Are slam counts of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic inflated due to homogenisation of surfaces?

[Moxie]

Roger was bothered by Rafa's game on the modern grass which was bouncing much slower and higher than before due to the surface change and Wimbledon using a heavier ball. Roger has had a lot of retarded losses to Rafa but him losing a hypothetical match on pre-2000's grass would've taken the cake, and that's if Rafa would've even made the final.

Roger was bothered by Rafa's game on a lot of surfaces, and they didn't play a hypothetical match on pre-2000s grass. In the actual tournament they played, there wasn't really anyone to beat Nadal, at that point in his career, and when they got to the final, there was hardly any grass to speak of. I know you really hate that Nadal beat Roger in that particular match at Wimbledon, but wasn't a matter of a change in the grass, it was the opponent that lost Roger that match. It was long and hard-fought, but Rafa did get him.

 

[DarthFed]

Of course, it was a pathetic loss especially since guys like Darcis, Rosol, Kyrgios and Brown have shown how easy it is to beat Nadal on grass.

But none of what you said changes the fact that beating Roger on a faster, lower-bouncing surface would've been way harder in 2008 or any year. The faster and lower the surface is the better Roger is and the worst Nads is. On grass that is more suited to his game I don't see Roger sitting on "only" 7 Wimbledons

 

[Moxie]

.

Of course, it was a pathetic loss especially since guys like Darcis, Rosol, Kyrgios and Brown have shown how easy it is to beat Nadal on grass.

But none of what you said changes the fact that beating Roger on a faster, lower-bouncing surface would've been way harder in 2008 or any year. The faster and lower the surface is the better Roger is and the worst Nads is. On grass that is more suited to his game I don't see Roger sitting on "only" 7 Wimbledons

If the slower grass were helping Rafa's game, he wouldn't have lost to those guys. In 2008, his knees could still get down on the grass. After 2009, not so much. I absolutely concede that Roger is the superior grass player, without question. Nadal made himself a good enough grass player, compounded by his considerable skills, to win 2 Wimbledons, including one over Roger. It's not nothing, and it's not a fluke. If it makes you feel better, here's a picture of the grass during that final. There wasn't any. Wouldn't have matter what the composition. Blame the weather, if you like.

 

[Moxie]

On grass that is more suited to his game I don't see Roger sitting on "only" 7 Wimbledons

I responded to this before. I think you're speaking in generalized terms but not looking at the reality of the matches he didn't win there. I've made my case for 2008 as not an option. I don't think 2015 was. Maybe 2014? But Djokovic kind of already had has number at Majors, he hadn't won one for 2 years at that point. People were looking for him to win a Major before he finally did at Wimbledon, so which one do you think he would have won to add to his 7? I'm not seeing one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The biggest misconception, and it frankly baffles me, is equating surface homogenization to "easier to win."

Surfaces are more homogeneous, that much is well accepted. This means that it's easier to adapt to different surfaces, yes. But it's easier to adapt to different surfaces for all players (in theory).

Meaning that someone who's elite on one surface these days, is generally at worst really good on every other surface. Look Novak Djokovic in the eyes and tell him what he did in 2011 wasn't as difficult to accomplish as it would have been in the 90's, because surfaces are more homogeneous. He'll look you in the face and tell you that you're an idiot, because he had to deal with the likes of Federer, Nadal and Murray, who posed a huge threat on every surface, unlike a previous era where some elite players were non-factors on certain surfaces.

That is not to suggest that it's more difficult to win majors now than it was in the 90's. But surely it can't be less difficult.

 

[britbox]

I'd subscribe to that argument in many ways and it's one @Twisted has kind of laid out that reasoning too, but a couple of other points:

I think it's safe to say that surfaces are more homogeneous compared to the 90s... maybe going back to the late 70s... but is it true of any other era of tennis? I'd say no... Lawn Tennis was the dominant surface prior to that...so we're talking the a couple of decades at most to make a comparison.

Seeing as we're only talking Grand Slam events (and my opinion is a bit stronger with regard to the rest of the calendar)... what has changed exactly?

AO... Grass -> Rebound Ace -> Plexicushion

USO... Unless we're going back to the days of Har Tru at Forest Hills, then I think the surface is pretty much the same since they moved to Flushing Meadows... The USTA say they haven't changed the preparation of the court since 2004 despite complaints it was too slow in 2011 particularly. The USTA put much of the variation down to weather/atmpospheric conditions.

Wimbledon... Changed the Grass compound in 2002. Definitely made a difference.

Interesting Analysis here (this video has been around the block a few times)



Roland Garros... No change as far as I'm aware.

 

[DarthFed]

.

If the slower grass were helping Rafa's game, he wouldn't have lost to those guys. In 2008, his knees could still get down on the grass. After 2009, not so much. I absolutely concede that Roger is the superior grass player, without question. Nadal made himself a good enough grass player, compounded by his considerable skills, to win 2 Wimbledons, including one over Roger. It's not nothing, and it's not a fluke. If it makes you feel better, here's a picture of the grass during that final. There wasn't any. Wouldn't have matter what the composition. Blame the weather, if you like.

Looks like there is still some grass to me and the fact of the matter is they also changed to a heavier ball around 2006. It's not like the current grass is "slow" it is still the fastest of the slams for sure, it's just quite a bit slower and higher bouncing than it once was. The reason Rafa is losing to those scrubs is that the surface plays much quicker the first week before the court gets chewed up, which kind of proves my point. 2008 was his strongest year there for sure, only having one semi-tough match against Gulbis. In 2006, 2007, and 2010 he barely made it out of the first week.

 

[DarthFed]

I responded to this before. I think you're speaking in generalized terms but not looking at the reality of the matches he didn't win there. I've made my case for 2008 as not an option. I don't think 2015 was. Maybe 2014? But Djokovic kind of already had has number at Majors, he hadn't won one for 2 years at that point. People were looking for him to win a Major before he finally did at Wimbledon, so which one do you think he would have won to add to his 7? I'm not seeing one.

2008 I see as definitely winning (not surprised we disagree there ) and even 2014, a very close match, would probably be edge Federer. There was also 2010 (unlikely) and 2011 (possible).

 

[brokenshoelace]

2008 I see as definitely winning (not surprised we disagree there ) and even 2014, a very close match, would probably be edge Federer. There was also 2010 (unlikely) and 2011 (possible).

If we're going with "definitely" for 2008, then we have to go with "impossible" for 2010. Roger was down two sets to love in the first round Alejandro Falla and really lucked out that match, and we'll both agree it wasn't the surface's fault. He lost in the QF in relatively straightforward fashion. Federer wasn't in good form during that stretch.

Not nit-picking but it's important to note that in years like 2010 and 2013, Federer can't be awarded hypothetical titles when he was playing well below his standards pretty much all year long.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I agree with that. I also think he may have still lost in 2011 to Tsonga if the surface was faster, there is certainly no reason to think Roger would've been able to break the big serve more than once like he did that match.

 

[Moxie]

You and Broken both make good points about certain years that Roger wouldn't have won, anyway. Now, at least, you're dealing with the specifics of each year, not some generalized "faster grass would have won Fed more Wimbledons." I know we'll never agree on the 2008 Wimbledon final smooch, but "definitely" is not a thing when talking about a hypothetical match. Change a major factor like surface and you could change the outcome, but it's not a given. And I think I made better arguments than you. Hell, I used a Federer fan trope for why Nadal has ever won Wimbledon at all, the one where the grass is worn down and it plays more like clay, and you didn't even notice, and declared there was plenty of grass left. Funny, because I'm pretty sure you, too, have made that argument against Rafa's Wimbledon titles. Here's one I know you've made: Roger was still suffering from the effects of his mild bout of mono. If that's true, it would have been true on a faster lawn.

It was a tight match, and a few points here and there could have made the difference, so faster grass might have worked out better for Roger. But Rafa was rising to one of his peak periods, he was well in Roger's game and head, and, having lost his chance the year prior, Nadal, being a great competitor...this I believe we all agree on...may have been infinitesimally more motivated at the end of that long match. So there were various "intangibles" that worked against Roger, that, IMO, the surface difference wouldn't have helped. An earlier version of the grass might have changed the outcome of that match, but it's not a definite, nor even, perhaps, "likely."

 

[DarthFed]

You can dance around the obvious here; Roger likes faster, lower and Nadal likes slower and higher. I stand by the fact Rafa would've struggled to even reach a single Wimbledon final on the "old" grass and if he got there well...it wouldn't have been pretty, mental edge and all. Remember that the difference in the surface is significant compared to what it was, and everyone will tell you when talking matchups, surface matters A LOT.

 

[Moxie]

I've never danced around it. We agree on that, your first sentence. Match-ups on surfaces do matter, but Nadal has defied the conventional wisdom against not just Federer, but Djokovic, at Majors, on surfaces he's not meant to be favored on. There is an X-factor, and it has to do with an all-time great. In the end, it's so much ephemeral blather. What happened, happened. But I will stand for Nadal, who did win what he did, because he was the better player. Implications that he's "lucky" or whatever, with the surface changes, are a bit cheap. And a bit sad.