Don't get me wrong: I like a fast Wimbledon, and I dislike the fact that the courts have been homogenized. In an ideal world, we'd have a fast grass Slam, a slow clay Slam, and one each of fastish and slowish hard Slams (not to mention replacing a hard Masters with grass). Diversity is a good thing. I even agree that some players, like Novak and Rafa, benefit from the homogenization more than others, like Roger. I don't think that is being fanboyish to say so.
On the other hand, it is what it is and I dislike the idea of pre-emptively building a case that gives Roger an excuse if he loses to Novak or Rafa. Not to mention that regardless of how slow Wimbledon is this year, it is still far faster than Roland Garros and faster than a slow hard court.
Rafa probably won't be challenged until Cilic. I like the idea of Muller playing the match of his life and beating him, but I just don't see it. But Cilic could beat him on grass or hards. Novak faces his first challenge in Thiem (or hopefully not Berdych, who he'll get past easily). So both pretty much have easy paths through to the QFs. Roger has a real challenge ahead in Dimitrov, who is playing quite well. After that he has Raonic or Zverev, so I think his path to the SF is hardest of the Big Four. Meanwhile, Andy has Paire and then Anderson/Querrey, so he should be a shoe-in to face Rafa or Cilic in the SF.
