Mr. Andy Murray have won just 1 maters after joining with Mr. Lendl ( Two years)

[tented]

I was just looking at Andy's playing activity on the ATP site, and was reminded of his opponent in last year's QC final: Marin Cilic. Hmm ... the guy who went into a silent ban a week or so later (had he already taken the drugs test before this final?), and who won the year before when Nalbandian was defaulted. Weird endings, two years in a row.

 

[Moxie]

Heard on a Tennis Channel promo: "Will Andy Murray be the first British man to win Wimbledon since 2013?" :laydownlaughing

I have to think much of the pressure is off. We'll all be keen to see how he comes back, of course.

(And who knew that the Tennis Channel had a sense of humor?)

 

[Iona16]

I think Andy will face huge pressure to retain Wimbledon. He didn't cover himself with glory at Flushing Meadows when trying to retain his title there, and I wouldn't be so confident that he can do as well on grass next season...

I doubt he will face the sort of pressure that he has faced in the past. I don't believe him failing to defend his title at the US Open had anything to do with pressure. He clearly wasn't fit enough to play the tournament. It's no surprise that he had surgery soon after. I doubt you gave him much of a chance last year at Wimbledon. I'll be hoping Andy can prove the doubters wrong AGAIN.

It may not be as much pressure as he's had in the past, now that he has won it, but there will still be a lot. It will be an interesting challenge for him, but between the Olympic Gold and last year's championship he has demonstrated he can win there, while beating big names along the way.

But first, there's Queen's Club, which will also be interesting. I'm anxious to see how he does there first. If he stumbles early, it could be a bad omen; if he defends, it will be a positive sign that he's already confident and playing well. The other question is whether or not he will go to RG next year, instead of skipping it, like he did this year, which gave him additional rest.

I'm not suggesting there won't be pressure. Only that it won't be as intense as what he has felt in the past. He has said the same himself. Defending Wimbledon will be a huge challenge but I see no reason why he can't do it. Wimbledon has always been his most consistent slam. Defending Queen's would be good but he did lose early in 2012 and still made the Wimbledon final.

Skipping RG was not a decision Andy took lightly. He will play in 2014 if he's fit and well. It's worth remembering that although he was well rested when Queen's started he wasn't able to practice as he would have liked. He did skip RG for a reason.

 

[Moxie]

Andy skipping RG this year was a very wise decision. At some point you have to pick your battles and focus on them. That was one that clearly paid off. He'll likely got to RG in 2014, though.

 

[Emma]

I didn't think the question was clear, which was why I asked what it was. You did say, "Let's concentrate on Federer"... which is fairly vague, so if it is a specific question you'd like answering, table it...

Was Federer good on clay (if that's it) - Yes. Five Roland Garros finals, one being the title and 10 other Clay court titles would say so - particularly in the era of the greatest clay court player in history (Nadal). Those are facts not generalisations.

As for why didn't Federer wasn't winning at Roland Garros before 2005, he was still evolving as a player. As has already been pointed out, he won a couple of Wimbledon's before winning the US Open also.

Exactly what I said and you later highlighted a few of them - thanks. In the great scheme of things he was an average player on clay. Sure, he had some good wins over decent players but you seem to be forgetting the losses also (to less than stellar opposition) and the lack of silverware.

Good luck with that. Winning a major has far more meaning than any semi final run. Your name is on the trophy, you're in the history books and rightly or wrongly, the losers become a footnote in history. The losing semi-finalists aren't even on the map.

I, on the other hand, was very convinced you knew where I was going with all this but that's okay if you don't want to admit it. A few others did get it. You are smarter than this I am sure.

What you didn't get is that, it was not only the Nadal factor that stood in the way of Federer but Federer himself wasn't a natural on clay therefore, he needed time to improve on it and that is even by your own admission. Sure Federer did end up winning RG in the end, but it is still 1 RG and in the big scheme of things, where players won multiple RGs this too would look average and fade. It's only Federer's other achievements that makes him look better.

I don't forget the losses of Sampras because not a day go by somewhere some Federer fan keeps reminding us how miserable and poor Sampras was on clay in order to glorify Federer, so some of us feel the need to come forward at the risk of being abused and state that he wasn't as bad as you guys make him out to be. Because if nothing he did beat quite a few significant players who were terrific on clay and they were by no means 'decent', because they have more than 1 RG to be proud of. I am not sure how one can go and respect today's players who show little to no respect for the past players but that's to be expected too.

And as to your last paragraph, I have no idea exactly what you are wishing me luck for. Both event have already happened. Sampras had beaten those players and I am sure he's very proud of that and Federer had already won his precious RG which makes his fans very proud. I am very happy with the way things ended with Sampras. Who wouldn't be? I am not a glory hunter, because if I were then I would have become either a Federer fan or Nadal fan a long time ago. But I am not. I am a fan of Nole and Murray ever since they turned pro. Do you think it's easy to live in the era of Fedal and take all the garbage that comes your way when it comes to Murray and Nole? I can tell you, it isn't it. Murray went through hell but I stuck by him through think and thick. A name on the trophy don't mean much to me. When I became a fan of Sampras, he had only 1 Slam under his belt and there were more write offs about him than write ups. Agassi was clearly the golden child. Nothing he did was wrong and that's how he got away with a lot of wrongs too. Do you think it will bother me if Andy never wins another Slam or never becomes No. 1 or in fact, puts down his racquet once and for all right now? Not at all. Not even one bit. I am very happy with the way things are with him right now. I don't worship players or human beings or count my favourite player's trophies in my spare time. I just love to watch their talent and I like to share their happiness. What I truly don't like is the fans' pompousness and arrogance that comes with those glorified results others but hey.

Anyway, records are meant to be broken just like Sampras broke Laver's, Federer broke Sampras' and so on. By the same trend Federer's records will be broken too and perhaps very soon. So enjoy it while it lasts if that's all you enjoy.

 

[Moxie]

I didn't think the question was clear, which was why I asked what it was. You did say, "Let's concentrate on Federer"... which is fairly vague, so if it is a specific question you'd like answering, table it...

Was Federer good on clay (if that's it) - Yes. Five Roland Garros finals, one being the title and 10 other Clay court titles would say so - particularly in the era of the greatest clay court player in history (Nadal). Those are facts not generalisations.

As for why didn't Federer wasn't winning at Roland Garros before 2005, he was still evolving as a player. As has already been pointed out, he won a couple of Wimbledon's before winning the US Open also.

Exactly what I said and you later highlighted a few of them - thanks. In the great scheme of things he was an average player on clay. Sure, he had some good wins over decent players but you seem to be forgetting the losses also (to less than stellar opposition) and the lack of silverware.

Good luck with that. Winning a major has far more meaning than any semi final run. Your name is on the trophy, you're in the history books and rightly or wrongly, the losers become a footnote in history. The losing semi-finalists aren't even on the map.

I, on the other hand, was very convinced you knew where I was going with all this but that's okay if you don't want to admit it. A few others did get it. You are smarter than this I am sure.

What you didn't get is that, it was not only the Nadal factor that stood in the way of Federer but Federer himself wasn't a natural on clay therefore, he needed time to improve on it and that is even by your own admission. Sure Federer did end up winning RG in the end, but it is still 1 RG and in the big scheme of things, where players won multiple RGs this too would look average and fade. It's only Federer's other achievements that makes him look better.

I don't forget the losses of Sampras because not a day go by somewhere some Federer fan keeps reminding us how miserable and poor Sampras was on clay in order to glorify Federer, so some of us feel the need to come forward at the risk of being abused and state that he wasn't as bad as you guys make him out to be. Because if nothing he did beat quite a few significant players who were terrific on clay and they were by no means 'decent', because they have more than 1 RG to be proud of. I am not sure how one can go and respect today's players who show little to no respect for the past players but that's to be expected too.

And as to your last paragraph, I have no idea exactly what you are wishing me luck for. Both event have already happened. Sampras had beaten those players and I am sure he's very proud of that and Federer had already won his precious RG which makes his fans very proud. I am very happy with the way things ended with Sampras. Who wouldn't be? I am not a glory hunter, because if I were then I would have become either a Federer fan or Nadal fan a long time ago. But I am not. I am a fan of Nole and Murray ever since they turned pro. Do you think it's easy to live in the era of Fedal and take all the garbage that comes your way when it comes to Murray and Nole? I can tell you, it isn't it. Murray went through hell but I stuck by him through think and thick. A name on the trophy don't mean much to me. When I became a fan of Sampras, he had only 1 Slam under his belt and there were more write offs about him than write ups. Agassi was clearly the golden child. Nothing he did was wrong and that's how he got away with a lot of wrongs too. Do you think it will bother me if Andy never wins another Slam or never becomes No. 1 or in fact, puts down his racquet once and for all right now? Not at all. Not even one bit. I am very happy with the way things are with him right now. I don't worship players or human beings or count my favourite player's trophies in my spare time. I just love to watch their talent and I like to share their happiness. What I truly don't like is the fans' pompousness and arrogance that comes with those glorified results others but hey.

Anyway, records are meant to be broken just like Sampras broke Laver's, Federer broke Sampras' and so on. By the same trend Federer's records will be broken too and perhaps very soon. So enjoy it while it lasts if that's all you enjoy.

I don't know why you keep making light of the fact that Federer did, in fact, win the French Open. I also don't know how you can insist that Federer fans "keep reminding us how miserable and poor Sampras was on clay in order to glorify Federer." I don't know anyone here that is doing that. It probably happened on other boards in the old Sampras/Federer wars days, but it doesn't make it true, and it surely doesn't make it germane to current conversation. The bottom line on Pete and clay is that he was raised on the US system where serve was prized, and US players rarely played on clay until they hit the ATP tour. There is a reason that US all-time greats like Sampras, Conners, McEnroe, multi-Slam winners that they are, never won on clay. It's because they weren't trained on it, and basically never took it seriously enough. (McEnroe being an exception in that sense. I think he did take it seriously…just wasn't good on the surface.)

 

[britbox]

I, on the other hand, was very convinced you knew where I was going with all this but that's okay if you don't want to admit it. A few others did get it. You are smarter than this I am sure.

I was fairly sure I knew where you were taking it... but you said I didn't address your question. What didn't I address? We can talk in riddles all day, but it would be easier all round if you tabled the specific question you felt I didn't answer.

What you didn't get is that, it was not only the Nadal factor that stood in the way of Federer but Federer himself wasn't a natural on clay therefore, he needed time to improve on it and that is even by your own admission.

Well, yeah.... I'm not sure what I didn't get about it. He grew as a clay court player to become the second best of his era, surpassed only by Nadal who is regarded as probably the greatest clay courter of all time. No problem with that.

Sure Federer did end up winning RG in the end, but it is still 1 RG and in the big scheme of things, where players won multiple RGs this too would look average and fade. It's only Federer's other achievements that makes him look better.

His other achievements include four other Roland Garros finals and ten clay court titles. It's a strong resume. Even stronger considering he had Nadal blocking his path.

I don't forget the losses of Sampras because not a day go by somewhere some Federer fan keeps reminding us how miserable and poor Sampras was on clay in order to glorify Federer, so some of us feel the need to come forward at the risk of being abused and state that he wasn't as bad as you guys make him out to be.

People don't need to knock Sampras' to glorify Federer. I'd probably still regard Sampras as the greatest grass court player ever and probably a lock for Top 5 overall all-time. But call a spade a spade.... Sampras wasn't a great clay court player and he's even admitted himself he never felt comfortable on clay. I've never said he was "terrible" on clay - just average in the great scheme of things and whilst he had a few good wins (also acknowledged) his overall results are distinctly average.

And as to your last paragraph, I have no idea exactly what you are wishing me luck for. Both event have already happened. Sampras had beaten those players and I am sure he's very proud of that and Federer had already won his precious RG which makes his fans very proud. I am very happy with the way things ended with Sampras. Who wouldn't be? I am not a glory hunter, because if I were then I would have become either a Federer fan or Nadal fan a long time ago. But I am not. I am a fan of Nole and Murray ever since they turned pro. Do you think it's easy to live in the era of Fedal and take all the garbage that comes your way when it comes to Murray and Nole? I can tell you, it isn't it. Murray went through hell but I stuck by him through think and thick. A name on the trophy don't mean much to me. When I became a fan of Sampras, he had only 1 Slam under his belt and there were more write offs about him than write ups. Agassi was clearly the golden child. Nothing he did was wrong and that's how he got away with a lot of wrongs too. Do you think it will bother me if Andy never wins another Slam or never becomes No. 1 or in fact, puts down his racquet once and for all right now? Not at all. Not even one bit. I am very happy with the way things are with him right now. I don't worship players or human beings or count my favourite player's trophies in my spare time. I just love to watch their talent and I like to share their happiness. What I truly don't like is the fans' pompousness and arrogance that comes with those glorified results others but hey.

Anyway, records are meant to be broken just like Sampras broke Laver's, Federer broke Sampras' and so on. By the same trend Federer's records will be broken too and perhaps very soon. So enjoy it while it lasts if that's all you enjoy.

Good luck was a reference to thinking Sampras' one semi-final appearance will be remembered as being a greater achievement than Federer's Roland Garros title and by proxy a career grand slam. It won't be.

As for the rest - good for you, and yes, Federer's records will also be broken. It might take a little longer than Pete's hypothetical French Open record, but all will fall eventually. Safin was my favourite player of the Federer era by the way. He had a few nice wins on the dirt too

 

[masterclass]

Uh, Moxie, please don't include Connors in that list. He didn't play anywhere as many matches on clay (255) as on hard (623) and carpet (412), but he still won 12 titles and 198 matches on clay including the US Open on clay and has an excellent match percentage on clay(.776). He was the only player in history to win the US Open on all 3 surfaces.

He missed, count them, 5 years worth of French Opens when he was at his peak in the 70's (74-78), because he was forbidden to play by RG organizers because of his contract with WTT, just as Borg was forbidden to play in 1977. Some felt that had he been allowed to play RG in 1974, he might have won the Grand Slam that year, since he won the other 3 majors and Borg was still very young. We'll never know.

By the time Connors was playing Roland Garros again, Borg was the King of Clay, and it wouldn't be until 1982 where Connors would have a legitimate shot again. Still he made 2 semifinals and a QF in '79-'81. But by 1982, he was close to 30.and don't forget, there are very few players that have won Roland Garros past 30. Not only that, but the depth of competition on clay was quite high in the 70's and 80's. In the 1980's, following Borg's departure, several players came into their own on clay, including Wilander and Lendl who won 3 French Opens each in the 80's, but the aging Connors still managed to get to 2 semifinals and 3 quarterfinals at RG between 1982 and 1987. All told he had 4 semis and 4 QF at Roland Garros from '79-'87. Connors was a rare player who was extremely consistent and had extreme longevity. From 1974 to 1985, 12 years, he missed making only 1 QF in the majors he played (4th R. Wimbledon 1983).

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Moxie]

Uh, Moxie, please don't include Connors in that list. He didn't play anywhere as many matches on clay (255) as on hard (623) and carpet (412), but he still won 12 titles and 198 matches on clay including the US Open on clay and has an excellent match percentage on clay(.776). He was the only player in history to win the US Open on all 3 surfaces.

He missed, count them, 5 years worth of French Opens when he was at his peak in the 70's (74-78), because he was forbidden to play by RG organizers because of his contract with WTT, just as Borg was forbidden to play in 1977. Some felt that had he been allowed to play RG in 1974, he might have won the Grand Slam that year, since he won the other 3 majors and Borg was still very young. We'll never know.

By the time Connors was playing Roland Garros again, Borg was the King of Clay, and it wouldn't be until 1982 where Connors would have a legitimate shot again. Still he made 2 semifinals and a QF in '79-'81. But by 1982, he was close to 30.and don't forget, there are very few players that have won Roland Garros past 30. Not only that, but the depth of competition on clay was quite high in the 70's and 80's. In the 1980's, following Borg's departure, several players came into their own on clay, including Wilander and Lendl who won 3 French Opens each in the 80's, but the aging Connors still managed to get to 2 semifinals and 3 quarterfinals at RG between 1982 and 1987. All told he had 4 semis and 4 QF at Roland Garros from '79-'87. Connors was a rare player who was extremely consistent and had extreme longevity. From 1974 to 1985, 12 years, he missed making only 1 QF in the majors he played (4th R. Wimbledon 1983).

Respectfully,
masterclass

That is very finely sussed out, masterclass. Thanks for the history lesson. I was unaware.

 

[Front242]

What you didn't get is that, it was not only the Nadal factor that stood in the way of Federer but Federer himself wasn't a natural on clay therefore, he needed time to improve on it and that is even by your own admission. Sure Federer did end up winning RG in the end, but it is still 1 RG and in the big scheme of things, where players won multiple RGs this too would look average and fade. It's only Federer's other achievements that makes him look better.

I don't forget the losses of Sampras because not a day go by somewhere some Federer fan keeps reminding us how miserable and poor Sampras was on clay in order to glorify Federer, so some of us feel the need to come forward at the risk of being abused and state that he wasn't as bad as you guys make him out to be. Because if nothing he did beat quite a few significant players who were terrific on clay and they were by no means 'decent', because they have more than 1 RG to be proud of. I am not sure how one can go and respect today's players who show little to no respect for the past players but that's to be expected too.

And as to your last paragraph, I have no idea exactly what you are wishing me luck for. Both event have already happened. Sampras had beaten those players and I am sure he's very proud of that and Federer had already won his precious RG which makes his fans very proud. I am very happy with the way things ended with Sampras. Who wouldn't be? I am not a glory hunter, because if I were then I would have become either a Federer fan or Nadal fan a long time ago. But I am not. I am a fan of Nole and Murray ever since they turned pro. Do you think it's easy to live in the era of Fedal and take all the garbage that comes your way when it comes to Murray and Nole? I can tell you, it isn't it. Murray went through hell but I stuck by him through think and thick. A name on the trophy don't mean much to me. When I became a fan of Sampras, he had only 1 Slam under his belt and there were more write offs about him than write ups. Agassi was clearly the golden child. Nothing he did was wrong and that's how he got away with a lot of wrongs too. Do you think it will bother me if Andy never wins another Slam or never becomes No. 1 or in fact, puts down his racquet once and for all right now? Not at all. Not even one bit. I am very happy with the way things are with him right now. I don't worship players or human beings or count my favourite player's trophies in my spare time. I just love to watch their talent and I like to share their happiness. What I truly don't like is the fans' pompousness and arrogance that comes with those glorified results others but hey.

No Federer fans are slagging Sampras' achievements on clay any bit as much as you're slagging Federer. It's got nothing to do with bragging about titles, it simply is about consistency. Federer won RG, Sampras did not. He also reached 5 RG finals, Sampras reached none. Again, no bragging needed as the facts speak for themselves. You talk about all this Fedal garbage, but I like many Federer fans, happen to like Djokovic too so don't assume all Federer fans are bragging about everything under the sun. For me at least, what I like most is the way Federer plays tennis, not his records. I like aggressive tennis players. He just happens to be the most successful one to date but I also like Nalbandian (and many other players with zero slams) so what does that tell you since he won no slams. It tells you this and many other Federer fans aren't glory hunters as you've labelled us. You labelled Nadal fans in the same paragraph. Djokovic too has a game that I really admire and also some amazing records.

Why can't we all like multiple players without having to talk about "Fedal garbage"?! No one is glory hunting here since NADAL2005RG left the building. Also, by attempting to defend Sampras' lack of anywhere near the results that Federer has at RG, you've merely gone on and on slagging Federer and claiming he's only an average clay courter when in reality it's all a bit pointless when it doesn't even come down to opinion. His results alone show he's the 3rd best clay courter of the Open Era. It is what is whether or not you like it. Earlier you said Federer faced only weak or rubbish competition on clay. Well, as a Djokovic fan same as yourself that can only read one way.....i.e, you've encompassed him in that blanket of weak or rubbish too. Fact is he's also great on clay and may well even surpass Federer's achievements on clay but you won't see me slagging him in years to come and calling him only average on clay. The only guy who consistently beat Federer at RG and other big clay finals was Nadal, the greatest clay courter of all time. How that makes Federer average on clay I'll never understand sorry.

All the top players deserve way more respect than that and way more than you're giving them. Apart from Sampras of course as his results are clearly better on clay than Federer's :cover You've given him tons of respect at the expense of a guy with better results just 'cos you don't like said player (Federer). :nono

PS: Nadal is better on clay than Sampras was too, sorry!

 

[masterclass]

No worries Moxie.

Though Connors did fairly well on clay, he did it mostly through his fierce tenacity and of course, being a very skilled natural baseliner with a great return of serve. But he was somewhat handicapped on clay due to his natural way of hitting the ball which was pretty flat. He didn't play with the big topspin that most natural clay courters played with and therefore he played with far less margin for error on a surface that generally rewards consistency much more than aggressiveness. On the other hand, he didn't have a big serve, so he was not as disadvantaged as on other surfaces in that respect.

Wow, have we gone off topic or what?

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

Wow, have we gone off topic or what?

Respectfully,
masterclass

Whenever do we not! Nice history lesson on Connors and RG. I don't think he'd ever have won it, because the guys who took it in his absence were dirtball experts, but he'd have a better shot then than in the 80's, when he still did so well...

 

[Kieran]

There's no question that the reason players do so well across the board now is that the game is less diverse. It isn't that the players are more versatile - it's that the game is less so.

And this is why it was such big news when great players like Lendl reached 2 Wimbledon finals, or Edberg and Mac reached the RG final: because moves across the aisle were rare. They were rare because they were more difficult, not because the players were less great than they are today.

Also, a player could be a great clay courter, and get great results on hards, and another player could be a great grass courter, and get great results on hards, but not many players were both. Nowadays, it's different, because the game is different. Holding it against Pete that he wasn't great on clay is only to say he was a man of his time. If he was a man of this time, he wouldn't have dropped the two-hander so he could succeed on grass. He'd keep that, and succeed everywhere, as players do today.

I think Andy will face huge pressure to retain Wimbledon. He didn't cover himself with glory at Flushing Meadows when trying to retain his title there, and I wouldn't be so confident that he can do as well on grass next season...

I doubt he will face the sort of pressure that he has faced in the past. I don't believe him failing to defend his title at the US Open had anything to do with pressure. He clearly wasn't fit enough to play the tournament. It's no surprise that he had surgery soon after. I doubt you thought he'd be Wimbledon champion this year. I'll be hoping Andy can prove the doubters wrong AGAIN next year.

Iona,

You might be right about that. It's a good point, but I look at Andy and see a history of letdowns, relative to the others in the Big 4. Let's wait and see. Personally I hope he does well. Runner-up to Ralph would be great!

 

[brokenshoelace]

There's no question that the reason players do so well across the board now is that the game is less diverse. It isn't that the players are more versatile - it's that the game is less so.

And this is why it was such big news when great players like Lendl reached 2 Wimbledon finals, or Edberg and Mac reached the RG final: because moves across the aisle were rare. They were rare because they were more difficult, not because the players were less great than they are today.

Also, a player could be a great clay courter, and get great results on hards, and another player could be a great grass courter, and get great results on hards, but not many players were both. Nowadays, it's different, because the game is different. Holding it against Pete that he wasn't great on clay is only to say he was a man of his time. If he was a man of this time, he wouldn't have dropped the two-hander so he could succeed on grass. He'd keep that, and succeed everywhere, as players do today.

I think Andy will face huge pressure to retain Wimbledon. He didn't cover himself with glory at Flushing Meadows when trying to retain his title there, and I wouldn't be so confident that he can do as well on grass next season...

I doubt he will face the sort of pressure that he has faced in the past. I don't believe him failing to defend his title at the US Open had anything to do with pressure. He clearly wasn't fit enough to play the tournament. It's no surprise that he had surgery soon after. I doubt you thought he'd be Wimbledon champion this year. I'll be hoping Andy can prove the doubters wrong AGAIN next year.

Iona,

You might be right about that. It's a good point, but I look at Andy and see a history of letdowns, relative to the others in the Big 4. Let's wait and see. Personally I hope he does well. Runner-up to Ralph would be great!

This Djokovic, in the 90's, WOULDN'T have been good on both hards and clay? Why not?

If you say if he were a product of the 90's, his game might have looked different, you'd have a point. But then how would that make him LESS versatile now?

I can understand the argument that adjusting to grass is easier nowadays, and it's a valid one. But how is adjusting to clay easier? It's still slow, you're still required to slide, you still need to play long points, be physically fit, etc... what has really changed?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

There's no question that the reason players do so well across the board now is that the game is less diverse. It isn't that the players are more versatile - it's that the game is less so.

And this is why it was such big news when great players like Lendl reached 2 Wimbledon finals, or Edberg and Mac reached the RG final: because moves across the aisle were rare. They were rare because they were more difficult, not because the players were less great than they are today.

Also, a player could be a great clay courter, and get great results on hards, and another player could be a great grass courter, and get great results on hards, but not many players were both. Nowadays, it's different, because the game is different. Holding it against Pete that he wasn't great on clay is only to say he was a man of his time. If he was a man of this time, he wouldn't have dropped the two-hander so he could succeed on grass. He'd keep that, and succeed everywhere, as players do today.

I think Andy will face huge pressure to retain Wimbledon. He didn't cover himself with glory at Flushing Meadows when trying to retain his title there, and I wouldn't be so confident that he can do as well on grass next season...

I doubt he will face the sort of pressure that he has faced in the past. I don't believe him failing to defend his title at the US Open had anything to do with pressure. He clearly wasn't fit enough to play the tournament. It's no surprise that he had surgery soon after. I doubt you thought he'd be Wimbledon champion this year. I'll be hoping Andy can prove the doubters wrong AGAIN next year.

Iona,

You might be right about that. It's a good point, but I look at Andy and see a history of letdowns, relative to the others in the Big 4. Let's wait and see. Personally I hope he does well. Runner-up to Ralph would be great!

it would help if nadal could get past the 2nd rd of Wimbledon if he wants to beat murray on grass again.

 

[Kieran]

This Djokovic, in the 90's, WOULDN'T have been good on both hards and clay? Why not?

If you say if he were a product of the 90's, his game might have looked different, you'd have a point. But then how would that make him LESS versatile now?

I can understand the argument that adjusting to grass is easier nowadays, and it's a valid one. But how is adjusting to clay easier? It's still slow, you're still required to slide, you still need to play long points, be physically fit, etc... what has really changed?

Where did I say he wouldn't be good on both hards and clay in the 90's?

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere. It's not like Nole can flick a switch and become a great net player. He's functional in that part of the game.

All players now can play basically the same game on hards and clay, and make small adjustments to play on grass. Hence, we're not gonna be massively stunned if yet another player - or 2 - in the Big Four completes the FO-Wimbledon double. It's not because they're so versatile - it's because the games needed to win both aren't completely alien to each other. But they used to be! That's the point. And a great player like Sampras made an objective decision to drop the two-hander so he'd be more effective at Wimbledon. I'm not saying he would have won the FO, but I am saying that with players they were either/or. Very few players even reached both finals, let alone won both.

Nowadays, getting both titles in the bag is far more accessible to great players, because the extremities have met somewhere in the middle...

 

[DarthFed]

This Djokovic, in the 90's, WOULDN'T have been good on both hards and clay? Why not?

If you say if he were a product of the 90's, his game might have looked different, you'd have a point. But then how would that make him LESS versatile now?

I can understand the argument that adjusting to grass is easier nowadays, and it's a valid one. But how is adjusting to clay easier? It's still slow, you're still required to slide, you still need to play long points, be physically fit, etc... what has really changed?

Where did I say he wouldn't be good on both hards and clay in the 90's?

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere. It's not like Nole can flick a switch and become a great net player. He's functional in that part of the game.

All players now can play basically the same game on hards and clay, and make small adjustments to play on grass. Hence, we're not gonna be massively stunned if yet another player - or 2 - in the Big Four completes the FO-Wimbledon double. It's not because they're so versatile - it's because the games needed to win both aren't completely alien to each other. But they used to be! That's the point. And a great player like Sampras made an objective decision to drop the two-hander so he'd be more effective at Wimbledon. I'm not saying he would have won the FO, but I am saying that with players they were either/or. Very few players even reached both finals, let alone won both.

Nowadays, getting both titles in the bag is far more accessible to great players, because the extremities have met somewhere in the middle...

Bingo!

We can all agree to disagree about Sampras' worth on clay but this is part of the explanation as to why some would say he was poor on that surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere.

As opposed to Sampras who altered his game significantly on every surface? Pete was versatile. He can attack the net, he can rally from the baseline as well as anyone, he can play first strike tennis, etc... But his game wasn't that different on each surface.

Likewise, saying Djokovic isn't versatile verges on the ridiculous. Yes, he doesn't attack the net that well because as you mentioned, times has changed. But the game can play first strike tennis, hit amazingly well off of both sides, defend as well as anyone in history, counter-punch like nobody's business, turn defense into attack, play controlled aggression, etc...

Djokovic is only "not versatile" if we look at tennis in shallow terms such as "baseliner," "S & V player," etc... But when you analyze different aspects of his game, I'd say he's one of the most versatile players in history.

 

[Ricardo]

This Djokovic, in the 90's, WOULDN'T have been good on both hards and clay? Why not?

If you say if he were a product of the 90's, his game might have looked different, you'd have a point. But then how would that make him LESS versatile now?

I can understand the argument that adjusting to grass is easier nowadays, and it's a valid one. But how is adjusting to clay easier? It's still slow, you're still required to slide, you still need to play long points, be physically fit, etc... what has really changed?

Where did I say he wouldn't be good on both hards and clay in the 90's?

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere. It's not like Nole can flick a switch and become a great net player. He's functional in that part of the game.

All players now can play basically the same game on hards and clay, and make small adjustments to play on grass. Hence, we're not gonna be massively stunned if yet another player - or 2 - in the Big Four completes the FO-Wimbledon double. It's not because they're so versatile - it's because the games needed to win both aren't completely alien to each other. But they used to be! That's the point. And a great player like Sampras made an objective decision to drop the two-hander so he'd be more effective at Wimbledon. I'm not saying he would have won the FO, but I am saying that with players they were either/or. Very few players even reached both finals, let alone won both.

Nowadays, getting both titles in the bag is far more accessible to great players, because the extremities have met somewhere in the middle...

Borg played basically the same game everywhere, and look how far it got him. Don't keep spreading the myth that your game on grass back then had to be 'alien' to your game on clay, didn't need to be..... it sounds like a convenient excuse since your idol couldn't do it, but it's simply not true.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This Djokovic, in the 90's, WOULDN'T have been good on both hards and clay? Why not?

If you say if he were a product of the 90's, his game might have looked different, you'd have a point. But then how would that make him LESS versatile now?

I can understand the argument that adjusting to grass is easier nowadays, and it's a valid one. But how is adjusting to clay easier? It's still slow, you're still required to slide, you still need to play long points, be physically fit, etc... what has really changed?

Where did I say he wouldn't be good on both hards and clay in the 90's?

But...he isn't versatile. He plays basically the same game everywhere. It's not like Nole can flick a switch and become a great net player. He's functional in that part of the game.

All players now can play basically the same game on hards and clay, and make small adjustments to play on grass. Hence, we're not gonna be massively stunned if yet another player - or 2 - in the Big Four completes the FO-Wimbledon double. It's not because they're so versatile - it's because the games needed to win both aren't completely alien to each other. But they used to be! That's the point. And a great player like Sampras made an objective decision to drop the two-hander so he'd be more effective at Wimbledon. I'm not saying he would have won the FO, but I am saying that with players they were either/or. Very few players even reached both finals, let alone won both.

Nowadays, getting both titles in the bag is far more accessible to great players, because the extremities have met somewhere in the middle...

Bingo!

We can all agree to disagree about Sampras' worth on clay but this is part of the explanation as to why some would say he was poor on that surface.

No. He was poor on that surface because his results were poor on that surface. Now, if you want to compare him to today's players, and say these days players have it easier because the game has been homogenized that's fine. But Pete wasn't poor on clay simply compared to today's players. He was poor on clay compared to others of his generation. It's that simple really.