Wimbledon Myth

Oh, I didn't realise that you have additional conditions (maybe apart from being the Open Era).

How about Bruguera?

:cool:

Additional conditions? Borg retired in 1981. We were talking about 1999 which is nearly 2 decades. Bruguera skipped Wimbledon more than any Slam and only played it 4 times. Bruguera, Muster, Costa, Corretja and Moya never made the QF at Wimbledon. They all skipped it more than any Slam.
 
Additional conditions? Borg retired in 1981. We were talking about 1999 which is nearly 2 decades. Bruguera skipped Wimbledon more than any Slam and only played it 4 times. Bruguera, Muster, Costa, Corretja and Moya never made the QF at Wimbledon. They all skipped it more than any Slam.

Let's be precise: YOU were talking about your "revelation" that the grass changed in 2001, and not 2002.

Others in this thread were talking about earlier periods, and without additional clarification, it wasn't clear exactly which argument you were addressing, so your objection was rightfully rejected.

Now, you put additional conditions, and I have responded to them, to which you didn't respond adequately. Telling me how many times clay court players missed Wimbledon doesn't address my answer to your argument. In fact, you don't stay with your previous argument.

Do you remember what it was?

8-)
 
Let's be precise: YOU were talking about your "revelation" that the grass changed in 2001, and not 2002.

Others in this thread were talking about earlier periods, and without additional clarification, it wasn't clear exactly which argument you were addressing, so your objection was rightfully rejected.

Now, you put additional conditions, and I have responded to them, to which you didn't respond adequately. Telling me how many times clay court players missed Wimbledon doesn't address my answer to your argument. In fact, you don't stay with your previous argument.

Do you remember what it was?

:cool:

Lol. What are you talking about? I specifically placed the year '99 in my sentence as I was replying to another post talking about Kuerten's Wimbledon run in '99. It was clear as day what argument I was addressing and what time frame I was talking about. For some reason you thought Borg was relevant to this discussion although he retired 18 years prior, so bringing up Borg is clearly what was inadequate.
 
Lol. What are you talking about? I specifically placed the year '99 in my sentence as I was replying to another post talking about Kuerten's Wimbledon run in '99. It was clear as day what argument I was addressing and what time frame I was talking about. For some reason you thought Borg was relevant to this discussion although he retired 18 years prior, so bringing up Borg is clearly what was inadequate.

You were talking also about the "early nineties" so pretending that you were talking about specific year is rather disingenuous.

So, let's focus on the question: do you remember what your original argument was, and if you do, please repeat it.

:cool:
 
I actually don't think Kuerten won a match on grass before that '99 Wimbledon. Something like 0-4. Clay courters really did struggle at Wimbledon back then. You would see these guys in the last rounds of RG and be gone by the 1st or 2nd round at Wimbledon every year, or they just didn't bother to show up.
Yep and they hated the grass court seeding system of Wimbledon. New stars in the late 90s coming from clay was one of the factors in Wimbledon seeking to appease them with changes to the court. I remember they slowed down Hannover one year to 'include ' clay courters and that year Corretja beat Moya in the final.
 
Yep and they hated the grass court seeding system of Wimbledon. New stars in the late 90s coming from clay was one of the factors in Wimbledon seeking to appease them with changes to the court. I remember they slowed down Hannover one year to 'include ' clay courters and that year Corretja beat Moya in the final.

Of course, that has nothing to do with his contention (that is why he never came back after my last question), nor with yours.

8-)
 
Back
Top