Early Wimbledon Talk

[Front242]

It was my answer to Front after he said it was hilarious that Rafa won GS with a bad knees which is the reality and a fact but he doesn't want to believe. Some posters like to provoke and to say whatever they want to say but there is always an answer

You're one to talk when it comes to provoking. He DID NOT have bad knees since 2012 so stop making things up. I wasn't provoking anything but merely replying to your bs claim.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You're one to talk when it comes to provoking. He DID NOT have bad knees since 2012 so stop making things up. I wasn't provoking anything but merely replying to your bs claim.

He's had bad knees since more or less 2008, on and off. It's always hilarious hearing fan-bases argue about medical issues because they're always off by miles. Tendinitis isn't a thing that magically goes away, but at the same time, it's not this constant 24/7 pain. So it's pretty much impossible to know when is Nadal playing with bad knees. However, history suggests when knees get bad enough, he takes time off. Seeing as he's playing, moving well, and winning, there is little reason to believe the knees are troubling him now.

The effect of all those knee injuries however, in addition to wear and tear, is not something you can ever shake off. Hence the loss in speed (way before he reached his 30's) and the grass struggles.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Nah.

 

[Front242]

He's had bad knees since more or less 2008, on and off. It's always hilarious hearing fan-bases argue about medical issues because they're always off by miles. Tendinitis isn't a thing that magically goes away, but at the same time, it's not this constant 24/7 pain. So it's pretty much impossible to know when is Nadal playing with bad knees. However, history suggests when knees get bad enough, he takes time off. Seeing as he's playing, moving well, and winning, there is little reason to believe the knees are troubling him now.

The effect of all those knee injuries however, in addition to wear and tear, is not something you can ever shake off. Hence the loss in speed (way before he reached his 30's) and the grass struggles.

Ok, I know this was already discussed (with MikeOne I believe) but eventhough the bounce is different and you may be picking up more low balls on grass which is fair enough, I still find it hard to believe his knees were in any way affected at Wimbledon given the hard court results he had in 2013. I mean, seriously, Carol is spouting some garbage (for a change) about his knee problems since 2012 just to justify losses to the likes of Darcis in 2013 but then Nadal goes and wins the US Open 2 months later on a hard court which obviously enough is hard on the knees, hence the hard part. Seems a bit too silly for most people don't you think. Except her obviously. All the guys over 30 have lost speed btw but you can't outrun a 100 mph backhand (eg, Rosol) or a 140mph ace. So just how much does the loss of speed really come into it, given most of the guys who've beaten him in recent years weren't even rallying with him much, 'cos they know better than to try and beat him that way?

His losses on grass were in the first week mostly and down to being aced off court and his loopy balls having too high net clearance when the grass is still slick so it lands right in the hit zone for aggressive players who hit flatter to hit winners. This is why he lost all those matches. Loss of speed won't have much of an impact there at all for the reasons stated above and, btw, he looked plenty fast enough on clay funnily enough.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ok, I know this was already discussed (with MikeOne I believe) but eventhough the bounce is different and you may be picking up more low balls on grass which is fair enough, I still find it hard to believe his knees were in any way affected at Wimbledon given the hard court results he had in 2013. I mean, seriously, Carol is spouting some garbage (for a change) about his knee problems since 2012 just to justify losses to the likes of Darcis in 2013 but then Nadal goes and wins the US Open 2 months later on a hard court which obviously enough is hard on the knees, hence the hard part. Seems a bit too silly for most people don't you think. Except her obviously. All the guys over 30 have lost speed btw but you can't outrun a 100 mph backhand (eg, Rosol) or a 140mph ace. So just how much does the loss of speed really come into it, given most of the guys who've beaten him in recent years weren't even rallying with him much, 'cos they know better than to try and beat him that way?

Nadal himself explained how his knee issues have impacted his grass results. He could be making excuses of course, but I choose to believe that a 15-time major winner is a little more secure in that regard.

It's not the loss in speed that is the problem on grass (I actually think it's the surface in which this is the least relevant for Nadal). It's the slight decline in overall movement and footwork (which is not the same thing). The amount of adjustments you have to make on grass, how low you have to bend down for some balls to hit them cleanly, etc... That's where the issue is.

To be clear, I am not saying this is the only issue as this would blatantly ignore how Nadal has looked clumsy in the past on grass even in years in which he went all the way to the final at Wimbledon, but it's definitely an issue

 

[brokenshoelace]

And later you wake up

I tried waking up after Nadal lost to Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios and Brown...

I'm the biggest Rafa fan but let's not pretend that the proposition of him losing to a big server like Gilles Muller at Wimbledon is outside the realm of possibility. He's lost to similar players before.

 

[Front242]

Nadal himself explained how his knee issues have impacted his grass results. He could be making excuses of course, but I choose to believe that a 15-time major winner is a little more secure in that regard.

It's not the loss in speed that is the problem on grass (I actually think it's the surface in which this is the least relevant for Nadal). It's the slight decline in overall movement and footwork (which is not the same thing). The amount of adjustments you have to make on grass, how low you have to bend down for some balls to hit them cleanly, etc... That's where the issue is.

To be clear, I am not saying this is the only issue as this would blatantly ignore how Nadal has looked clumsy in the past on grass even in years in which he went all the way to the final at Wimbledon, but it's definitely an issue

Fair enough but he's one of the best volleyers on tour and getting down low to balls doesn't seem to have ever been an issue imo but mostly he's not able to make too many adjustments because the balls are flying past him! He used to hit much flatter forehands and shots in general when he first came on tour (watch the AO 2004 against Hewitt, for example) and if he still did this he'd have more success on grass. I realize it's very hard to completely change the style of hitting after clay but imo he should only use that loopy forehand on clay as not many other surfaces make his forehand bounce miles into the air. As things are though, his loopy topspin is a sitting duck on grass and the aggressive players are just gobbling it up when it flies way too high over the net waiting to be belted back with interest. I'm actually amazed Toni hasn't noticed it so maybe he's not as great as the Nadal camp give him credit for...

To be clear re the above, on clay his loopy forehands often bounce shoulder height making them pretty much unplayable but on grass they bounce high but not that high, but right into the hit zone to be hit for winners. So unless he changes that, expect more of the same.

 

[Front242]

I tried waking up after Nadal lost to Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios and Brown...

I'm the biggest Rafa fan but let's not pretend that the proposition of him losing to a big server like Gilles Muller at Wimbledon is outside the realm of possibility. He's lost to similar players before.

He lost to Muller in 2005 already but he was pretty young then so I'll cut him some slack as he vindicated that in 2006 by making the final.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

I'm seriously wondering: what's the statute of limitations on the old grass?

Like, when are we going to stop bringing up the fact that grass has been slowed down? By all accounts it was slowed down at some point between 2001-2004 so it's been anywhere between 13-16 years. I think that's enough time to get over it, right?

You know I respect your thoughts on tennis but I've always found this baffling. It's not like Nadal was playing on some type of grass in his prime years and doing next to nothing and someone at the All England Club thought "hey, let's slow the grass down to give the fellow a chance."

Grass was slowed down but it still plays very differently to other surfaces, and it's been slowed down for everyone. Except most players on tour don't even think about this because it was slowed down so long ago they don't even know what the "old grass" is, which is usually a pretty good sign that it's time to get over something.

Also, while I agree, Novak and most certainly Rafa wouldn't have been much of a threat on the older grass, do you really think prime Federer, who was far and away the best baseliner in the world, didn't also benefit in some ways from the slower grass? Yes, Roger would have won Wimbledon multiple times in any era, on any type of grass... But he developed an all around game that made him the most complete tennis player of all time, and it definitely suited him on the "new grass." I really don't think there's any question about that. If anything it made upsets at the hands of big servers (whom he always handled well anyway before he got older) less likely.

 

[brokenshoelace]

He lost to Muller in 2005 already but he was pretty young then so I'll cut him some slack as he vindicated that in 2006 by making the final.

I can't recall the year but I think they played again at Wimbledon after that and Rafa won in straights but the first two sets were really tight 7-6 7-6 affairs. Could have been 2011. I remember the match very well and the first two sets were nerve-wracking as Nadal couldn't get a sniff on Muller's serve.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I think Roger, by his own admission (I'll find the quote) changed his game to suit the modern game, rather than the modern grass. It's not just that he couldn't serve and volley say, 80% of the time at Wimbledon anymore, so he changed his game (because it wouldn't make sense to change your entire game for one tournament), but rather, that he saw where the game was heading.

It's not just the surfaces. Guys were also returning better, hitting the ball harder, etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

This stupid knee nonsense. By the same token you could say that if Novak got his head in order he would not have lost a single match in the past year.

Physical and mental issues shouldn't be equated. Not that one is a bigger deal than the other. They're just not the same. It's a flawed comparison. Maybe nothing was wrong with Nadal's knees, but it's still a flawed comparison.

 

[Front242]

I can't recall the year but I think they played again at Wimbledon after that and Rafa won in straights but the first two sets were really tight 7-6 7-6 affairs. Could have been 2011. I remember the match very well and the first two sets were nerve-wracking as Nadal couldn't get a sniff on Muller's serve.

Yeah, had to check there but it was indeed 2011 and the score was 7-6(6) 7-6(5) 6-0 so clearly those first 2 sets could have gone either way and seems Muller pretty much checked out after that. Tricky customer on grass, no doubt about it.

 

[Front242]

Physical and mental issues shouldn't be equated. Not that one is a bigger deal than the other. They're just not the same. It's a flawed comparison. Maybe nothing was wrong with Nadal's knees, but it's still a flawed comparison.

According to Carol Nadal had problems with his head and his knees for years so maybe a transplant is in order.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm seriously wondering: what's the statute of limitations on the old grass?

Like, when are we going to stop bringing up the fact that grass has been slowed down? By all accounts it was slowed down at some point between 2001-2004 so it's been anywhere between 13-16 years. I think that's enough time to get over it, right?

You know I respect your thoughts on tennis but I've always found this baffling. It's not like Nadal was playing on some type of grass in his prime years and doing next to nothing and someone at the All England Club thought "hey, let's slow the grass down to give the fellow a chance."

Grass was slowed down but it still plays very differently to other surfaces, and it's been slowed down for everyone. Except most players on tour don't even think about this because it was slowed down so long ago they don't even know what the "old grass" is, which is usually a pretty good sign that it's time to get over something.

Also, while I agree, Novak and most certainly Rafa wouldn't have been much of a threat on the older grass, do you really think prime Federer, who was far and away the best baseliner in the world, didn't also benefit in some ways from the slower grass? Yes, Roger would have won Wimbledon multiple times in any era, on any type of grass... But he developed an all around game that made him the most complete tennis player of all time, and it definitely suited him on the "new grass." I really don't think there's any question about that. If anything it made upsets at the hands of big servers (whom he always handled well anyway before he got older) less likely.

The surface was changed in 2002 and then they introduced a heavier ball starting in 2006. Most of us remember the old grass and it is just a preference, especially after watching some good bang bang tennis in Halle over the years. I wish they hadn't screwed with it but obviously they didn't do that to help or hurt anyone in particular. They just wanted long baseline rallies, and they got their wish. Obviously that helps some and hurt others. And I'd say first week of Wimbledon plays much different than the rest but the second week after the grass is worn out...hardly.

I agree Fed would've been a little more vulnerable to big servers/hitters even in his prime. Roddick may have won one of those matches and maybe he loses to someone else. But there's probably at least 3 years he would've been a much heavier favorite and a couple years he didn't make the finals that he might have. I'd say chances are higher that he'd have more than 7 than less than 7

 

[Moxie]

The surface was changed in 2002 and then they introduced a heavier ball starting in 2006. Most of us remember the old grass and it is just a preference, especially after watching some good bang bang tennis in Halle over the years. I wish they hadn't screwed with it but obviously they didn't do that to help or hurt anyone in particular. They just wanted long baseline rallies, and they got their wish. Obviously that helps some and hurt others. And I'd say first week of Wimbledon plays much different than the rest but the second week after the grass is worn out...hardly.

I agree Fed would've been a little more vulnerable to big servers/hitters even in his prime. Roddick may have won one of those matches and maybe he loses to someone else. But there's probably at least 3 years he would've been a much heavier favorite and a couple years he didn't make the finals that he might have. I'd say chances are higher that he'd have more than 7 than less than 7

I'm glad Broken made the point about Roger being vulnerable to different types of players, had the grass stayed the same, and you're right to cop to it. I'm also glad he said it's rather time to get over it as an irrelevance. You can't change the surface and pretend to know how things would have worked out, though I'll grant you that Roger may well have won more, because who knows? But that also doesn't account for how players as gifted as Nadal and Djokovic might have adjusted their games, given their ambitions to Wimbledon. In any case, it's wrong to act as if "theoretically" not playing as well on the old grass is some sort of tennis equivalent to a moral failing.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Nah, it just means they benefitted from the homogeneity more than others, and surfaces have only gotten slower since they've been on tour. Grass played a lot different from 2002 to what we have now due to that heavier ball. As for Roger he is stronger the faster and lower the surface. Even against huge servers he would always have been the big favorite and at worse he's seeing a bunch of tiebreaks. So yes this time of year I do lament the change in grass as I think it's played a huge role in this era and how it will be remembered.

We've seen Wafa and his fans complain about surfaces and some Djokovic fans too. I always find it laughable and for this very reason. If you had a good mix there would be no slam chase with Roger, simple as that.

 

[Moxie]

I think you're denying what Broken is saying, i.e., that the slowing of the grass made Roger a more complete player. You also seem to be saying that Roger, while fabulous, hasn't been able to overcome the obstacles of Nadal and Djokovic often enough due to surface changes. Talk about the pot calling out the kettle, as I can't remember the last time Nadal/Djokovic or their fans has complained about surfaces, (except probably me re: YEC,) and yet you're all over it here, and often the most vocal about it. Aside from that, you're being a sore winner. 18 Majors and favored at Wimbledon, and you're still unhappy with the way some matches have panned out. That's just greedy, my friend.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I'm seriously wondering: what's the statute of limitations on the old grass?

Like, when are we going to stop bringing up the fact that grass has been slowed down? By all accounts it was slowed down at some point between 2001-2004 so it's been anywhere between 13-16 years. I think that's enough time to get over it, right?

You know I respect your thoughts on tennis but I've always found this baffling. It's not like Nadal was playing on some type of grass in his prime years and doing next to nothing and someone at the All England Club thought "hey, let's slow the grass down to give the fellow a chance."

Grass was slowed down but it still plays very differently to other surfaces, and it's been slowed down for everyone. Except most players on tour don't even think about this because it was slowed down so long ago they don't even know what the "old grass" is, which is usually a pretty good sign that it's time to get over something.

Also, while I agree, Novak and most certainly Rafa wouldn't have been much of a threat on the older grass, do you really think prime Federer, who was far and away the best baseliner in the world, didn't also benefit in some ways from the slower grass? Yes, Roger would have won Wimbledon multiple times in any era, on any type of grass... But he developed an all around game that made him the most complete tennis player of all time, and it definitely suited him on the "new grass." I really don't think there's any question about that. If anything it made upsets at the hands of big servers (whom he always handled well anyway before he got older) less likely.

Did you mean to say that Roger is better on slower surfaces than quicker surfaces? I can understand the benefits you pointed out but Roger was clinical on fast courts back then. He was unbeatable on fast courts and overall he has been fantastic on these courts in his career. We all know that? The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. And this was true even when Roger was more close to being a baseliner than now. Take USO for instance. Even in the bad year of 2008, he won USO.

 

[Moxie]

Did you mean to say that Roger is better on slower surfaces than quicker surfaces? I can understand the benefits you pointed out but Roger was clinical on fast courts back then. He was unbeatable on fast courts and overall he has been fantastic on these courts in his career. We all know that? The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. And this was true even when Roger was more close to being a baseliner than now. Take USO for instance. Even in the bad year of 2008, he won USO.

You can't really say what would have happened in all of this fantasy tennis. If you change a surface since 2002, you change the whole dynamic. I'll give you that Roger is better on faster surfaces. But if you want to play "what-ifs," Rafa and Andy beat each other up across 2 days in the 2008 USO. Had Nadal prevailed, he was likely enough in Roger's head to have won it. As it was, it was Andy's first Major final, and he had little left. Not unimpressively opportunistic by Roger, but hardly a level playing field.