2017 Wimbledon Championships - Men

[El Dude]

I'm going to quibble with the phrase "just not overall incredible," because it's a subjective and meaningless statement, given his career. But at least you marry his clay wins with the rest of them. I will never understand this inclination to extract clay results and trying to make that prove something. It's a surface that tennis is played on for a full third of the calendar. It's equally possible to knock Roger and Novak (not to mention Pete) for "only" having won RG once, or, in the case of Sampras, never. Sampras gets a relative pass on that one. I have to suspect if he'd won 7 at the French and never won Wimbledon, the discussion about him wouldn't be quite the same. There is a surface prejudice, and it's arguably ridiculous to weigh grass so heavily relative to clay, since only 10% of the calendar is played on the lawns.

I hear you and agree.

As for my phrasing, I think you know what I mean. I mean we could break it down further and without looking at the stats (I'm at the beach, and shouldn't be focusing on this discussion anyway), I'd rank the big three in terms of greatness as follows:

1. RAFA clay
2. ROGER grass
3. ROGER fast hard
4. NOVAK slow hard
5. ROGER slow hard
6. RAFA slow hard
7. NOVAK fast hard
8. NOVAK grass
8. NOVAK clay
10. ROGER clay
11. RAFA grass
12. RAFA fast hard

Of course these are debatable and they don't account for the prominence of the different surfaces, but the list illustrates that Rafa is both the strongest of the three in his preferred surface, and the weakest of the three on the other surfaces...with the caveat that they're all varying degrees of great on all surfaces. Even Rafa on fast hards was pretty damn good for a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[El Dude]

Can't wait for the quibbles, but I might rank Rafa higher than Roger on slow hards and maybe also on grass vs Roger on clay. Will have to do some research later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

So with that being said, who gets to watch Novak on CC tomorrow?

Good question, and maybe why their website is acting so glitchy right now. If you have a ticket from today, can you get in tomorrow? I'm guessing not. It's not a rain check. If you have a Tuesday ticket, you probably just get a bonus Djokovic match.

Crowd movement is what I was sort of talking about above, as a consideration. You can't just change a stadium without taking the time to fill it up. I think a "stampede" would be unlikely, but moving such a wave of humanity takes time, and would have disrupted both matches. If nothing else, it would have been unfair to Nadal/Muller. Especially, I might say, Muller. He was doing such a great job of holding his composure. What if they'd had a delay/distraction by moving a lot of people out?

 

[Moxie]

I hear you and agree.

As for my phrasing, I think you know what I mean. I mean we could break it down further and without looking at the stats (I'm at the beach, and shouldn't be focusing on this discussion anyway), I'd rank the big three in terms of greatness as follows:

1. RAFA clay
2. ROGER grass
3. ROGER fast hard
4. NOVAK slow hard
5. ROGER slow hard
6. RAFA slow hard
7. NOVAK fast hard
8. NOVAK grass
8. NOVAK clay
10. ROGER clay
11. RAFA grass
12. RAFA fast hard

Of course these are debatable and they don't account for the prominence of the different surfaces, but the list illustrates that Rafa is both the strongest of the three in his preferred surface, and the weakest of the three on the other surfaces...with the caveat that they're all varying degrees of great on all surfaces. Even Rafa on fast hards was pretty damn good for a few years.

Not an unreasonable listing. Essentially you get my point, and I get yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't wait for the quibbles, but I might rank Rafa higher than Roger on slow hards and maybe also on grass vs Roger on clay. Will have to do some research later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the stuff that gets complicated, if you're going to compare them to each other, as Rafa has had good success against the other 2, in some relative situations. (Rafa has beaten Roger on grass at Wimbledon, Roger has never beaten Rafa at RG. Rafa has beaten Djokovic at the USO more than Djokovic has beaten him, presumably a better surface for Novak.) I haven't looked at slow hards, either. But there is a real prejudice against clay, and it goes back before Fedal.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So with that being said, who gets to watch Novak on CC tomorrow?

Basically, it will be an unexpected bonus for the center court ticket holders of ladies QF matches. I assume (but not sure) that the
court no. 1 ticket holders of today's matches would be financially compensated as they did not deliver on three matches promised
for them.

 

[El Dude]

This is the stuff that gets complicated, if you're going to compare them to each other, as Rafa has had good success against the other 2, in some relative situations. (Rafa has beaten Roger on grass at Wimbledon, Roger has never beaten Rafa at RG. Rafa has beaten Djokovic at the USO more than Djokovic has beaten him, presumably a better surface for Novak.) I haven't looked at slow hards, either. But there is a real prejudice against clay, and it goes back before Fedal.

Well, there has been a sense historically speaking that clay is almost its own tour or circuit. I'll have to brush up on my history, but I imagine this goes back to the old grass/clay split and the fact that the French Open wasn't an official Grand Slam until the 20s. So it might be a kind of lingering fallacy from long ago, compounded by clay specialists in the Open Era who were comparatively weak off clay. Even today you have guys who specialize on clay and guys who barely play any clay, if at all.

So I would say the general perception now is that hards are the default surface, grass the sacred traditional surface, and clay the weird cousin.

There might also be a subconscious and unspoken Northern/American vs Mediterranean/Latino European elitism thing going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here are the latest odds after the market had sometime to digest the annual Rafexit.

1. Federer 13/8
2. Novak 3
3. Andy 7/2
4. Cilic 7
5. Raonic 30
6. Muller 35
7. Berdych 60
8. Querry 80
9. Mannarino 500 :lulz2:

Realistically, only the top four above have some chance, but I have given the odds for everyone as there are only nine left in the draw.

Needless to say that Roger's odds improved from 5/2 to 13/8. Novak's also improved little bit. Interestingly, the man of the day Muller has better odds than Berdych and Querry.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa did his Kangaroo jump before being ushered into the courts and banged his head against the door frame. There is a video of this at Wimbledon site.

 

[Moxie]

Here are the latest odds after the market had sometime to digest the annual Rafexit.

1. Federer 13/8
2. Novak 3
3. Andy 7/2
4. Cilic 7
5. Raonic 30
6. Muller 35
7. Berdych 60
8. Querry 80
9. Mannarino 500 :lulz2:

Needless to say that Roger's odds improved from 5/2 to 13/8. Novak's also improved little bit. Interestingly, the man of the day Muller has better odds than Berdych and Querry.

Aren't you still just listening to snake oil salesmen? And aren't you still just gloating a bit? (#Rafexit #d!ck)

 

[britbox]

Highlights and Pressers

16-Gilles Muller (Luxembourg) beat 4-Rafa Nadal (Spain) 6-3 6-4 3-6 4-6 15-13







3-Roger Federer (Switzerland) beat 13-Grigor Dimitrov (Bulgaria) 6-4 6-2 6-4





1-Andy Murray (Britain) beat Benoit Paire (France) 7-6(1) 6-4 6-4

 

[Moxie]

Well, there has been a sense historically speaking that clay is almost its own tour or circuit. I'll have to brush up on my history, but I imagine this goes back to the old grass/clay split and the fact that the French Open wasn't an official Grand Slam until the 20s. So it might be a kind of lingering fallacy from long ago, compounded by clay specialists in the Open Era who were comparatively weak off clay. Even today you have guys who specialize on clay and guys who barely play any clay, if at all.

So I would say the general perception now is that hards are the default surface, grass the sacred traditional surface, and clay the weird cousin.

There might also be a subconscious and unspoken Northern/American vs Mediterranean/Latino European elitism thing going on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know all the history, either, though I do know that the English and French sort of co-developed tennis, and the classic clash between them is also illustrated in the English grass/French clay. RG was only designated in the 20s, but so was Australasia, and the US Open came later. And France always had a major tournament.

I disagree that there are still players that play clay only. That's a '90s and earlier idea. Some play clay more. But hey, Dustin Brown barely features most of the year. He's a grass specialist. It happens, but anyone would say the ones who do best on clay also do really well across the year. (Nadal, Verdasco, Ferrer, Cuevas, Fernando Gonzalez...I could go on.)

Your "perception," as I bolded above, demonstrates the prejudice I mentioned. And I think it's easier to explain even than you did: it's goes back, basically to the Gallic-British clash. And as so many British, Australian and US players prevailed for so many years, so did grass, even though they all played grass and clay. So grass seems so "traditional," and Wimbledon is the trophy that everyone prizes above all, but clay has actually won the day, in terms of the calendar. The perception of grass being superior doesn't match the way the sport has diminished it. It's a vestige of British colonial days to think that grass matters more in tennis than clay. Sure, we have a romantic attachment to the grass, but clay is a seriously important part of the calendar. Surely not a "weird cousin."

 

[britbox]

Just in case anybody missed the Nadal/Muller highlights two posts ago, I thought I'd best post it again.

 

[Moxie]

Basically, it will be an unexpected bonus for the center court ticket holders of ladies QF matches. I assume (but not sure) that the
court no. 1 ticket holders of today's matches would be financially compensated as they did not deliver on three matches promised
for them.

I'm guessing they won't get compensated. They weren't guaranteed 3 matches, they were guaranteed a day of tennis. Which they got. If there isn't some caveat that weather, length of matches, etc. changes the deal, I'm a monkey's uncle.

 

[Moxie]

Just in case anybody missed the Nadal/Muller highlights two posts ago, I thought I'd best post it again.

 

[mrzz]

Sure, we have a romantic attachment to the grass, but clay is a seriously important part of the calendar. Surely not a "weird cousin."

I agree that clay is as important as any other surface. As it is basically the only surface I have ever played, subjectively for me it is tennis´ natural surface. But apart from personal reasons, if I had to guess I figure 90% of the players in the world started playing on clay. I guess most of this romantic glamour around grass is precisely due to the fact that we have just about a month of grass court tennis. I am pretty sure that if was the other way around, the glamour would be around clay courts. Both surfaces pose their own peculiar challenges.

 

[kskate2]

Just in case anybody missed the Nadal/Muller highlights two posts ago, I thought I'd best post it again.

Baron,
That's too cold. :demon:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that clay is as important as any other surface. As it is basically the only surface I have ever played, subjectively for me it is tennis´ natural surface. But apart from personal reasons, if I had to guess I figure 90% of the players in the world started playing on clay. I guess most of this romantic glamour around grass is precisely due to the fact that we have just about a month of grass court tennis. I am pretty sure that if was the other way around, the glamour would be around clay courts. Both surfaces pose their own peculiar challenges.

In USA, only hard courts are easily accessible (at least to lowly league level players). Then comes clay courts. Grass courts are very hard to find.

 

[mrzz]

In USA, only hard courts are easily accessible (at least to lowly league level players). Then comes clay courts. Grass courts are very hard to find.

Thanks for the info. How would you say those courts are distributed over the US? 70% hard, 25% clay, 5% grass? I guess I saw it on our boards someone saying that in Europe we have more clay than hards (in fact, I already have hear a few players saying that they grew up on clay, including Federer. In South America in general is around 95% clay...

 

[kskate2]

In USA, only hard courts are easily accessible (at least to lowly league level players). Then comes clay courts. Grass courts are very hard to find.

Some of the more successful players have each kind of court at their homes.

 

[Moxie]

In USA, only hard courts are easily accessible (at least to lowly league level players). Then comes clay courts. Grass courts are very hard to find.

For sure, it's not easy to play on grass in the US. But the US style of play suits grass more than it does clay. (Emphasis on serve, aggression v. baseline play and footwork.) I'd say the percentage of HCs is even larger than you say, preportionate to clay. There is an effort now to have more clay courts and start kids earlier on them, since clay has been such a glaring deficiency for US players.