Early Wimbledon Talk

[DarthFed]

Murray would've done fine on the surface, arguably he'd be even stronger on it than the current one. Faster and lower obviously hurts Rafa and Djoker though. Maybe Djokovic would've won 1 like Agassi did. You also could've had a surprise winner one or two years too, like Tsonga or Roddick.

 

[Front242]

Karlovic would have won at least once on the old fast grass.

 

[atttomole]

So Brotha, u are gonna honestly say 10 for Roger , 2 for Andy and 2 Novak and just finalist appearances for Nadal.

Not even a final for Nadal I am afraid.

 

[Carol]

Again and again saying the same thing about fast or slow surface? the grass started to be slow SINCE 2002 so I can't understand why Rogers's fans are thinking that he would have won more if the surface would have been faster, it doesn't have any sense because he started to win when that surface became slower
On the other hand Rafa's fans are tired to say and to repeat that the big servers have a lot of advantage playing on grass and the first week is the most crucial time because one of those servers with a very illuminated day can send him and anyone of the big 4 to home. But something very different is when someone says that he can't play well on grass, that a different story, silly and annoying

 

[DarthFed]

Again and again saying the same thing about fast or slow surface? the grass started to be slow SINCE 2002 so I can't understand why Rogers's fans are thinking that he would have won more if the surface would have been faster, it doesn't have any sense because he started to win when that surface became slower
On the other hand Rafa's fans are tired to say and to repeat that the big servers have a lot of advantage playing on grass and the first week is the most crucial time because one of those servers with a very illuminated day can send him and anyone of the big 4 to home. But something very different is when someone says that he can't play well on grass, that a different story, silly and annoying

No one has said they changed the surface to hurt Roger and help Rafa and Djokovic but that's just the way it worked out. Roger was not a great player until 2003/2004, so to say he won because of it playing slower and higher is just plain wrong. Roger is simply more deadly on faster and low bouncing surfaces.

 

[the AntiPusher]

No one has said they changed the surface to hurt Roger and help Rafa and Djokovic but that's just the way it worked out. Roger was not a great player until 2003/2004, so to say he won because of it playing slower and higher is just plain wrong. Roger is simply more deadly on faster and low bouncing surfaces.

Isn't that's what Rafa so great , hr made the transition from clay to whatever the texture of the grass to make five straight finals during his early prime years

 

[DarthFed]

Isn't that's what Rafa so great , hr made the transition from clay to whatever the texture of the grass to make five straight finals during his early prime years

[QUOTE="the AntiPusher, post: 298192,

It was a lot easier to transition for Rafa, Roger, and the rest. The much talked about channel slam is not nearly the same kind of accomplishment as Borg's time IMO.

 

[Front242]

Again and again saying the same thing about fast or slow surface? the grass started to be slow SINCE 2002 so I can't understand why Rogers's fans are thinking that he would have won more if the surface would have been faster, it doesn't have any sense because he started to win when that surface became slower
On the other hand Rafa's fans are tired to say and to repeat that the big servers have a lot of advantage playing on grass and the first week is the most crucial time because one of those servers with a very illuminated day can send him and anyone of the big 4 to home. But something very different is when someone says that he can't play well on grass, that a different story, silly and annoying

Loads of players who don't possess strong serves have given him hell in the first week. It's not just about the serve speed counting more in the first week when the grass is fresher, it's mostly because the ball bounce is totally different than week 2 when it plays closer to clay with the baselines all mangled and the grass no longer there, just mud. Also, people saying he can't play on grass are referring to the first week and the faster grass with the lower bounce. By week 2 he's one of the main favourites as it no longer plays like grass at all and the ball is bouncing much higher on the leftover mud, which he loves.

 

[Carol]

Loads of players who don't possess strong serves have given him hell in the first week. It's not just about the serve speed counting more in the first week when the grass is fresher, it's mostly because the ball bounce is totally different than week 2 when it plays closer to clay with the baselines all mangled and the grass no longer there, just mud.

Rafa has played very good with the grass fresher (remember 5 finals and two titles) but later his knees didn't allow him to play well on that surface and not just playing vs the big servers excluding Kyrgios and his 36 aces with a very illuminated day and I'm sure he would have beaten anyone that day. The next match he didn't do more than 10

 

[Front242]

Rafa has played very good with the grass fresher (remember 5 finals and two titles) but later his knees didn't allow him to play well on that surface and not just playing vs the big servers excluding Kyrgios and his 36 aces with a very illuminated day and I'm sure he would have beaten anyone that day. The next match he didn't do more than 10

No he hasn't. He barely scraped into the second week most of those years. Like I said, once he makes the second week it's a whole different story. Then he's a contender and, yes, he did play very well in the second week those years. And his knees have nothing to do his losses since 2012 unless you think Steve Darcis has a good serve. He was actually playing well I thought in 2014 when he lost to Kyrgios but it wasn't all about the aces there either and you should really stop with this "he would have beaten anyone that day" line as it's getting pretty old, especially when it's Lopez we're being told would have beaten anyone, for example. Sigh. Different opponent, different match up. I will, however, concede, a fit Kyrgios playing well is a very tough match for anyone but you can't say he'd have beaten anyone. If you recall, Federer aced Murray off the court in the 2015 also but, again, he did so much more than just hit aces that day too and same with Kyrgios.

 

[Carol]

No he hasn't. He barely scraped into the second week most of those years. Like I said, once he makes the second week it's a whole different story. Then he's a contender and yes, he did play very well in the second week those years. And his knees have nothing to do his losses since 2012 unless you think Steve Darcis has a good serve. He was actually playing well I thought in 2014 when he lost to Kyrgios but it wasn't all about the aces there either and you should really stop with this "he would have beaten anyone that day" line as it's getting pretty old, especially when it's Lopez we're being told would have beaten anyone, for example. Sigh. Different opponent, different match up. I will, however, concede, a fit Kyrgios playing well is a very tough match for anyone but you can't say he'd have beaten anyone. If you recall, Federer aced Murray off the court in the 2015 also but again, he did so much more than just hit aces that day too and same with Kyrgios.

How many aces Roger did? and come on, Kyrgios never ever has repeated those 36 aces and he never will and neither such brilliant day he had. You should get better information about how much the grass affected the Rafa's knees for 5 years

 

[Front242]

How many aces Roger did? and come on, Kyrgios never ever has repeated those 36 aces and he never will and neither such brilliant day he had. You should get better information about how much the grass affected the Rafa's knees for 5 years

Why 'cos he said so in a desperate attempt to justify his losses? Sorry but hard courts are much more brutal on the knees and he's had some of his best results on hard courts in 2013 which is the same year he lost to Marcy Darcy so dream on. A lot of Kyrgios' aces weren't even on game point. Gulbis hit 36 aces in 3 sets against Berdych and won in 3 tiebreaks in 2012 but it's not the only reason he won either. There's a lot more to tennis than aces on this slow grass or otherwise the big servers would be winning the title every year but they're not. Kyrgios hit rocket ground strokes that day too.

As for Federer v Murray at Wimbledon 2015, here are the stats. It's not all about the aces, you know. There are other such things as return of serve, first serve % (can be a very good serve but not necessarily an ace), 2nd serve points won, break point conversion, etc. You seem to think Kyrgios only won because of his ace count and that's not the case at all. It helped obviously, but it's not the reason he won.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20150710-M-Wimbledon-SF-Roger_Federer-Andy_Murray.html

Kyrgios v Nadal. Guess who won more return points? See, it's not all about the aces, though they helped obviously as I said.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/tournaments/wimbledon/540/2014/match-stats/ke17/n409/match-stats?

Darcis v Nadal. He hit only 13 aces and his first serve % was pretty crap at only 53% What won him the match was his 53 winners, 21 more than Nadal. Again, it's hardly all about the aces, 'cos 13 isn't a lot.

https://genius.com/Wimbledon-2013-r-nadal-vs-s-darcis-first-round-annotated

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Again and again saying the same thing about fast or slow surface? the grass started to be slow SINCE 2002 so I can't understand why Rogers's fans are thinking that he would have won more if the surface would have been faster, it doesn't have any sense because he started to win when that surface became slower

Roger's natural aggressive game is most suited to the old grass, which was fast and low bouncing. It was a case of Roger changing his natural game (to more of a routine baseline game) to suit the modern grass, than the other way around.

It is not just you. Lot of people don't get this (sometimes even some Fed fans). So, don't feel bad.

 

[Carol]

Why 'cos he said so in a desperate attempt to justify his losses? Sorry but hard courts are much more brutal on the knees and he's had some of his best results on hard courts in 2013 which is the same year he lost to Marcy Darcy so dream on. A lot of Kyrgios' aces weren't even on game point. Gulbis hit 36 aces in 3 sets against Berdych and won in 3 tiebreaks in 2012 but it's not the only reason he won either. There's a lot more to tennis than aces on this slow grass or otherwise the big servers would be winning the title every year but they're not. Kyrgios hit rocket ground strokes that day too.

As for Federer v Murray at Wimbledon 2015, here are the stats. It's not all about the aces, you know. There are other such things as return of serve, first serve % (can be a very good serve but not necessarily an ace), 2nd serve points won, break point conversion, etc. You seem to think Kyrgios only won because of his ace count and that's not the case at all. It helped obviously, but it's not the reason he won.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20150710-M-Wimbledon-SF-Roger_Federer-Andy_Murray.html

Kyrgios v Nadal. Guess who won more return points? See, it's not all about the aces, though they helped obviously as I said.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/tournaments/wimbledon/540/2014/match-stats/ke17/n409/match-stats?

Darcis v Nadal. He hit only 13 aces and his first serve % was pretty crap at only 53% What won him the match was his 53 winners, 21 more than Nadal. Again, it's hardly all about the aces, 'cos 13 isn't a lot.

https://genius.com/Wimbledon-2013-r-nadal-vs-s-darcis-first-round-annotated

If you are pretending to convence me with all that "information" you are wasting your time. It doesn't matter the serves, the returns or whatever, unfortunately Nadal's knee was in very bad conditions to play on grass at that time which make him to lost against anyone.
Have you read what Roger has said recently? read! " to play in Wimbledon last year was a big mistake because my knee was already hurted and then it got worse" and you know he had to go through later......
Nadal's knee was hurted for long time, since 2007 playing the final in Wimbledon, he was playing with pain for loooong time, but even playing with a bandage on both knees he won Wimbledon 2008 and 2010, he won USO twice and 6 RG until the doctor told him : " you must to stop playing and going through an intensive knee treatment or your career will be finished" and he did
But for your information he is doing well now, healthy and very motivated which could help him to do a good Wimbledon this time or maybe not, who knows but he has a good chance to do better than worse

 

[the AntiPusher]

Loads of players who don't possess strong serves have given him hell in the first week. It's not just about the serve speed counting more in the first week when the grass is fresher, it's mostly because the ball bounce is totally different than week 2 when it plays closer to clay with the baselines all mangled and the grass no longer there, just mud. Also, people saying he can't play on grass are referring to the first week and the faster grass with the lower bounce. By week 2 he's one of the main favourites as it no longer plays like grass at all and the ball is bouncing much higher on the leftover mud, which he loves.

Good Grief, speaking of Loads..are you guys listening to yourselves..its like you are a cult.. Listen loud and clear, Roger Federer is a human being, not a demiGod..he has limits..he ain't the perfect tennis player..he wouldn't have never won RG if Rafa wasn't injured. He won AO because of a sped up surface. He played weakazz competition before Rafa came into prominence..Get over yourselves..Show some class, Rafa may not be the GOAT based on Gs titles but he has dominated your beloved like no other. He reduced your beloved to tears when Federer was in his absolute prime. Move on and lets enjoy both of these players with the few years they have left. Quit being killjoys..show some class..Keli always is the pure epitome of tennis class just as Roger is..i seriously doubt he would want his fans to carry on as much as you all do with this constant trying to discredit Nadal. Damn.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think you acted like you were ticked off, but many Rafa fans do not like to hear about him being smoked by a big server. I also agree with Darth that he benefited from the changes made to the playing surface. In the 90's many of the clay courters skipped Wimbledon because it was very fast, and Nadal would have done the same had the surface not been changed.

Everyone can agree that Nadal and others benefitted from the slowing of the grass at Wimbledon. However, Nadal always had it as a goal since he was a kid, and before the grass was changed, so it's impossible to say that he wouldn't have made different adjustments to his game to suit the old grass. I'm confident he wouldn't have skipped it, though. And as good as Rafa is at tweaking his game, it's also impossible to say that he wouldn't have been successful, anyway.

 

[Moxie]

Bro, are you going to deny they benefited from a slower high bouncing surface at Wimbledon??

Realistically I think Roger would have won 9 or 10. More than that would have been ridiculous. He would've been slightly more vulnerable to big servers/hitters in his prime on fast grass but point blank Djokovic and Nadal would've been next to no threat on the prior grass. I don't even think they'd have made more than 1 or 2 finals

Understood that the change in surface benefitted players like Nadal and Djokovic and Murray. However, you can't just translate that to more wins for Fed. I made the point above that you don't know how these top players would have adapted, if that was the hand they were dealt, given how much they adapted to the challenge of Roger, and then Nadal. But rather than say randomly that Roger would have won more at Wimbledon, let's pick that apart:

2008: I know you think that Nadal should never ever have beaten Roger on grass, anyway, but you also claim he was still suffering the effects of his mono, and Rafa was well in his head, so that might not have changed, anyway.

2010: Roger lost QFs in RG and QFs at Wimbledon. Would he have done better v. Berdych with a different surface, and still made it 2 more rounds? That's surely debatable.

2011: You still have to talk him past Tsonga and Djokovic, then Nadal.

2013: He had a crap year.

2014: He played a good final but Djokovic was very much trending, so that still a 50/50, even on different grass. (And he was 32.)

2015: He played a stellar SF v. Murray, then a limp final v. Djokovic. No different grass was winning him that match, and given Djokovic that year.

2016: (Didn't play.)

So I don't see how you really get him more Wimbledon's than he won anyway. I know you'd like to claw back 2008, but he had mono. The only other reasonably argued one is 2014. The rest are not wholly down to surface changes.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Good Grief, speaking of Loads..are you guys listening to yourselves..its like you are a cult.. Listen loud and clear, Roger Federer is a human being, not a demiGod..he has limits..he ain't the perfect tennis player..he wouldn't have never won RG if Rafa wasn't injured. He won AO because of a sped up surface. He played weakazz competition before Rafa came into prominence..Get over yourselves..Show some class, Rafa may not be the GOAT based on Gs titles but he has dominated your beloved like no other. He reduced your beloved to tears when Federer was in his absolute prime. Move on and lets enjoy both of these players with the few years they have left. Quit being killjoys..show some class..Keli always is the pure epitome of tennis class just as Roger is..i seriously doubt he would want his fans to carry on as much as you all do with this constant trying to discredit Nadal. Damn.[/QUOT
I have a best friend who is Swiss thankfully she does not think Federer is the best thing since slice bread,I have always appreciated Federer and what he has brought to the tennis world.

 

[Jelenafan]

Well the AO was sped up the year and Rafa came within a coupe of service holds of winning the tournament.

So discussing his chances this year, I would still make Federer the clear favorite, Djokovic, Murray it's hard to discount as long they're not injured because they know what it is to win on the grass. Ditto Rafa.

It's hard to see someone outside the top 4 seeds actually winning this tournament.

 

[Front242]

If you are pretending to convence me with all that "information" you are wasting your time. It doesn't matter the serves, the returns or whatever, unfortunately Nadal's knee was in very bad conditions to play on grass at that time which make him to lost against anyone.
Have you read what Roger has said recently? read! " to play in Wimbledon last year was a big mistake because my knee was already hurted and then it got worse" and you know he had to go through later......
Nadal's knee was hurted for long time, since 2007 playing the final in Wimbledon, he was playing with pain for loooong time, but even playing with a bandage on both knees he won Wimbledon 2008 and 2010, he won USO twice and 6 RG until the doctor told him : " you must to stop playing and going through an intensive knee treatment or your career will be finished" and he did
But for your information he is doing well now, healthy and very motivated which could help him to do a good Wimbledon this time or maybe not, who knows but he has a good chance to do better than worse

Really bad condition, eh? Hilarious really when you count how many slams he won with this "really bad knee". Rather than trying to convince me with that nonsense, you should try and convince yourself it's nonsense 'cos it clearly is. If he loses in the first week this year, what will the excuse be this time? His knee suddenly went to crap out of nowhere I guess cos it's the only way you can excuse him losing after winning everything in sight in clay season.

Also, for the record, Roger had knee surgery which Nadal has never had. Big difference as to why he said it was a mistake playing last year which was too soon after his surgery. Nadal just lost for all the reasons you choose to ignore since 2012 and you're the only sore loser Nadal fan blaming losses on his knees here and making yourself look stupid.