Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Moxie]

I have to say that I think a certain amount of quirky bounce is part of the grass game...they're playing on grass! But yes, that was part of the reason for the switch. I don't know if the speed of the court has changed "drastically," but that's hard to tell. I have seen the videos about bounce of the ball, even if you say it's mainly soil, not grass that affects it. In any case, Federberg and Broken had a very interesting and civil exchange above about how the current grass has been felicitous for Roger, in terms of his own game, if not in the comparative sense, in that has been good for Novak and Rafa. So there is a push-pull in there. @Federberg made a good point that, if the grass was changed to make some accommodation for the big servers taking over and making it all to boring, and I think we can see that it was, but admission, then, now, with the string technology, perhaps they could adjust somewhat for that. I get that, and it's a decent point. Non-hysterically made.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Read the following article from from BBC Sports written in 2005 or so.

Specificially, let me point to this paragraph.

"But I don't think it's a sinister reason. Wimbledon just changed the texture of the grass to make the courts more durable and that makes them slower because the grass is spongier."

Even if their motivation is only to promote durability of the grass, a very clear effect of it is that the change of grass made it slower.

The quote from your article says (with which I agree and almost all of us agree) the following.

"Perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time, as well as the weather before and during the event"

But, we should realize that weather conditions etc will have only minor effect in comparison to the basic speed as determined by the surface (in this case the grass used).

Except, I said durability was "one of the reasons" behind the grass change, I never said it was the only reason, nor ever denied that slowing the game down was also a motive.

So please, you questioned me (condescendingly) on something, and I provided you with evidence. Stop trying so hard.

 

[monfed]

dull has made it his mission to cross Fed. Given the amount of luck he has, it's only a matter of time. 3 more RGs and it's a done deal.

 

[monfed]

I'd say they all benefited from everyone playing the same style. That part of it is underrated. Now how much of that is homogenization of courts and how much is string technology? But please, maybe he was being diplomatic but if there were more fast courts he would have been a lot more successful.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around someone arguing that Federer is better on slower, high bouncing grass than the old style. Just because he dominated Wimbledon in his prime doesn't mean he wouldn't have done so if Wimbledon played like Halle. Because he has done so poorly at Halle over the years. In fact, if we are saying Roger's prime is 2004-2010 than he only won 5 of 7 at Wimbledon in the timeframe. I guess the argument is he could have lost to Roddick, Karlovic, Isner, etc. well that is a small % of the tour, and much lesser threats overall compared to good baseliners who clearly benefited against him. Yes, even in his prime I'd say there were more that benefited against him at Wimbledon than there were those he benefited against. After all, he did play Nadal from 06-08. And I'm sorry but it's tough picturing Roger struggle to outplay Roddick from the baseline in 2009 if the conditions were faster and lower.

Roger does prefer a lower ball, on return, from the baseline, etc. Fed has often done a horrible job against Nadal and Djokovic 2nd serve on EVERY surface just because they can kick it high to his backhand. Roger often returns serve way better at tournaments like Cincy, Halle, Dubai, etc than he does at Miami and other slow high bouncing events.

Bottom line is no way he is at a measly 8 at Wimbledon under better circumstances. That is what this is about anyways.

Fed is at 8 because he's a choker. The grass was quick enough in 2009 and he almost lost to his pigeon Rodduck. Fed loses even when he's playing well against players he owns. This right here is the biggest reason why he's at 20 and not 22-25 slams which someone like Sampras if he had Fed's ability would be. Faker and dull never give their opponents a chance when they're inform. Both these pushers are more ruthless than Fed. Fed even said that he doesn't like dishing out bagels and as a result didn't double bagel Mugray in the WTF.

If the grass was quicker then Fed would've beaten dull and faker but would've lost to ballbashers in earlier rounds. He almost lost in the first round to Falla in 2010, not that Falla is a ballbasher. Fed lost to Berdych, Tsonga, came dangerously close to losing to Bennyboy and Cilic. Fed would've lost to duck even in 2004 when the grass was better but was saved by the rain break and duck is himself a choker.

 

[tented]

There is this uneven bounce which many players hate.

Many? Which players love an uneven bounce?

 

[El Dude]

If Roger wins Wimbledon, then no.
If Rafa wins Wimbledon, then yes.
If neither wins, we're stuck on maybe.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I’m going to say no. It really depends on Rafa’s health. One more major issue there, and I think he will call it quits.

 

[monfed]

Yes Fed is going to finish third place in his own era after last night's tragedy.

 

[Hamidreza Roohian]

How did Djokovic turn the match around?

http://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2019/07/3-reasons-why-djokovic-won-wimbledon-2019-002948129.html

 

[Moxie]

Based on today, Roger probably doesn't win another one. Another 2 for Rafa is not crazy. Another 3 still looks hard. But Djokovic, even though he won, showed signs of his walkabout days. The mysteries of his slump moments. This is why I don't think he can pass Roger. Rafa maybe, but not Fed.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Based on today, Roger probably doesn't win another one. Another 2 for Rafa is not crazy. Another 3 still looks hard. But Djokovic, even though he won, showed signs of his walkabout days. The mysteries of his slump moments. This is why I don't think he can pass Roger. Rafa maybe, but not Fed.

I think the real key is can Nadal win one more slam outside of Clay, Moxie? If he can win one more non-Clay slam, then I do not think Novak can surpass especially after seeing today's final. On the other hand, I can see Nadal equalling Federer BUT there's part of me that thinks Federer will win one more major before he retires. Federer showed me today that he can still compete at high level...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Based on today, Roger probably doesn't win another one. Another 2 for Rafa is not crazy. Another 3 still looks hard. But Djokovic, even though he won, showed signs of his walkabout days. The mysteries of his slump moments. This is why I don't think he can pass Roger. Rafa maybe, but not Fed.

Djokovic has won 4 out of the last 5 slams. If you're looking for hints of slowing down in a few points here and there, I have a feeling it won't hold up compared to that.

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic has won 4 out of the last 5 slams. If you're looking for hints of slowing down in a few points here and there, I have a feeling it won't hold up compared to that.

If you consider an entire set's walkabout in a final a "few points here and there," I disagree.

 

[MikeOne]

Djokovic is going to go on a tear and retire Nadal and Federer by 2020. I predict that Novak wins USO-AO-Wimbledon-USO and gets to 20 by end of 2020. Federer and Nadal will retire at that point, humiliated and stating they have had enough.

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic is going to go on a tear and retire Nadal and Federer by 2020. I predict that Novak wins USO-AO-Wimbledon-USO and gets to 20 by end of 2020. Federer and Nadal will retire at that point, humiliated and stating they have had enough.

Bold prediction. But what is telling is that you feel the need to think that he'll "humiliate" Federer. (I suspect Nadal is a sidebar for you.) Your fantasy of this is very telling. It's toxic masculinity that makes you need this outcome. Given what each has accomplished over their careers, it's unlikely that one is going to completely top the other. Your need for a zero-sum outcome says more about you than it does about them.

 

[MikeOne]

Bold prediction. But what is telling is that you feel the need to think that he'll "humiliate" Federer. (I suspect Nadal is a sidebar for you.) Your fantasy of this is very telling. It's toxic masculinity that makes you need this outcome. Given what each has accomplished over their careers, it's unlikely that one is going to completely top the other. Your need for a zero-sum outcome says more about you than it does about them.

are you a psychiatrist? you have a talent for it, you can tell a lot about someone by reading a sarcastic post, on a tennis forum.

 

[Moxie]

are you a psychiatrist? you have a talent for it, you can tell a lot about someone by reading a sarcastic post, on a tennis forum.

No one believes that your post above was sarcastic. You're just covering for hyperbole and hysteria.

 

[MikeOne]

No one believes that your post above was sarcastic. You're just covering for hyperbole and hysteria.

right

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you consider an entire set's walkabout in a final a "few points here and there," I disagree.

If you consider one set in a final vs. the greatest player who ever lived more telling than winning 4 out of 5 slams, I disagree.

 

[roberto]

No one believes that your post above was sarcastic. You're just covering for hyperbole and hysteria.

I for one assumed that Mike One was engaging in a tongue-in-cheek forecast with total dominance (except for FO) by Djokovic. And speaking of hysteria, I find your critique of Mike One to be just that, along with incredibly inappropriate to impart personality characteristics to a total stranger on a tennis forum. I think it's fine to take issue with views that any poster takes, but making statements about their personality, etc. is WAY out of bounds.