Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

Federer fans: Grass plays like clay now.

Also Federer fans: Federer has been just as good at Wimbledon as Nadal at the FO due to the low margins on grass where one break of serve is often enough.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And Mahut has won the Olympics gold but not Federer. Even more embarrassing.

The guy you're thinking of is Massu. Please stop talking about tennis.

 

[Fiero425]

The guy you're thinking of is Massú*. Please stop talking about tennis.

I totally missed that one being so apathetic to how Roger was owning the tour alone back then before Nadovic took over!

 

[Nadalfan2013]

The guy you're thinking of is Massu. Please stop talking about tennis.

Rafa is tennis. That’s all that matters. He has reinvented the sport and will have all the records. :heart:

 

[atttomole]

Just a question to all the experts here, what's "proper grass"?

I know what you'll say, but my question is why 90's grass proper grass?

Because it plays faster and bounces lower, which makes for fair variety of surfaces. Clay is a slow surface which suits Nadal’s game and he has taken full advantage. So why not leave the grass fast and low bouncing so that grass specialist can have their chance to dominate, and to see if clay courters can prove themselves on the surface. The career grand slam has been cheapened by the changes at Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Because it plays faster and bounces lower, which makes for fair variety of surfaces. Clay is a slow surface which suits Nadal’s game and he has take full advantage. So why not leave the grass fast and low bouncing so that grass specialist can have their chance to dominate, and to see if clay courters can prove themselves on the surface. The career grand slam has been cheapened by the changes at Wimbledon.

I'm not saying they should have slowed it down (although the quality of matches has been insane over the last decade but let's conveniently ignore that). I'm all for the diversity of surfaces. I just truly don't understand why that means this is not "proper" grass.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not saying they should have slowed it down (although the quality of matches has been insane over the last decade but let's conveniently ignore that). I'm all for the diversity of surfaces. I just truly don't understand why that means this is not "proper" grass.

Quality is subjective is it not? There were plenty of memorable matches on grass before this era.

Wimbledon is the Madrid conditions of grass. Simply put, it doesn't play anything like the rest, similar to how Madrid doesn't play like the other clay events. I'd rather have the grass black sheep be one of the warmup tournaments like it is for clay.

 

[Federberg]

Because it plays faster and bounces lower, which makes for fair variety of surfaces. Clay is a slow surface which suits Nadal’s game and he has take full advantage. So why not leave the grass fast and low bouncing so that grass specialist can have their chance to dominate, and to see if clay courters can prove themselves on the surface. The career grand slam has been cheapened by the changes at Wimbledon.

I 100% agree, even though I was ok with their fix for the boring serve-fests that became a real issue in the 90s. The only thing is that once string technology fixed that problem they should have returned to the old surface speed. Dealing with all that pace and power is a legitimate part of the game. Players today are not being examined as robustly as those of the past imho

 

[Moxie]

Honestly, no it's not. It's a factual statement I guess, but the actual point it makes is super "meh." Because this argument can easily be refuted with the relative lack of variety in Nadal's major count, so surfaces should never be an argument a Nadal fan should raise.

Nadal fans don't raise the issue of surfaces, or need to...the Fed fans bring it up. All. The. Time. So when there's a positive point to make, why not make it?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Because it plays faster and bounces lower, which makes for fair variety of surfaces. Clay is a slow surface which suits Nadal’s game and he has taken full advantage. So why not leave the grass fast and low bouncing so that grass specialist can have their chance to dominate, and to see if clay courters can prove themselves on the surface. The career grand slam has been cheapened by the changes at Wimbledon.

I thought Halle was faster than Wimbledon. But, I am truly appalled how even the Halle grass played this year. Coric's Match point involved a 26 shot rally.

More importantly, I saw more than just one point in Halle, where one player has an upperhand in the rally and then it gets neutralized and then either other player gets an upper hand (or the original player regains upper hand). In proper grass it is rare to see rally neutralized after one player has an upperhand.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll really never stop laughing at the notion of "proper grass."

For years people just called it "old grass" but apparently that's now become what's "proper."

I also seriously wonder what's the statute of limitations on that? First ever talk of Wimbledon slowing down came around 2001 I think. It is now fucking 2019.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is no statue of limitation on murder of variety in the game, assault on attacking game.

Actually, as someone else said earlier in the thread, it was quite reasonable to slow the courts at the time they did (there were too many situations where it was all serve and no rally and people found it tiresome). However, the racquet technology has made it much easier to return before and therefore going back to quickening is a good idea. Also, one needs to find a way to make sure that the grass does not change so drastically in a week.

 

[Federberg]

Nadal fans don't raise the issue of surfaces, or need to...the Fed fans bring it up. All. The. Time. So when there's a positive point to make, why not make it?

lol! Seriously? Errrrm…. year end championship Moxie? Come on now...

 

[brokenshoelace]

There is no statue of limitation on murder of variety in the game, assault on attacking game.

Actually, as someone else said earlier in the thread, it was quite reasonable to slow the courts at the time they did (there were too many situations where it was all serve and no rally and people found it tiresome). However, the racquet technology has made it much easier to return before and therefore going back to quickening is a good idea. Also, one needs to find a way to make sure that the grass does not change so drastically in a week.

One of the reasons behind the grass slowing down was to keep it in better condition, so I think balancing that with preventing it from changing in the second week is difficult.

Also, your opening sentence is my issue with a lot of people's takes on the slowing down thing. I too, would like to see more variety but the way you guys phrase it is often way too alarmist, sensationalist, and borderline conspiracy theorist. Nobody's winning Wimbledon by playing a defensive game, let's not kid each other.

 

[DarthFed]

The bottom line is Nadal and Djokovic fans love the Wimbledon surface compared to other grass events and the Fed fans hate it. That says it all really. The problem is that most of the tour slowed down and as far as grass is concerned it's tough picturing Djokovic and especially Nadal having so much success at Wimbledon. And the flip side is we all know who would be way more deadly if the court was as fast and low bouncing as it once was. Roger's 8 of 16 is ok but very underwhelming for it being his best surface especially when we see how easy he's been to beat in late stages of the event. RG is Nadal's play pen, built perfectly for his game. Nole has that with Australia (most years). Roger does not have that at Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The bottom line is Nadal and Djokovic fans love the Wimbledon surface compared to other grass events and the Fed fans hate it. That says it all really. The problem is that most of the tour slowed down and as far as grass is concerned it's tough picturing Djokovic and especially Nadal having so much success at Wimbledon. And the flip side is we all know who would be way more deadly if the court was as fast and low bouncing as it once was. Roger's 8 of 16 is ok but very underwhelming for it being his best surface especially when we see how easy he's been to beat in late stages of the event. RG is Nadal's play pen, built perfectly for his game. Nole has that with Australia (most years). Roger does not have that at Wimbledon.

8 out of 16 is more than just OK, and while there's not much wrong with your post, it does ignore that Roger actually benefited from Wimbledon slowing down between 2003 and 2008, where he just neutralized all the big servers with chipped returns and outplayed them from the baseline. Let's not act like he wasn't by far the best baseliner and benefited immensely from having more control (by his own admission and I'll find you the quote) due to fewer bad bounces. But yes, would he prefer faster courts especially vs. Djokovic and Nadal? Of course.

 

[DarthFed]

8 out of 16 is more than just OK, and while there's not much wrong with your post, it does ignore that Roger actually benefited from Wimbledon slowing down between 2003 and 2008, where he just neutralized all the big servers with chipped returns and outplayed them from the baseline. Let's not act like he wasn't by far the best baseliner and benefited immensely from having more control (by his own admission and I'll find you the quote) due to fewer bad bounces. But yes, would he prefer faster courts especially vs. Djokovic and Nadal? Of course.

I think you mean 2003 to 2007 when he actually did dominate the tournament. The last 11 years there have been poor overall. And if you think the big servers would've beaten that version of Roger on any surface...I think that's a wish and a prayer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think you mean 2003 to 2007 when he actually did dominate the tournament. The last 11 years there have been poor overall. And if you think the big servers would've beaten that version of Roger on any surface...I think that's a wish and a prayer.

Obviously he was miles better than everyone else. Obviously, he also benefited from the slowing down of the surface in those particular years. Both can be true.

 

[DarthFed]

Obviously he was miles better than everyone else. Obviously, he also benefited from the slowing down of the surface in those particular years. Both can be true.

Except one of those points is pretty debatable. Roger tends to return better on any court with a lower bounce. Speed of the surface is a much lesser factor for him on return. I don't think he'd have lost to Roddick or anyone else those years in his prime. I highly doubt he's sitting on a measly 8. And he's a combined 31-7 in QF, SF, and Finals since 2003. Barely 80% win which happens to correspond with the surface getting less and less to his liking. Yeah I know the competition gets tougher too but still a bad % for it being his best surface. Do that with the other greats at their best event and you don't see that loss %

 

[atttomole]

Obviously he was miles better than everyone else. Obviously, he also benefited from the slowing down of the surface in those particular years. Both can be true.

I don’t think Roger benefited from the slowing down of the surface. Roger was comfortable playing serve and volley, in addition to his all court game. And with other facets of his game that were improving, he would have been hard to beat on fast grass.