at all similar. I have offered some reasons why I think they are different and asked you why you thought they were comparable; you have continued to ignore that question by posing off topic questions back to me.

Please, stop confusing the real issue with technicalities, I'm not a 4 year old.

The premise was that Federer beating Sampras in Wimbledon in 2011 proves somehow that Federer would have been competitive against Sampras during Sampras' prime. That match is similar to the WTF victory of Nadal against Federer because both Sampras and Federer were defending champions past their prime. While it's true that Federer wasn't prime in 2001 on grass, and Nadal was prime in 2013, that fact can be offset because Nadal's worst results have always come indoor, whereas Federer's best surface has always been grass.

Then, since you objected to that fact, I provided another example why a single match is not enough to derive any conclusions like you were trying to do. In Miami 2004 Federer was prime and lost to a non prime Nadal on his best surface. This case is even more illustrative of how irrational it is to attempt to rely on the 1-0 .H2H between Federer and Sampras to project any outcomes during a prime-to-prime extended matchup.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

No it's not similar, far from it. Sampras/Fed are 10 years apart but Fed/Nadal are 5 years apart. When Sampras/Fed played in 2001, Fed was only 19, 2 years before he win his 1st slam. Meanwhile Sampras was a 4 times defending champion with all the experience in his backyard. Sampras was heavily favorite to win Wimbledon, never mind a teenage Fed going to beat him.


Nadal 2013 WTF was #1 in the world and Fed was a few years past his prime. It would be embarrassing for Nadal to lose to him again at the WTF.

If you want a similar comparison, it would be prime 2006 Fed playing 2001 Sampras, which means they are 5 years apart.


Your biased opinion is not fact. And Wimbledon 2001 proved you wrong.

Stop being so irrational and attempting to defend what you know is an untenable position. Read my reply above to Steve.

 

[Egoista]

Fed would have had 11 titles at wimby by now and nadal 0 if the grass was the same speed as before

 

[TMF]

Stop being so irrational and attempting to defend what you know is an untenable position. Read my reply above to Steve.

No, you're being irrational by attempting to compare apples to oranges.

10 years apart is not the same as 5 years apart. Prime Nadal beat past prime Roger in 2013. Young 19 years old Fed beat a 29 years old Sampras going for his 5th Wimbledon in 2001. Fed was nothing on grass at that age while Nadal with all the experience and have made 2 WTF finals prior beating Fed.



Conclusion: Nadal and Sampras was the heavy favorite in 2001 and 2013.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

No, you're being irrational by attempting to compare apples to oranges.

10 years apart is not the same as 5 years apart. Prime Nadal beat past prime Roger in 2013. Young 19 years old Fed beat a 29 years old Sampras going for his 5th Wimbledon in 2001. Fed was nothing on grass at that age while Nadal with all the experience and have made 2 WTF finals prior beating Fed.



Conclusion: Nadal and Sampras was the heavy favorite in 2001 and 2013.

Was Nadal also favorite in Miami 2004? Funny how you can derive a general conclusion from the 1-0 Federer/Sampras H2H but the 22-10 Nadal/Federer H2H is an anomaly. You people are ridiculous. :lol:

 

[TMF]

The premise was that Federer beating Sampras in Wimbledon in 2011 proves somehow that Federer would have been competitive against Sampras during Sampras' prime.

That's not true. Federer lost to Tsonga in 2011 Wimbledon and Sampras retire in 2003. You can't have a premise when the event never happened.

 

[TMF]

Was Nadal also favorite in Miami 2004? Funny how you can derive a general conclusion from the 1-0 Federer/Sampras H2H but the 22-10 Nadal/Federer H2H is an anomaly. You people are ridiculous. :lol:

It's not about "anomaly". I'm just saying you didn't use an accurate example to compare Fed/Sampras 2001 Wimbledon. Had Fed was only 5 years younger than Pete and prime Fed beat him in 2001(not 2011), that makes more sense.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Wimbledon is hardly lower in value - it's the top major and always will be barring some truly insane rule change (go back to the ancient days of ex-champ waits to play until the final the next yr). But the slow down of the grass allowed players to show up with the same game they used all spring in EU on clay - and have a shot at winning. Borg had to quickly move from a baseline game to S&V.

 

[Roddick85]

Federer's passing shots and return are all better than Sampras'. Playing in the 90's Federer would have improved his net play and his serve is extremely effective as it is. Let alone in faster conditions. Sampras faced Agassi and Courier in finals at Wimbledon, hardly S&V specialists. You don't know what you're talking about.

Sampras never faced a guy like Federer either, it's a two way street. I could easily say that Nadal is lucky he never had to face Borg of any of the other great claycourters.

I'm with you.
The only match they played in 2001 at Wimbledon, Federer showed he could hang with a S&V opponent, using that strategy himself and was successful with it. And I also agree that Federer's passing shots are even better than Sampras. Even if fast grass would of prevented Federer from facing Nadal, Federer thrived against pretty much anyone beside Nadal. It's no secret Federer hates to play grinders, so I don't believe a S&V or offensive baseliner would of troubled Federer much on grass (see Roddick).

 

[NatF]

I'm with you.
The only match they played in 2001 at Wimbledon, Federer showed he could hang with a S&V opponent, using that strategy himself and was successful with it. And I also agree that Federer's passing shots are even better than Sampras. Even if fast grass would of prevented Federer from facing Nadal, Federer thrived against pretty much anyone beside Nadal. It's no secret Federer hates to play grinders, so I don't believe a S&V or offensive baseliner would of troubled Federer much on grass (see Roddick).

Yep, Federer is being underrated here. His return game is better than any opponent Sampras faced in the later rounds of Wimbledon bar Agassi. He also defends his serve nearly as well as Sampras himself. He's also statistically the greatest tiebreak player of all time.

The whole premise of Federer not having 7 Wimbledon's if he competed against Sampras is ridiculous. Sampras wouldn't end up with 7 Wimbledon's either! It's a pathetic trolling attempt from someone who is quickly becoming one of the worst posters on here.

 

[Crisstti]

Yep, Federer is being underrated here. His return game is better than any opponent Sampras faced in the later rounds of Wimbledon bar Agassi. He also defends his serve nearly as well as Sampras himself. He's also statistically the greatest tiebreak player of all time.

The whole premise of Federer not having 7 Wimbledon's if he competed against Sampras is ridiculous. Sampras wouldn't end up with 7 Wimbledon's either! It's a pathetic trolling attempt from someone who is quickly becoming one of the worst posters on here.

Who knows, maybe one of them would still have 7 and the other 0. No way to know of course

 

[jhhachamp]

While it's true that Federer wasn't prime in 2001 on grass, and Nadal was prime in 2013, that fact can be offset because Nadal's worst results have always come indoor, whereas Federer's best surface has always been grass.

I do not agree that the fact can be offset by the reason you provided.

Then, since you objected to that fact, I provided another example why a single match is not enough to derive any conclusions like you were trying to do.

I never objected to this. I never made the claim that single match is enough to derive conclusions. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[chjtennis]

I am certain that if the grass was as fast as it was in the 90s, Federer would've come closer to 10th Wimbledon title and wouldn't have lost to Nadal in 2008. He just has the best game for grass out of all active players from 2000-2013.

 

[monfed]

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.

Yes as proven by the 2001 Wimbledon QF. As if Ralph would even cross the first round on 90s grass so yea instead of clowning you should be grateful the grass was slowed,wolfy.

 

[monfed]

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 fans wanna have the cake and eat it too, too bad real life isn't like that. :lol: