2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[atttomole]

Huurkacz is a tough competitor. He gave Federer a tough match at Indian Wells earlier this year.

 

[Ricardo]

only occasional beat, the top 3 players in the world

sure 'only' occasionally, like 6 out of 15 meetings which is 40% success rate against the 3 greatests. So going 40/60 vs big 3 is pretty ordinary, do you know how deseparate you sound trying to talk down Nick? and you tried to sound sarcastic, in such cheap manner. You are cheap and stupid, that's all I can say about you.....pathetic.

 

[Ricardo]

what an overrated hack Nick is

and you are? an over self rated wheelchair couch potato, who thinks he has dismissed our delusional thinking of an over rated player's talent?

'I am an objective fan who has no bias', so the potato says.

The over rated hack went 40/60 vs big 3, if a hack has done that, what do you call other players?

shhhhhhh, potato.

 

[herios]

The Little giant killer's run ends.
Fernando Verdasco beats Fabbiano in 3 sets.

 

[DarthFed]

I have some theories as to why:

- Ultimately, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverything around here boils down to Fedal wars. I don't care what the topic is. In that sense, Wimbledon is always where the debate gets the most heated and the reasons are logical:

A) It's the biggest major in everyone's mind and it's the one both fanbases want their respective player to win the most, no questions asked. Nadal has struggled at this tournament a lot in recent years and he last won it 9 years ago which is way too long (he hasn't won the AO since 2009 but he reaches the final a lot there and always goes deep). So Rafa fans are extra starved for him to win it. Federer fans want their guy to win "his" tournament and of all the majors that Nadal can win, Wimbledon is the one they want him to win the least.

B) The surface debate, which also goes back to Fedal...somehow. Grass is slowed down, Nadal wouldn't have done so well otherwise, Roger this, Nadal that, green clay this, slow hards that...the usual.

C) The 2008 final which is still somehow relevant and the source of heated debate 11 years later.

D) Ricardo has been posting a lot. This one doesn't have to do with Nadal...just small dicks and misogyny.

Nadal shouldn't have won any, let alone two. B and C are pretty combined, of course many Nadal fans think Federer was top class in his first grass court loss in 66 matches. It is a performance from Roger that hasn't aged well. I mean when you see him out here in his late 30's generally playing at a higher level than he did that day... People are easy to mistake close great match with a great performance.

Naturally us Fed fans are the loudest this time of year due to what is seen as a butchery of a grass court major, one which has obviously hurt our favorite and greatly helped his rivals. Of all the slowing down of the courts it is the most impacting change that has given the other two a huge leg up in the GOAT race.

 

[Fiero425]

The Little giant killer's run ends.
Fernando Verdasco beats Fabbiano in 3 sets.

We're calling some of these players "giants," but even with all their abilities, they're young, inexperienced, & subject to nerves in big situations! Zverev's the most obvious example of the current NG'rs who have beaten the best at times, but his results in the majors is the worst I've seen of an "up and coming" star! He should have little to no excuse with the support (Lendl) he's getting, has won a few biggies (Masters/YEC), but going into a major; fuhgeddaboudit! People dispute my argument that many of these players are entering too many tournaments! It's not the count I'm kvetchin;' about; it's the success they're having to their detriment! Making QF, semi's, & even a final here and there on the younger players has to be draining! Fedalovic are obviously accustomed to it and expect to go far each event; not so much Tsitsipas, FAA, Tiafoe, Coric, and others coming up! They're breaking down mentally as well as physically! The WD's are mounting and it started the previous gen. of players with Kei and Milos! Chasing points and money will do that to a player and his team! They probably all need to pull back on their schedules! The top players have already talked about the season being too long, but they're not taking in consideration the "also rans" and other pigeons of the tour are needed to fill a draw! They're the players who need the long tennis season just to hang in there on the tour; hence some who wish they'd give more $$ to the players in earlier rounds! The number of events could be curtailed and the whole season would become more meaningful IMO! :whistle:

 

[DarthFed]

I do agree with most of what you wrote. My view is that Fed too has benefitted (a little) from slowing of the surfaces.
Of course not as much as Novak and Nadal. And yes it has also hurt him especially vs Novak - I'd say. (He was going to lose to Nadal anyway on clay, but potentially could have beaten Djokovic on fast grass).

Still, you are underestimating the effects of faster surfaces even in this era. S-V is not always needed for a big hitter to be lethal on fast surfaces. There were serves yesterday at 143 mph+ in Wimbledon. Nick hit a forehand at 115 mph+ (the one that he aimed at Nadal).
It doesn't matter what string technology you have, but if the surface is truly fast (like in the 90s) and someone is serving over 70% at 140 mph+ and hitting 100mph+ from both wings, they will take the racquet out of your hand. There is nothing you could do. It's like the year Krajicek won Wimbledon. The way he beat Pete is the one of the best power grass court matches I've ever seen.

I'm just saying that Fed is also very good defensively and exploiting the movement of big hitters. If the surfaces were truly fast, he would have done less of that. I'd venture that in such a case there would be slam winners outside of the big 3. And yeah more would come out of Novak/Nadal than out of Federer's slam tally. But tennis would definitely be more exciting.

Anyway, my overall point of the previous post was that I'm tired of people here saying that Nadal is some talentless hack. A working class fisherman who just relies on his physicality and speed to win matches. Sure, Federer is far more talented than Nadal and no one argues that. But most tennis pundits and experts still regard Nadal as an all time great and one of the most talented players to play the game.

Funny you only mention the grass finals he lost to Novak, there is one ugly loss in particular that'd have been no contest on the normal grass I actually think Djokovic is the one player of the last 15 years that could have given Roger consistent problems on real grass in a BO5, his return is that sublime that he would still get enough back in play to find chances to break. Fed would still have had the upper hand though and Nole would have likely been more prone to upset before even reaching the final. People fail to realize just how well Roger returns on fast, low-bouncing surfaces, even to this day. It is the higher bouncing hard courts where his return is often weakest. Yes, even on lightning fast grass Roger is not just winning tiebreaks.

As for the rest I just think this part needs to be put under a magnifying glass: "Roger benefits from slower surfaces". It is a headscratching statement that I've now seen a few different Nadal fans make. Not to single that part out (Nadal fans) but I find it a bit strange. You and BS are reasonable posters and I don't think that statement is coming from a defensive, self-serving place, but I just don't see it. It just doesn't hold up when you stop and think about it.

I think all of the top guys benefit from the whole tour basically playing one style (from the baseline) with just a few very tall, big serving exceptions. But I still think they'd be playing back even if a good portion of the year had fast surfaces. The string technology and even the athleticism of the players makes it difficult to live at net all match. I did mention in the earlier post that MAYBE even Roger benefits a bit from everything slowing down week to week as it means less adjustments. Still, I think that is highly debatable and that is not really a factor at majors where the players arrive at least a week in advance and get accustomed to the courts and balls. And best of 5 of course is a factor too in that.

Yes, the idea that Roger benefited from the Wimbledon changes which has only gotten worse and worse through the years is simply a ridiculous thought. 8 of 16 for him on his best surface just isn't insane in this day and age. Assuming Nole stays healthy another 4-5 years is there any doubt he wins another 2 AO's or more on a surface that normally is perfect for him? Nadal will end up with at least 13 RG's, probably more. Roger simply hasn't had a major that is truly suited to him, certainly as he's aged and the courts have just gotten slower.

 

[herios]

We're calling some of these players "giants," but even with all their abilities, they're young, inexperienced, & subject to nerves in big situations! Zverev's the most obvious example of the current NG'rs who have beaten the best at times, but his results in the majors is the worst I've seen of an "up and coming" star! He should have little to no excuse with the support (Lendl) he's getting, has won a few biggies (Masters/YEC), but going into a major; fuhgeddaboudit! People dispute my argument that many of these players are entering too many tournaments! It's not the count I'm kvetchin;' about; it's the success they're having to their detriment! Making QF, semi's, & even a final here and there on the younger players has to be draining! Fedalovic are obviously accustomed to it and expect to go far each event; not so much Tsitsipas, FAA, Tiafoe, Coric, and others coming up! They're breaking down mentally as well as physically! The WD's are mounting and it started the previous gen. of players with Kei and Milos! Chasing points and money will do that to a player and his team! They probably all need to pull back on their schedules! The top players have already talked about the season being too long, but they're not taking in consideration the "also rans" and other pigeons of the tour are needed to fill a draw! They're the players who need the long tennis season just to hang in there on the tour; hence some who wish they'd give more $$ to the players in earlier rounds! The number of events could be curtailed and the whole season would become more meaningful IMO! :whistle:

You didn't get my point. I meant "giant" literally, as Tsitsipas and Karlovic are so much taller than his 5'8" frame.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just to point out that in a thread about Wimbledon, Nadal and Nick Kyrgios, Ricardo managed to talk about small dicks and his disdain for women.

I think it's easy to see understand the projected problem there.

I have seen equally, if not more, offensive posts from you with foul language in the past.

 

[imjimmy]

Funny you only mention the grass finals he lost to Novak, there is one ugly loss in particular that'd have been no contest on the normal grass I actually think Djokovic is the one player of the last 15 years that could have given Roger consistent problems on real grass in a BO5, his return is that sublime that he would still get enough back in play to find chances to break. Fed would still have had the upper hand though and Nole would have likely been more prone to upset before even reaching the final. People fail to realize just how well Roger returns on fast, low-bouncing surfaces, even to this day. It is the higher bouncing hard courts where his return is often weakest. Yes, even on lightning fast grass Roger is not just winning tiebreaks.

What do you really think about Wimbledons? How many more would have Roger won had the grass been faster?
The problem is you are over-rating Novak's abilities on grass and underrating Nadal's. How can Novak be competitive with anyone on fast grass. Imaging Djokovic in the 90s. How many Wimbledons do you think he would win? Certainly not 4 by the age of 32. What does he do well on grass other than ROS? He doesn't even move that well. Have you seen the amount of defense Novak plays on grass. Also his serve, until recently, wasn't even that big of a weapon. His volleys are pedestrian. His overhead is atrocious. To me it always seems strange to imagine that Novak next Sunday would likely have as many Wimbledons as Borg and higher than a lot of great grass court players. He doesn't look like a natural on that surface. He has benefitted from the grass slowing down the most because in the 2nd week he can just outlast and out-defend everyone. It is impossible to hit through him.

Again Nadal is the weakest out of the big 3 on grass, but he isn't exactly a mug there. He did play well in 2006-2011 when he made 5 finals. The problem is that because it's Nadal and he's so good on clay, people will say that the reason he did well on grass is because it was green clay. And I have no issues admitting that for the past several years, Nadal hasn't been good on grass at all.

Look no-one is doubting that Fed is the greatest grass court and fast court player of this era. My point was that on faster grass there would be other big hitters (outside of the big 3) who would win slams. It's like the 2009 Wimbledon where Roddick almost won. Maybe those big hitters would take up slams from Novak/Nadal's UsOpen and Wimb titles more than they would from Fed. Unless you are telling me that Fed would just not be beaten by any big hitter and would win every Wimbledon and UsOpen. Fed lost to Tsonga/Anderson etc at Wimbledon on grass, when those guys were playing big.

I'm just saying faster surfaces reward offensive tennis so much that it introduces an element of unpredictability. A big hitter gets hot on true fast grass. Then it doesn't matter whether you are Fed or Sampras, you'd still lose. That's where in a way Fed has benefitted from slowing down of the courts, because it makes it hard for someone to just redline and blast away to a win. You guys are not looking beyond Nadal/Djokovic. There would be other pure offensive players who would win on fast grass.

Fed is also an excellent mover, counter puncher and defensive player. I know Fed fans like to see him as the most offensive player in the history of the game, but that's not true. Fed's movement, speed, defense and stamina are all underrated. That is what he does better than the ATG of prior eras. Sampras had better pure offense than Fed without question. So why is Federer better than Sampras? Exactly..

 

[herios]

I am watching Felix for just the second time and Ugo Humbert just for the first time.
Both could be featured a lot in the upcoming years.
Needles to say that neither of them were ever in a R3 în a slam. Very good chance for both of them to get to a R4 and play the top ranked player.

 

[Fiero425]

^^^For a moment it seemed like you were talking about Nadal instead of Nole concerning his defense and being able to outlast everyone! Who really hits thru Rafa?

...The problem is you are over-rating Novak's abilities on grass and underrating Nadal's. How can Novak be competitive with anyone on fast grass. Imaging Djokovic in the 90s. How many Wimbledons do you think he would win? Certainly not 4 by the age of 32. What does he do well on grass other than ROS? He doesn't even move that well. Have you seen the amount of defense Novak plays on grass. Also his serve, until recently, wasn't even that big of a weapon. His volleys are pedestrian. His overhead is atrocious. To me it always seems strange to imagine that Novak next Sunday would likely have as many Wimbledons as Borg and higher than a lot of great grass court players. He doesn't look like a natural on that surface. He has benefitted from the grass slowing down the most because in the 2nd week he can just outlast and out-defend everyone. It is impossible to hit through him.

.....

^^^For a moment it seemed like you were talking about Nadal instead of Nole concerning his defense and being able to outlast everyone! Who really hits thru Rafa? I guess Nole did a good example of it "down under" a few months ago making Rafa look bad! :whistle:

 

[herios]

Ugo Humbert is not a bad player.

 

[DarthFed]

What do you really think about Wimbledons? How many more would have Roger won had the grass been faster?
The problem is you are over-rating Novak's abilities on grass and underrating Nadal's. How can Novak be competitive with anyone on fast grass. Imaging Djokovic in the 90s. How many Wimbledons do you think he would win? Certainly not 4 by the age of 32. What does he do well on grass other than ROS? He doesn't even move that well. Have you seen the amount of defense Novak plays on grass. Also his serve, until recently, wasn't even that big of a weapon. His volleys are pedestrian. His overhead is atrocious. To me it always seems strange to imagine that Novak next Sunday would likely have as many Wimbledons as Borg and higher than a lot of great grass court players. He doesn't look like a natural on that surface. He has benefitted from the grass slowing down the most because in the 2nd week he can just outlast and out-defend everyone. It is impossible to hit through him.

Again Nadal is the weakest out of the big 3 on grass, but he isn't exactly a mug there. He did play well in 2006-2011 when he made 5 finals. The problem is that because it's Nadal and he's so good on clay, people will say that the reason he did well on grass is because it was green clay. And I have no issues admitting that for the past several years, Nadal hasn't been good on grass at all.

Look no-one is doubting that Fed is the greatest grass court and fast court player of this era. My point was that on faster grass there would be other big hitters (outside of the big 3) who would win slams. It's like the 2009 Wimbledon where Roddick almost won. Maybe those big hitters would take up slams from Novak/Nadal's UsOpen and Wimb titles more than they would from Fed. Unless you are telling me that Fed would just not be beaten by any big hitter and would win every Wimbledon and UsOpen. Fed lost to Tsonga/Anderson etc at Wimbledon on grass, when those guys were playing big.

I'm just saying faster surfaces reward offensive tennis so much that it introduces an element of unpredictability. A big hitter gets hot on true fast grass. Then it doesn't matter whether you are Fed or Sampras, you'd still lose. That's where in a way Fed has benefitted from slowing down of the courts, because it makes it hard for someone to just redline and blast away to a win. You guys are not looking beyond Nadal/Djokovic. There would be other pure offensive players who would win on fast grass.

Fed is also an excellent mover, counter puncher and defensive player. I know Fed fans like to see him as the most offensive player in the history of the game, but that's not true. Fed's movement, speed, defense and stamina are all underrated. That is what he does better than the ATG of prior eras. Sampras had better pure offense than Fed without question. So why is Federer better than Sampras? Exactly..

I think Federer would be on 10+. Of course he wouldn't win every Wimbledon or USO. The USO slowed down a lot more recently, Fed's just underachieved there career-wise. It was still fast through the time he was early 30's I believe.

And if you're implying Nadal's game is more suited to fast low-bouncing surfaces than Djokovic I think there is no need to continue this discussion.

Having an insane return and strong baseline game even with very fast and slick bounce is what made Agassi plenty strong on grass. Djokovic is basically Andre 2.0 in many ways. He wouldn't have 4 Wimbledon's but he'd probably have won 1 or more. He sure as hell would win more in those conditions than Nadal. Fast and low are the absolute worst conditions for him, particularly low bouncing surfaces. Easier to take time away from him and his forehand actually kicks up into players strike zone instead of above it.
Djoker moves great on grass like everywhere else. People see him slip once or twice and assume he's clumsy. The rest sounds more like Nadal to me, he's more known for outlasting players and winning with defense off clay.

I don't think anyone sees Fed as the most offensive player in history, in this era it is almost impossible to be as offensive-minded as prior eras due to racquet technology and surface changes.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

FAA has played every important point below his level so far. He has to step it up when it matters and work on that second serve.

 

[herios]

Oh Man, Felix throws a DF to go down a break at 5-5 in the second.
Humbert will serve for the second set.

 

[herios]

That was impressive. Humbert leads with 2 sets to love.

 

[herios]

FAA has played every important point below his level so far. He has to step it up when it matters and work on that second serve.

Perhaps he feels the pressure because he is the higher ranked.
He sometimes over hit, but sometimes missed the target.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

This is a bad loss for FAA not because Humbert is a bad player, but he himself could not play his own level. That should make him upset. This was a winnable match and he missed a date with numero uno.

 

[herios]

Wow. Surprising Humbert shocks.
Everybody was expecting Felix to prevail, because his quick rise through the rankings, but this Young French man was the better player today.
I am still very proud of Felix, because he made it to the R3 in only his second slam.
Congrats to both youngsters.