Wimbledon has devaluated since the introduction of slow grass

[monfed]

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

Last I checked Fed beat Peter on fast grass of 2001, the same grass on which headcase servebot Ivanisevic won his precious Wimbledon.

 

[monfed]

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".

More delusion from the bulls as if the thread alone isn't bad enough of a joke. Sorry holmes, ex players even Wimbledon groundsmen disagree with you.

 

[monfed]

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!

Yea it's pathetic to see the extent to which Naddies will stoop to devalue Fed, bit like their idol.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Yea it's pathetic to see the extent to which Naddies will stoop to devalue Fed, bit like their idol.

Precisely. Wimbledon was always the greatest tournament and Nadal fans can't deal with the fact that Nadal only managed 2 titles, compared to Fed's 7.

 

[monfed]

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

Haha exactly, ignoramus wolfy doesn't realise this.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Sampras >>>>>> Federer on 90s grass, just like Federer >>>>>> Nadal on indoor and Nadal >>>>>> Federer oin clay.

 

[Backspin1183]

Fast grass or slow grass, does it matter when it's the same tournament?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Fast grass or slow grass, does it matter when it's the same tournament?

It matters to those who lament Nadal won it 2 times without realizing Fed would have been pwned by peak Sampras in the old grass.

 

[TMF]

Sampras >>>>>> Federer on 90s grass, just like Federer >>>>>> Nadal on indoor and Nadal >>>>>> Federer oin clay.

And the Pete/Federer 2001 Wimbledon result by playing serve/volley supports your ">>>>>>" claim.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

And the Pete/Federer 2001 Wimbledon result by playing serve/volley supports your ">>>>>>" claim.

17 yo Nadal beat prime Fed on hardcourt. Was Sampras prime in 2001?

 

[NatF]

17 yo Nadal beat prime Fed on hardcourt. Was Sampras prime in 2001?

31 year old Federer beat prime Nadal in 2012.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

31 year old Federer beat prime Nadal in 2012.

You are adding weight to my theory that Fed's 2001 win against Sampras means nothing.

 

[NatF]

You are adding weight to my theory that Fed's 2001 win against Sampras means nothing.

Am I? You may want to believe that Sampras would destroy Federer in the 90's but the fact is both have 7 Wimbledon's and Federer won their only match on center court. We can see from the match that Pete was playing well but not his best and Federer played a very good match especially considering his career up to that point. I assume if both were at their best it would be close.

Your argument is based on anecdotal nonsense about Federer vs Nadal. Which is completely irrelevent considering the nature of their matchup. 17 year old Nadal taking out Federer is irrelevent. It's not like Federer was playing a very good match but Nadal was too good...you'd have more of a point if it was close.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Am I? You may want to believe that Sampras would destroy Federer in the 90's but the fact is both have 7 Wimbledon's and Federer won their only match on center court. We can see from the match that Pete was playing well but not his best and Federer played a very good match especially considering his career up to that point. I assume if both were at their best it would be close.

Your argument is based on anecdotal nonsense about Federer vs Nadal. Which is completely irrelevent considering the nature of their matchup. 17 year old Nadal taking out Federer is irrelevent. It's not like Federer was playing a very good match but Nadal was too good...you'd have more of a point if it was close.

My point is a 1 match result (like the Wibledon 2001 victory of Federer over Sampras) doesn't mean much in the large scheme of things.

 

[NatF]

My point is a 1 match result (like the Wibledon 2001 victory of Federer over Sampras) doesn't mean much in the large scheme of things.

You don't get it do you? If I thought the 1 match result meant alot I would have said Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon the only time they met so would be favored in the 90's. But that's not what I said, I said I'd given them about even odds because the match was tight. And also because I respect both of them, unlike you.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

You don't get it do you? If I thought the 1 match result meant alot I would have said Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon the only time they met so would be favored in the 90's. But that's not what I said, I said I'd given them about even odds because the match was tight. And also because I respect both of them, unlike you.

So you are still deriving conclusions based on a single match.

Who said I don't respect them? Adoration and respect are different things. Fed is the best player under slow grass conditions, that is obvious. The double standard of those who lament Nadal's success and celebrate Fed's without realizing Fed benefited lime no other with the change in surface is what I don't respect.

 

[NatF]

So you are still deriving conclusions based on a single match.

Who said I don't respect them? Adoration and respect are different things. Fed is the best player under slow grass conditions, that is obvious. The double standard of those who lament Nadal's success and celebrate Fed's without realizing Fed benefited lime no other with the change in surface is what I don't respect.

There are no players from the 00's that would beat Federer on fast grass. Serve and volley was already almost dead.

Its the only match we have, you have no evidence to suggest Sampras would dominate. Atleast I have a match to draw on. You're ignoring it and speculating instead.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Sampras >>>>>> Federer on 90s grass, just like Federer >>>>>> Nadal on indoor and Nadal >>>>>> Federer oin clay.

That is about as stupid as your signature. You're clueless if you won't admit Fed has a much better return of serve than Sampras and would get into more return games and thus have more chances to break. Sampras was never a good returner; he lived and died by his serve.

 

[helloworld]

That is about as stupid as your signature. You're clueless if you won't admit Fed has a much better return of serve than Sampras and would get into more return games and thus have more chances to break. Sampras was never a good returner; he lived and died by his serve.

How does Sampras break monsters like Becker and Ivanisevic if he had such a poor return of serve then? Those monsters can serve light years better than Fed you know.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Sampras did not live and die by his serve...

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

That is about as stupid as your signature. You're clueless if you won't admit Fed has a much better return of serve than Sampras and would get into more return games and thus have more chances to break. Sampras was never a good returner; he lived and died by his serve.

Sampras' serve is in a different league than most anybody Fed has to play with. Federer's serve isn't something the most successful S/V player of all time would have much problem with.

In a few years sophisticated computer models will be able to simulate matches between any players, and they will prove Sampras >>>>>> Fed in fast grass.

My signature is stupid? What does that make your signature? I don't own a TV.

 

[TMF]

17 yo Nadal beat prime Fed on hardcourt. Was Sampras prime in 2001?

You claim Sampras >>>>>> Federer with nothing to backup except your biased and hate toward Federer. The low bounce grass is more suitable for Federer but you don't want to admit it. Objectively, Fed and Sampras would split 50/50 and doesn't need the 2001 Wimbledon win for validity. Had you said they are evenly match then people will take you seriously.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

You claim Sampras >>>>>> Federer with nothing to backup except your biased and hate toward Federer. The low bounce grass is more suitable for Federer but you don't want to admit it. Objectively, Fed and Sampras would split 50/50 and doesn't need the 2001 Wimbledon win for validity. Had you said they are evenly match then people will take you seriously.

Why is 50/50 a more plausible outcome than, say, 75/25 for Sampras? Can you at least reason why that is so?

Also, you are just as biased as I am. My bias is based on a reactionary dislike of the Federer cult, and yours is based on blind irrational adoration for Federer. What makes your bias more acceptable?

For the record, I don't hate or even dislike Federer. I just think he has built up to be something he isn't. He is a great, extremely creative and consistent player, one of the best. Not the deity some people have made him out to be.

 

[TMF]

Why is 50/50 a more plausible outcome than, say, 75/25 for Sampras? Can you at least reason why that is so?

Also, you are just as biased as I am. My bias is based on a reactionary dislike of the Federer cult, and yours is based on blind irrational adoration for Federer. What makes your bias more acceptable?

For the record, I don't hate or even dislike Federer. I just think he has built up to be something he isn't. He is a great, extremely creative and consistent player, one of the best. Not the deity some people have made him out to be.

No way it's 75/25. Federer would benefit from playing fast, low bounce grass. It's a better striking zone for him. His bh is more effective and consistent, not a liable like the high bounce. His low slice is more effective. Then you add his serve is more potent on fast, slick grass.


If I'm biased I would like you saying Fed >>>>>> Sampras. But no, I think they would go toe-to-toe. No one dominate one another.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Why is 50/50 a more plausible outcome than, say, 75/25 for Sampras? Can you at least reason why that is so?

Also, you are just as biased as I am. My bias is based on a reactionary dislike of the Federer cult, and yours is based on blind irrational adoration for Federer. What makes your bias more acceptable?

For the record, I don't hate or even dislike Federer. I just think he has built up to be something he isn't. He is a great, extremely creative and consistent player, one of the best. Not the deity some people have made him out to be.

Hahaha, so true FoD..........:twisted:

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Sampras did not live and die by his serve...

He kinda did, especially in late 90's. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Serve is one shot that's least affected by age and there's always room for improvement. Federer, Nadal also increasingly relied on serve as they aged.

 

[NatF]

Sampras' serve is in a different league than most anybody Fed has to play with. Federer's serve isn't something the most successful S/V player of all time would have much problem with.

In a few years sophisticated computer models will be able to simulate matches between any players, and they will prove Sampras >>>>>> Fed in fast grass.

My signature is stupid? What does that make your signature? I don't own a TV.

Sampras serve certainly isn't in a different league compared to Roddick's as a standalone shot. Consider that Federer's hold serve percentage is right up there with Sampras and Roddick. His serve is a weapon he places it very well and on fast grass it would cause problems for anyone. Don't kid yourself.

 

[mike danny]

17 yo Nadal beat prime Fed on hardcourt. Was Sampras prime in 2001?

Was federer prime in 2001?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Was federer prime in 2001?

What's more impressive, non prime beating prime or non prime beating non prime?

 

[mike danny]

What's more impressive, non prime beating prime or non prime beating non prime?

the point is you cannot say sampras was not in his prime while not saying the same for Fed. None of them were in their prime yet Fed won. So you cannot just jump to the conclusion that sampras would def win

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

the point is you cannot say sampras was not in his prime while not saying the same for Fed. None of them were in their prime yet Fed won. So you cannot just jump to the conclusion that sampras would def win

The thing is I'm not jumping to any conclusion based on that match. I have Sampras' full career on fast grass to rely on.

 

[mike danny]

but fed did not yet mature to see how he would do on fast grass

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

but fed did not yet mature to see how he would do on fast grass

That's very true. As long as people concede that perhaps Fed just benefitted as much with the change in grass as Nadal and Djokovic, I have no problem.

 

[NatF]

That's very true. As long as people concede that perhaps Fed just benefitted as much with the change in grass as Nadal and Djokovic, I have no problem.

There's no one from the 00's who would outpreform Federer on any grass. Your point is irrelevant.

 

[jg153040]

The thing is I'm not jumping to any conclusion based on that match. I have Sampras' full career on fast grass to rely on.

You are such a tool. Nobody knows what happens, if both grow up at the same time.

Obviously Fed being born 10 years earlier, he plays on fast grass and develops his game for fast grass.

Or you say if we invent a time machine and transport 2006 Fed in 1996? Do they play only one match? Do they play an exhibition or W final? We can't know for sure what happens if we transfer Fed into the past with a time-machine.

Does he have a chance to train a few months on fast grass? Does Sampras know Fed from the future is coming, so he can prepare?

I mean you are living in a fantasy world.

And even if we use your fantasy, and we send Fed back into the past and he loses to Sampras. So, what? Nadal lost to Darcis on grass, but nobody says he can't be the goat because of this.

I mean you've lost it man. Fed fans got into your head

 

[jhhachamp]

There's no one from the 00's who would outpreform Federer on any grass. Your point is irrelevant.

I agree with this statement and in fact feel that Federer may have been even more successful than he was if the grass at Wimbledon was faster and had a lower bounce.

 

[TMF]

That's very true. As long as people concede that perhaps Fed just benefitted as much with the change in grass as Nadal and Djokovic, I have no problem.

Wrong. Fed would have a better success had the grass never changed because he's more of a natural grass players and anyone else. The gradual slow and high bounce grass eventually led to Nadal finally win Wimbledon in 2008. The new grass suits less for attacking, volley and big serve. Conditions went against Federer but benefit Nadal.

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

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

You are such a tool. Nobody knows what happens, if both grow up at the same time.

Obviously Fed being born 10 years earlier, he plays on fast grass and develops his game for fast grass.

Or you say if we invent a time machine and transport 2006 Fed in 1996? Do they play only one match? Do they play an exhibition or W final? We can't know for sure what happens if we transfer Fed into the past with a time-machine.

Does he have a chance to train a few months on fast grass? Does Sampras know Fed from the future is coming, so he can prepare?

I mean you are living in a fantasy world.

And even if we use your fantasy, and we send Fed back into the past and he loses to Sampras. So, what? Nadal lost to Darcis on grass, but nobody says he can't be the goat because of this.

I mean you've lost it man. Fed fans got into your head

Merry Christmas, jg.

 

[jg153040]

Merry Christmas, jg.

Thanks, I guess. I come here and you downplay Fed's achievements again.
Nice present you gave me lol. I don't like this side of you. I guess I was wrong about you.

 

[TMF]

the point is you cannot say sampras was not in his prime while not saying the same for Fed. None of them were in their prime yet Fed won. So you cannot just jump to the conclusion that sampras would def win

Both weren't in their prime, but obviously Sampras was closer to his prime than a 19 years old Fed who still a headcase and no experience on grass. Sampras was the favorite to win Wimbledon while no one even know Federer existence. And that Wimbledon match was a carbon copy of a style of play in the 90s which Federer won.

Only a hater who think Federer can't beat Sampras at their prime.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Thanks, I guess. I come here and you downplay Fed's achievements again.
Nice present you gave me lol. I don't like this side of you. I guess I was wrong about you.

Newton's Third Law explains a lot.

Federer is the most accomplished player so far, do you prefer I state the obvious?

 

[jg153040]

Both weren't in their prime, but obviously Sampras was closer to his prime than a 19 years old Fed who still a headcase and no experience on grass. Sampras was the favorite to win Wimbledon while no one even know Federer existence. And that Wimbledon match was a carbon copy of a style of play in the 90s which Federer won.

Only a hater who think Federer can't beat Sampras at their prime.

Sorry, but nobody knows anything. Both growing up at the same time everything changes.

And even if we send Fed in the past with a time-machine and he beats Pete, that doesn't prove he is greater. Fed has the benefit of evolution.

We can send Hitler back in time. He beats Napoleon with tanks vs cannons.
That doesn't mean he is a greater general.

Fed growing up in the 90s doesn't have accumulated knowledge yet. So his level would not be the same as today. So who knows what happens. And obviously if Pete was growing up today, his level would be higher and he would be a different player.

So, I think those comparisons peak vs peak are stupid. We can only compare numbers.

 

[tennis_pro]

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

It's all cool but you forgot one small detail. The grass was changed AFTER Wimbledon in 2001 (September that year) so Federer still beat Sampras on fast grass.

 

[edberg volleys]

It's all cool but you forgot one small detail. The grass was changed AFTER Wimbledon in 2001 (September that year) so Federer still beat Sampras on fast grass.

That's correct.

 

[jg153040]

Newton's Third Law explains a lot.

Federer is the most accomplished player so far, do you prefer I state the obvious?

I don't know. Depends what your main goals are on this forum.

 

[TMF]

Sorry, but nobody knows anything. Both growing up at the same time everything changes.

And even if we send Fed in the past with a time-machine and he beats Pete, that doesn't prove he is greater. Fed has the benefit of evolution.

We can send Hitler back in time. He beats Napoleon with tanks vs cannons.
That doesn't mean he is a greater general.

Fed growing up in the 90s doesn't have accumulated knowledge yet. So his level would not be the same as today. So who knows what happens. And obviously if Pete was growing up today, his level would be higher and he would be a different player.

So, I think those comparisons peak vs peak are stupid. We can only compare numbers.

I'm with you on let's just stick to fact/number since that is the only objective methodology.

However, I disagree with a notion that Sampras would be >>>>>> Federer had Fed was 10 years earlier who grew up on playing fast grass.

And Hitler is not even a general since he makes decision and his great generals does all the work. The fuhrer has no experience and likes to get involved with the plans/operations and many of his decisions were a big mistake. His finest generals often disagree with him but they have no choice but to follow his orders.

A better comparison would be Rommel vs. Napoleon

Sorry for the off topic folks.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I don't know. Depends what your main goals are on this forum.

No main goals except having a good time and educate folks like you.

/EndTrollMode

 

[jg153040]

I'm with you on let's just stick to fact/number since that is the only objective methodology.

However, I disagree with a notion that Sampras would be >>>>>> Federer had Fed was 10 years earlier who grew up on playing fast grass.

And Hitler is not even a general since he makes decision and his great generals does all the work. The fuhrer has no experience and likes to get involved with the plans/operations and many of his decisions were a big mistake. His finest generals often disagree with him but they have no choice but to follow his orders.

A better comparison would be Rommel vs. Napoleon

Sorry for the off topic folks.

I didn't say Sampras owns Fed. I said we just can't know. And even if Sampras did own Fed on fast grass, that doesn't prove who is greater anyway. On slow grass Fed has the edge at W, so it evens out.

Yes, Hitler was good analogy. He was a bad general. But still a general. But his army would still beat Napoleon's due to evolution, not due to Hitler's greatness. That was my point.

 

[jg153040]

No main goals except having a good time and educate folks like you.

/EndTrollMode

Ok, cool. So, what did you teach me with this thread?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Ok, cool. So, what did you teach me with this thread?

What did you learn?