Considering how many different opinions have been thrown around, even from the players themselves, it makes me more cautious to go by player opinions. I'm also not sure how honest the Wimbledon groundskeepers have been in regards to putting information out there. Consider last year's Wimbledon where everyone was complaining about the court speed being way too slow -- from TTW to the commies to the former pros and even to the very top of the tour (I think Nadal was hesitant to answer the question; I wonder why). Remember how Kudla even compared Wimbledon's court speed to the French Open's? Yet what Wimbledon said seemed to go against what everyone else said. You don't know who to believe. This here is an example of how players can disagree with court speeds. And then there's still the massive disagreement over whether the courts slowed down in 2001 or 2002 (I personally think it was 2001).
www.news.com.au
And then you have to get into discussions about balls and weather conditions. That's why I said "Judge for yourself" when I posted the video.Considering how many different opinions have been thrown around, even from the players themselves, it makes me more cautious to go by player opinions. I'm also not sure how honest the Wimbledon groundskeepers have been in regards to putting information out there. Consider last year's Wimbledon where everyone was complaining about the court speed being way too slow -- from TTW to the commies to the former pros and even to the very top of the tour (I think Nadal was hesitant to answer the question; I wonder why). Remember how Kudla even compared Wimbledon's court speed to the French Open's? Yet what Wimbledon said seemed to go against what everyone else said. You don't know who to believe. This here is an example of how players can disagree with court speeds. And then there's still the massive disagreement over whether the courts slowed down in 2001 or 2002 (I personally think it was 2001).
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal butt heads over Wimbledon court speed
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have butted heads over the burning issue of Wimbledon’s court speeds following claims the event has lost its signature speed.
I found these other old quotes (some of them came from the banned poster @nadal_slam_king so make of them what you will lol).
ROGER FEDERER (July 3, 2010): "Obviously, they’re not the fastest courts anymore."
EDDIE SEAWARD - Wimbledon head groundskeeper for 20 years (July 3, 2010): "The ball comes off the same speed, but I think it comes a little bit higher,” he said. “So you get a little bit higher bounce."
I think Nadal actually explains it pretty well here:
RAFAEL NADAL (2014): "The problem with the players always is the same. If I am playing very well, I see the grass slow. If I am playing bad, I see the grass very quick. That is the same for me and the rest of the players.
The feeling are not the same every year for the same players, no? You arrive to, for example, a tournament Montréal that is very fast. I remember 2005 I was there. I had an unbelievable feeling, I was playing great before I arrive to the tournament. I arrive to the locker room, everybody was saying the court was playing that fast. I didn't feel the court was that fast. Is always about the personal feeling of the people.
My personal feeling, I repeat my personal feeling is I am playing in Wimbledon since in 2002. In 2002 I played Wimbledon junior. We are 2014. I don't see no one difference between that period of time. I don't know before."
Another good point. Serve and volley didn't die out because Wimbledon changed the grass - though it did make things more difficult for them. Serve and volley died out because the most of the young players didn't play that way. They didn't play that way because they grew up not on wooden racquets and gut strings, but graphite racquets and polyester strings and they weren't taught to serve and volley, they were taught what worked, and what worked was spin, and playing from the baseline. The junior players that might have wanted to play that way probably had passing shots ripped at their feet or past them at nasty angles by teenaged Roddicks, Rogers, Rafas, and Safins and lost a bunch. Then they either adapted or just didn't make it.
....and what did Federer accomplish in 2001? Like he was anything remotely close to his prime!
I agree. As much as I was a Sampras fan back then (almost to the same extent that I’m a Federer fan now) I don’t think he has any chance to make a decent rivalry against peak Federer anywhere in modern conditions. The main reason is that his style generally won’t work against modern racquets.
Until 2003, Fred still got breadstick from Henman at Paris.
Net play still is effective. Fed notched S&V right back up in 2014-15 while still not coming in as often as 2003. But he also wasn't playing Novak or Murray in 2003. Fed could have still continued to S&V in 2004 but by now he was switching to baseline tennis on the hard courts which seemed to give him better results there. As a result, he probably just found it cumbersome to switch back to all out S&V for Wimbledon, especially when he was winning just fine from the baseline anyway.
But he was taken to five sets quite a lot...
OK, this is ridiculous. Pete was great but as @Im(moral) Winner pointed out, he also dropped plenty of sets during his title runs and was even taken to five a few times.
I'd pick Pete against Rafa on grass, but as for the other grass ATGs it's pretty even honestly. I don't think Fed would struggle against Borg, obviously he wouldn't be beating him easily, but it wouldn't be like Rafa imo. Fed struggles with Rafa (even on grass where we don't really worry about the high BH) because all his usual patterns of play are inverted because he's facing a lefty, and that makes him have to think for a split second more and makes him more hesitant and less decisive. Also, obviously the serve into the BH, which it is simply not possible for a righty to do.
Like in 2001 against hothead teenage Fed.
Federer has played 7 more Wimbledons than Sampras (21 overall), and he seems likely to add to that number. In fact, after the Sampras match, no one even took him to five until 2007 and then it took until the next year for someone to beat him (and that someone was the same player who took him to five in 07).
Well come on now. You can't say no one could take him to 5 sets after that match when he had two more losses after that before his run of 5. Lol. That's more so Federer couldn't take the two players who beat him to 5 after that match. Federer's record at Wimbledon is very impressive nonetheless.
True, but this applies to most other players. Sampras himself lost in the first two rounds for his first three editions of Wimbledon and he also lost to Krajicek in the '96 QF (though the latter appeared to be GOATing so it's not too bad). He finally won the tournament on his fifth. Likewise, Djokovic lost early the three years before he won the tournament. I can't come up with any for Nadal at RG, though, since he won the tournament on his first attempt lmao. But you get the point.Has he really played 21 Wimbledons? My goodness.
If we bring up 2011 Fed, we may as well bring in 2001 Pete.
Just because Fed couldn't handle some big serving and hitting in 2011 is irrelevant as to what Pete would do. It's a joke to compare 2011 Fed's capacities on the surface to the real version. Just as saying Fed would beat Pete because of 2001 is a joke. Pete was significantly more dynamic with a better return at his peak on grass, and he seriously struggled on return that match.
Yeah, especially with so few grass surfaces (even in Sampras' day, there weren't an awful lot of grass courts), it takes time to get used to playing on it. Just look at the next gen, for example. Despite complaints that the courts have slowed down (which suits most of their games), nearly everyone got taken out within the first two rounds so it's obviously about more than the speed itself.
