Rolex Shanghai Masters 2018, China

[atttomole]

Fed hasn't deserved to win a single Wimbledon since 09. Infact in 09 too his ground game was shit but duck couldn't capitalise. In 2012, Fed won because it was played indoors otherwise he would've lost that too. And 2017 was a lucky break from peak faker though maybe this one time he would've taken out faker with his improved BH return but that's pure speculation.

No Fed has not deserved to win Wimbledons like dull has deserved to win RG because dull's level on RG has been far superior to Fred's.

The only slam Fed was robbed is USO but there too he choked like a little shit in 09 so in a way it's deserved specially for his lackadaisical approach to USO in general.

Frankly you do not sound coherent anymore. I understand that you are disappointed with Roger's performances, and so am I. Claiming that Federer does not deserve to win Wimby as much as Rafa deserves RG shows that you are in knee-jerk mode.

 

[monfed]

Frankly you do not sound coherent anymore. I understand that you are disappointed with Roger's performances, and so am I. Claiming that Federer does not deserve to win Wimby as much as Rafa deserves RG shows that you are in knee-jerk mode.

No I'm saying that Fed didn't win as many Wimbledons as dull won RGs not because the grass was slowed down but rather his own level didn't cut it while dull's level at RG was much above the field.

 

[monfed]

Nice to see that you are becoming more and more unbiased. You say that Federer did not deserve to win Wimbledon in 2012 because it was played under the roof. On the other hand, you say that Nadal and Djokovic should get credit for being hardly beatable when they survive the first week.

"deserve" is the incorrect word but he basically edged players who were playing better on outdoor grass than him..

So tell me do you really think Fed would've beaten faker and mugray without the roof in Wim 2012? Mugray crushed Fed in that first set in 2012 with no roof and was looking like he'll finally beat Fed before Fed sort of stole that 2nd set and then the roof came on and Fed romped home.

 

[atttomole]

"deserve" is the incorrect word but he basically edged players who were playing better on outdoor grass than him..

So tell me do you really think Fed would've beaten faker and mugray without the roof in Wim 2012? Mugray crushed Fed in that first set in 2012 with no roof and was looking like he'll finally beat Fed before Fed sort of stole that 2nd set and then the roof came on and Fed romped home.

Deserve is the word you used, but the substance does not change much. You said Federer won in 2012 because he played under the roof. He was aided by the roof, otherwise he would have lost. How is that different from saying that Nadal and Djokovic are less beatable in the second week? Why are they more beatable in the first week? I think most of us know the answer. You are basically saying that Federer won because he took advantage of the roof, but when Nadal and Djokovic become less beatable in the second week, you give them credit for being good enough because that is what the conditions are.

 

[atttomole]

No I'm saying that Fed didn't win as many Wimbledons as dull won RGs not because the grass was slowed down but rather his own level didn't cut it while dull's level at RG was much above the field.

I have tried to debunk the myth that Nadal is better on clay than Federer on grass on a different thread. In the thread, I had some interesting discussions with Moxie and Broken. If you can find that thread, you will see why I think it is not very correct to say that Nadal is better on clay than Federer on grass. That claim is cliche, and I don't have to believe it because many other people agree with it.

 

[atttomole]

"deserve" is the incorrect word but he basically edged players who were playing better on outdoor grass than him..

So tell me do you really think Fed would've beaten faker and mugray without the roof in Wim 2012? Mugray crushed Fed in that first set in 2012 with no roof and was looking like he'll finally beat Fed before Fed sort of stole that 2nd set and then the roof came on and Fed romped home.

Yes. Federer 'stole' the set because the roof was not yet closed. I get it.

 

[lob]

Roof or no roof Wimbledon tennis wasn't really what it was starting 2002. I don't even know if its the grass or ball
texture or ball weight or ball pressure or the rackets or bird poop or chewing gum or global warming. All I know is that I can't get it up ;-)

"deserve" is the incorrect word but he basically edged players who were playing better on outdoor grass than him..

So tell me do you really think Fed would've beaten faker and mugray without the roof in Wim 2012? Mugray crushed Fed in that first set in 2012 with no roof and was looking like he'll finally beat Fed before Fed sort of stole that 2nd set and then the roof came on and Fed romped home.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[monfed]

Deserve is the word you used, but the substance does not change much. You said Federer won in 2012 because he played under the roof. He was aided by the roof, otherwise he would have lost. How is that different from saying that Nadal and Djokovic are less beatable in the second week? Why are they more beatable in the first week? I think most of us know the answer. You are basically saying that Federer won because he took advantage of the roof, but when Nadal and Djokovic become less beatable in the second week, you give them credit for being good enough because that is what the conditions are.

Yes it was my bad that I used the wrong word deserve which triggered the Fed fans.

My main point is that Fed shouldn't be losing to these grinders even if the grass has slowed down a bit because he's the far better grasscourter than those two and his overall pedigree and experience should carry him through.

 

[monfed]

Yes. Federer 'stole' the set because the roof was not yet closed. I get it.

Mugray was dominating the set and he lost it 5-7 with a sublime dropshot from Fed OK it was a bit of a steal wouldn't you say?

 

[atttomole]

Mugray was dominating the set and he lost it 5-7 with a sublime dropshot from Fed OK it was a bit of a steal wouldn't you say?

That shot he made is the trademark of a genius, which Federer is. Remember Federer took him to the cleaners again when they met in 2015 without the roof. That takedown was even more impressive than the 2012 one.

 

[Moxie]

Roger should have done better on grass and he's had notable collapses and piss poor performances in the late stages, collapses in 2011, 2016 and 2018 vs 3rd tier players, piss poor performances in 2008 and 2015 finals.

But if they played on real grass it'd have been a lot harder for those atrocities to occur...common sense.

"Atrocities?" "Real grass?" Wimbledon is against Roger? It begins to be difficult to take you seriously.

 

[DarthFed]

"Atrocities?" "Real grass?" Wimbledon is against Roger? It begins to be difficult to take you seriously.

You may not care for my use of the word "atrocities". The other stuff I stand behind, the grass is a travesty for those who valued the old Wimbledon. I've never said the tournament director is definitely a fan of Nadal and/or Djokovic. Just that it is possible.

 

[Moxie]

You may not care for my use of the word "atrocities". The other stuff I stand behind, the grass is a travesty for those who valued the old Wimbledon. I've never said the tournament director is definitely a fan of Nadal and/or Djokovic. Just that it is possible.

I think that your words are inflammatory, and probably for no reason. "Atrocities." "Travesties." And you say that the tournament director may not be a fan of Nadal or Djokovic, but that they also might. This is borderline tin foil hat stuff. The grass was changed way before there even was a Federer, let alone a Nadal or Djokovic. This we know. If it was ever changed again, we don't. No evidence that I can find. Can you? And if it was then that the balls changed, you really should produce an article. I haven't found that. So, either Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis, or it is a joke, in your opinion. I suspect the truth lies rather closer to Wimbledon being the ultimate Slam, in any case. Just because Roger hasn't done better doesn't make Wimbledon a joke.

 

[DarthFed]

I think that your words are inflammatory, and probably for no reason. "Atrocities." "Travesties." And you say that the tournament director may not be a fan of Nadal or Djokovic, but that they also might. This is borderline tin foil hat stuff. The grass was changed way before there even was a Federer, let alone a Nadal or Djokovic. This we know. If it was ever changed again, we don't. No evidence that I can find. Can you? And if it was then that the balls changed, you really should produce an article. I haven't found that. So, either Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis, or it is a joke, in your opinion. I suspect the truth lies rather closer to Wimbledon being the ultimate Slam, in any case. Just because Roger hasn't done better doesn't make Wimbledon a joke.

Look, it is generally known that the slowing of the playing conditions around the tour is more about the balls they use compared to a change in surface. There isn't always going to be mainstream articles where tournament directors talk about using heavier balls. I'm sure you remember the 2017 Wimbledon talk from McEnroe and others about the ball being different but I don't think you had the tournament director confirming it.

Anyways I put the blame on Fed for his losses, he should've done better there on his own merits and regardless of what we think about the finals he lost there are 3 clear collapses against Tsonga, Raonic and Anderson. All 3 of those guys are 3rd tier guys that are meant to be layups for top players.

But at the same time he'd have more of a margin for error against pure baseliners if the surface played to his liking as a traditional grass court does. And we all know he returns serve a lot better the lower the court bounces even if it's lightning fast.

 

[Jelenafan]

To some it boils down to being Frankenstein’s monster:

Federer win, Wimbledon goooood...
Federer lose, Wimbledon baaaaad...

Playing conditions, equipment, fields, etc in other sports can change and evolve, tennis is no different.

 

[Moxie]

I don't buy that it's "generally known" that the slowing of the courts is really about the balls. That likely means you vaguely remember some commentator saying it and maybe read something about it on someones blog. Not to mention that you're like nailing jello to a wall on this stuff. Why so much complaining about the surfaces, especially the grass at Wimbledon, when what you really meant was the balls? Look, I'm not going to deny Surface Change, but what do you say we stop acting like we know exactly what happened, when it did, and what the ulterior motives were, beyond improving viewer enjoyment. Tournament directors seem to be rather cagey about talking about changes made to their surface (though Wimbledon did cop to changing the composition of the grass in 2001, or whatever everyone sites. Occasionally there's a bit of a kerfuffle over balls, but I've tried googling these things and good luck finding anything concrete.

 

[GSMSampras]

Wimbledon has slowed down from the nineties which is a known fact not somebody having an opinion.It could be due to variety of reasons but it is factual information.
It is also a fact that slowing Wimbledon has helped Nadal the guy who struggles the most on faster surfaces very much and Djokovic,Federer to a lesser extent.Nobody can deny it.

 

[Fiero425]

Wimbledon has slowed down from the nineties which is a known fact not somebody having an opinion.It could be due to variety of reasons but it is factual information.
It is also a fact that slowing Wimbledon has helped Nadal the guy who struggles the most on faster surfaces very much and Djokovic,Federer to a lesser extent.Nobody can deny it.

The variety of surfaces and court speed was an obvious equalizer! Back in the 90's at any given event, there could be a dozen GS winners; NO $#!t! Now with Fedalovicray, we're lucky to get half of that at a major; esp. when one of them skips the event or is injured! I can't really wait for this era to be over for that reason alone! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

The variety of surfaces and court speed was an obvious equalizer! Back in the 90's at any given event, there could be a dozen GS winners; NO $#!t! Now with Fedalovicray, we're lucky to get half of that at a major; esp. when one of them skips the event or is injured! I can't really wait for this era to be over for that reason alone! :whistle:

But didn't Pete win 12 Majors in the '90s? And Andre completed the Career Slam in the 90s, so isn't it still somewhat about the quality of certain players, not the surface similarity/difference that defines dominance? (They won 17 majors between them in the 1990s.)

 

[Moxie]

Wimbledon has slowed down from the nineties which is a known fact not somebody having an opinion.It could be due to variety of reasons but it is factual information.
It is also a fact that slowing Wimbledon has helped Nadal the guy who struggles the most on faster surfaces very much and Djokovic,Federer to a lesser extent.Nobody can deny it.

I acknowledged that they changed the grass, because they say they did. My issue is with Darth switching the conversation to the balls when his fellow Fed fan argues about when the grass changed, and acting like he or any of us, for that matter, knows that much about the balls/tournament year to year. As I said, I don't say it hasn't happened. I'm just saying I grow a bit weary of people who are not at these tournaments speaking with authority about the pace of the court and how the balls are behaving, year-to-year when they are not there, let alone playing on them.