Wimbledon 2012

Agree 100%. It was nice to see a match today that was not a total baseline slug-fest and I never want to go near another 6 hour match like Djokovic and Nadal produced at the Australian. If Roger had played in the 90s he would have won Wimbledon more than 7 times as the court is so different now. I too would like to see someone come through who has an all court game and is more attack minded. I also do not see Nadal winning more than a couple more French opens if that. His body is breaking down and he can be hit off the court by the big-hitters like Del Po and hopefully Raonic. If Djokovic slides a bit there will be an opening for Murray or someone else to come through as Roger surely cannot hold back Father Time much longer. But while he does I will love it:drool:

:wenger:

That was an absolutely brilliant match. Baseline slugfest or not, it had some incredible rallies and brilliant points. Their match at RG was a snoozefest and extremely poor but their matches at New York and Melbourne were brilliant tennis.
 
Hm. I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what's been said here. Murray did alright, but to me this was an extremely one-sided match. This is not a disservice to Murray because there were certain points and games where he did really well, but in general he was just completely outclassed.

Can he win a Grand Slam? Yeah, he's got the quality to do it, but he's going to find it tough going while the other three are still playing.
 
How good was Federer's volleying today, some brilliant stuff. Thought Murray was unlucky to lose the second set, Fed was very poor in that set and Murray should have done it. After that though, Federer was in a different class.
 
Hm. I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what's been said here. Murray did alright, but to me this was an extremely one-sided match. This is not a disservice to Murray because there were certain points and games where he did really well, but in general he was just completely outclassed.

Can he win a Grand Slam? Yeah, he's got the quality to do it, but he's going to find it tough going while the other three are still playing.

I don't think it was extremely one sided. Maybe after the second set it was a little one sided in terms of quality of tennis. But all in all the match was decided by some very key moments and when that happens a match isn't all that one sided.
 
I don't think it was extremely one sided. Maybe after the second set it was a little one sided in terms of quality of tennis. But all in all the match was decided by some very key moments and when that happens a match isn't all that one sided.

Key moments decide most top level tennis matches, but today I saw Murray struggle to win a lot of his service games despite the fact that he was doing well on his first service and getting a decent number of aces. He was getting pressurised a lot, being made to work harder for points, being forced to make more unforced errors and being pulled around the court more, which culminated in him being knackered by the end.

If this wasn't a one-sided match, I don't know what is.
 
I've never liked Federer but I can only show my respect to the best ever tennis player.He's simply amazing.Just like Nadal's tennis is made for clay court, Federer's made for grass
 
Key moments decide most top level tennis matches, but today I saw Murray struggle to win a lot of his service games despite the fact that he was doing well on his first service and getting a decent number of aces. He was getting pressurised a lot, being made to work harder for points, being forced to make more unforced errors and being pulled around the court more, which culminated in him being knackered by the end.

If this wasn't a one-sided match, I don't know what is.

Federer vs Youzhney?

I thought Federer dominated Djokovic more.

Third and fourth set onwards you have a point but I thought the first two sets were very close due to Federer's errors.
 
Federer vs Youzhney?

I thought Federer dominated Djokovic more.

Third and fourth set onwards you have a point but I thought the first two sets were very close due to Federer's errors.

Just like Roddick 3 years back, Murray wasn't good enough to take advantage of this. You need a lot of mental strength to beat Federer in a final and it's surprising that no one apart from Nadal has ever beaten him in GS finals.
 
Murray played well by his standards. He just got out flanked by Fed's mental strength. It takes a special player to defeat an in form Murray on British soil in a raucous Davis-cup like atmosphere where a massive part of the crowd want you to lose.
 
Just like Roddick 3 years back, Murray wasn't good enough to take advantage of this. You need a lot of mental strength to beat Federer in a final and it's surprising that no one apart from Nadal has ever beaten him in GS finals.

It's not about Mental strength. I've heard about this argument many times, that other plays don't have the "balls" or the "mentality" to defeat Federer.

The fact is that Federer is a player who is cautiously aggressive, i.e. his judgement and transition from defense to attack, and vice-versa is unparalleled in tennis history. It's not about balls, it's about risk. Players like Djokovic and Murray have to take more risk than they are comfortable with to take on Federer (case: Djokovic winning the USO, djokovic was returning and hitting forehands he would NEVER do). If Murray played as Murray wanted, he would never have won the first set. They don't really expose any problems for Federer naturally.

The reason why Nadal is unaffected, is because Nadal is a risk-free player, he has a high net clearance in most of his shots, and then flattens for one devastating shot. This causes Federer all kind of problems: mainly Federer likes flat hitters. The second problem is that Federer loves variety. The slice is used so, so so often. The slice against Nadal's forehand doesn't work, this makes his game very limited. Equally Nadal has a great passing shot on him, so rushing to the net probably won't work as often as it does against others.

Aged 30, still reclaiming #1 and winning Wimbledon is a huge, huge accomplishment. He's not been in a GS final for well over a year, and just come off a battering at the FO against djokovic. Having defeated him quite easily in the SF and defeating Murray from one-set down is a credit to a person with immense self belief.
 
. It takes a special player to defeat an in form Murray on British soil in a raucous Davis-cup like atmosphere where a massive part of the crowd want you to lose.
The Brits are a bit more sporting than the yanks, they don't cheer missed putts and shots into the net.
 
Just like Roddick 3 years back, Murray wasn't good enough to take advantage of this. You need a lot of mental strength to beat Federer in a final and it's surprising that no one apart from Nadal has ever beaten him in GS finals.

Didn't Del Potro win against Federer in a grand slam final? Your point about mental strength still stands though.
 
Nice to see a great unbias post, Jaz, terrific post.
 
:wenger:

That was an absolutely brilliant match. Baseline slugfest or not, it had some incredible rallies and brilliant points. Their match at RG was a snoozefest and extremely poor but their matches at New York and Melbourne were brilliant tennis.

It was one of the most boring slugfest finals I've ever seen. A good match is in the eye of the beholder.

I've gained a lot of respect for Murray. He played really well in those first two sets and (I fell asleep not long after) I felt that Federer was just waiting for him to feck up and he held strong. I felt it was more a legit tactic that in general Federer couldn't find a way to get the upper hand and dominate on him. Which produced a bit of a mixed bag of errors etc etc.

Murray reminds me a lot of Roddick. A great serve, big man power and solid ground strokes/gets. No finesse, no smarts, no balls.

Fair play to Murray I thought he'd get rolled but as soon as he lost that second set on a break at 15(or 30?)-40 I said to my mate "Curtains, not enough mental ability to return from that". But again credit to the Muzz, I don't think he'd have gotten near the final if Nadal hadn't been knocked out but I can't stand that little weasel so I'm glad Fed got at least another slam when it honestly looked like he was going to end his career on a god-like losing streak to match his winning record.


Third and fourth set onwards you have a point but I thought the first two sets were very close due to Federer's errors.

I can't agree. Murray defended really well in the first set. Didn't allow Federer to get a rhythm up serving and his groundstrokes were deep enough to put pressure on the Fed and make him question the way to get to Murray. At the crunch time you could tell the Fed was still fishing for openings in Murray's game.
 
Andy Murray will win a Grand Slam sooner rather than later. Federer is 30 and cannot have long left at that level. Nadal is injury prone and I can't see him doing it forever either.

The problem is that Murray is around the same age as Djokovic, but the Serb is ten times the player. But Djokovic isn't going to win every major.

That only really leaves Del Potro and Tsonga. Del Potro is as good as anybody when fit and on form but he rarely is at that level. Murray has the beating of Tsonga.

Murray to have at least 2 Grand Slams within 3 years in my opinion.
 
Agree 100%. It was nice to see a match today that was not a total baseline slug-fest and I never want to go near another 6 hour match like Djokovic and Nadal produced at the Australian. If Roger had played in the 90s he would have won Wimbledon more than 7 times as the court is so different now. I too would like to see someone come through who has an all court game and is more attack minded. I also do not see Nadal winning more than a couple more French opens if that. His body is breaking down and he can be hit off the court by the big-hitters like Del Po and hopefully Raonic. If Djokovic slides a bit there will be an opening for Murray or someone else to come through as Roger surely cannot hold back Father Time much longer. But while he does I will love it:drool:
If Federer had playeed in 90s, he may have won less than 7 Wimbledon due to a certain player named Pete Sampras
 
If Federer had playeed in 90s, he may have won less than 7 Wimbledon due to a certain player named Pete Sampras

Federer is better than Sampras ever was IMO. He can play on any court. And he has the talent to play in any era (fast courts, slow courts). He's not just a baseline slugger.
 
Just like Roddick 3 years back, Murray wasn't good enough to take advantage of this. You need a lot of mental strength to beat Federer in a final and it's surprising that no one apart from Nadal has ever beaten him in GS finals.

I'm not sure it's about mental strength really. Federer showed great mental strength in the second set to somehow win it and raise his game in the last game. At the same time Murray showed great mental strength to save himself from being broken SO many times. I actually think it's a quality that's a bit overrated at times. People should focus more on the actual tennis played than that.
 
Federer is better than Sampras ever was IMO. He can play on any court. And he has the talent to play in any era (fast courts, slow courts). He's not just a baseline slugger.
Perhaps but he was talking about just Wimbledon. Using the 90's surface as an argument for more wins for Fed. On the same surface Sampras dominated using his big serve and volley game.
 
Perhaps but he was talking about just Wimbledon. Using the 90's surface as an argument for more wins for Fed. On the same surface Sampras dominated using his big serve and volley game.

Ah, right. Then yeah Wimbledon would have been more of a contest. But he'd suffer the least out of all the present players if put into the earlier generations.
 
Ah, right. Then yeah Wimbledon would have been more of a contest. But he'd suffer the least out of all the present players if put into the earlier generations.
Yeah, he would take some titles off Sampras (or atleast I think so) but he won't win as many as now. If anything he got a better era to win 7 titles
 
Yeah, he would take some titles off Sampras (or atleast I think so) but he won't win as many as now. If anything he got a better era to win 7 titles

Conversely his era clearly favors his rivals more than if does him (apart from Tsonga but he's not really a rival) whereas Sampras' era was suited perfectly to his game.
 
Conversely his era clearly favors his rivals more than if does him (apart from Tsonga but he's not really a rival) whereas Sampras' era was suited perfectly to his game.
Errr Federer bundled up a lot of slams before Nadal broke in the scene. There is no question that the competition then was weak compared to 90s. Besides Federer is not as dependent on Server and volley as Pete otherwise he won't have reached so many French Open finals. The current surfaces suit Federer fine enough.
 
If Federer had playeed in 90s, he may have won less than 7 Wimbledon due to a certain player named Pete Sampras

If Fed had had more competition than one shot wonder Roddick and Hewitt he'd have won lesser Slams as well imo. People say that the likes of Djokovic and Nadal win more now because the surfaces are slower but there are various factors that count. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had to fight a lot harder to win their Slams because of the competition they face now than R.Fed had to early on when there was zero competition (Roddick doesn't count as competition imo).
 
Errr Federer bundled up a lot of slams before Nadal broke in the scene. There is no question that the competition then was weak compared to 90s. Besides Federer is not as dependent on Server and volley as Pete otherwise he won't have reached so many French Open finals. The current surfaces suit Federer fine enough.

It was his prime. He would have bundled them up anyway. But post 2007 the surfaces suited his rivals more than him (or they suited the change in it rather). That's quite obvious.

I don't think they suit him fine enough at all. He's so talented any surface can arguably be somewhat suited to his abilities. But I'm sure he'd prefer faster surfaces that allow for players to come forward more. The way courts have become it's essentially become a battle to the finish which has made it more about running and physicality.
 
If Fed had had more competition than one shot wonder Roddick and Hewitt he'd have won lesser Slams as well imo. People say that the likes of Djokovic and Nadal win more now because the surfaces are slower but there are various factors that count. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had to fight a lot harder to win their Slams because of the competition they face now than R.Fed had to early on when there was zero competition (Roddick doesn't count as competition imo).

If the courts were how they were 10 years back or at least more balanced than their current state, Nadal would probably not have a single slam on other surfaces apart from clay.

Anyway I think this argument is pointless given we're both big fans :)
 
I wasn't alive when they were playing, but I've always preferred Borg to McEnroe. McEnroe was just a mouthy, obnoxious little cnut.
 
It's rather nuts that one of the two sportsmen I grew up admiring (idolizing in his case) is a fan of the other one I grew up admiring.
 
He was at first, certainly. His behaviour improved after a while, although he was still prone to the odd bout of " you can not be serious " when his ( usually good ) balls were called out. His tennis though, was sublime. I've never liked these two handed backhanders. McEnroe ( like Nastase before him -if he'd been a footballer, he'd have been Georgie, he was that good ) made it all seem effortless.
 
It was his prime. He would have bundled them up anyway. But post 2007 the surfaces suited his rivals more than him (or they suited the change in it rather). That's quite obvious.

I don't think they suit him fine enough at all. He's so talented any surface can arguably be somewhat suited to his abilities. But I'm sure he'd prefer faster surfaces that allow for players to come forward more. The way courts have become it's essentially become a battle to the finish which has made it more about running and physicality.

I don't really believe this rubbish people make up that the surfaces slowed down and that's why the Spaniards do well now. I remember reading an article which suggested they'd started slowing Wimbledon down from 2000 itself and the reason people probably believe this only now is because a clay courter like Nadal has done so well here. And Federer grew up playing on clay courts so even the "slow" courts should be good for him.

Anyway they're both great players and Federer's record isn't going to be broken for a long long time but suggesting the likes of Nadal and Djokovic only win because the surfaces have been "slowed" isn't right imo. If that's helped them then the laughable competition Federer had before Nadal came on the scene is a reason why he racked up so many Slams then.
 
It's not the 17 grand slams that makes Federer (probably) the greatest player but the beautiful, expansive style in which he won them, even in the face of ever more negative styles. All the courts these days (even grass for feck sake) are built for the ultra defensive, attritional 'chippers'. Much to the detriment of the game. Watching powerful athletes test each others endurance to the limit, as they grind out points is bloody tedious. Feder is one of the few exceptions and the game will miss him when he retires.
 
It was his prime. He would have bundled them up anyway. But post 2007 the surfaces suited his rivals more than him (or they suited the change in it rather). That's quite obvious.

I don't think they suit him fine enough at all. He's so talented any surface can arguably be somewhat suited to his abilities. But I'm sure he'd prefer faster surfaces that allow for players to come forward more. The way courts have become it's essentially become a battle to the finish which has made it more about running and physicality.

Non sense. A close to retirement Agassi gave Federer more of game then plonkers like Roddick and Hewitt. If people like Safin had fulfilled their potential then it would have been different.

Nadal has 11 slams, to say he won't have been anywhere near the same earlier, reeks of bitterness from Federer fanbois. Fact remains that Nadal has beaten Fed on his favorite surface in a slam while Fed has not even gotten close.
 
In 2001, Wimbledon organizers had changed the grass to 100% perennial rye in addition to changing to a harder and denser soil with both providing for a higher bounce to the ball and slower play.[3] Grass court specialist Tim Henman spoke out against this change in 2002, stating "What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year".

Eddie Seaward, the head groundsman at the All England Club, has told The Tennis Space that it is myth that the grass courts at Wimbledon are slower than they used to be. “I don’t think the grass has slowed down – the ball still comes off the grass at the same speed.” What has changed, said Seaward, is that the ball now bounces a little higher and that helps when you are trying to return a 140mph serve.

Seaward on the speed of the court: “I don’t think the grass has slowed down. The ball still comes off the grass at the same speed. But, as the courts are a bit harder, the ball bounces a bit higher. The courts are a bit harder because of the grasses we use, and also because we prepare them that way. We wanted the hardness because we wanted the courts to be in just as good shape on day 13 as one day one, and that’s what we’ve got. If the ball comes at you at knee height at 140mph, you’ve got no chance or returning it. If it comes at you at chest height, you’ve got much more chance of getting the ball back into play. That’s why we’re getting the rallies.”

Seaward on the balance of power in tennis: “I came here in 1990 as head groundsman designate, and took over in 1991, and everyone then was saying that the serve was too dominant. Everyone was saying that grass-court tennis was finished, because it was just about the big serve. So we spoke to the players and coaches and said, ‘what do you want?’ And they said, ‘well, if you can slow the ball down by one tenth of a second, that would help’. That just shows how quick their reactions are, that that would make a difference.”

Seaward on feedback from the players: “You always feel a certain amount of pride out of that. The best bit is when we look at the courts on day one and say, ‘yes, we’ve done that’. It’s always nice to get on the court at the end of day one and see that it’s going to survive a fortnight. We’ve had a lot of positive comments over the years. We meet the players occasionally when they’re practising as they’re more relaxed then. We talk to the coaches. The coaches and players seem to be happy. When a player finishes a match, no matter what court they’re on, they are met by a member of the committee, or someone from the club, and at that stage they have the opportunity to make a formal complaint about the court. We haven’t had a complaint about any of the courts in the last eight years.”

Well a change in 2001 so that's helped Federer as well then eh? Anyway on the much faster grass courts you'd probably have guys like Karlovic and Isner winning Wimbledon.
 
It's not the 17 grand slams that makes Federer (probably) the greatest player but the beautiful, expansive style in which he won them, even in the face of ever more negative styles. All the courts these days (even grass for feck sake) are built for the ultra defensive, attritional 'chippers'. Much to the detriment of the game. Watching powerful athletes test each others endurance to the limit, as they grind out points is bloody tedious. Feder is one of the few exceptions and the game will miss him when he retires.
All this kind of talk is strange. I thought Aussie open final was great, much better than the final yesterday. And that was supposedly between two defensive players. I don't get why people are gagging for tennis where big servers can close out games in under a minute.
 
I don't really believe this rubbish people make up that the surfaces slowed down and that's why the Spaniards do well now. I remember reading an article which suggested they'd started slowing Wimbledon down from 2000 itself and the reason people probably believe this only now is because a clay courter like Nadal has done so well here. And Federer grew up playing on clay courts so even the "slow" courts should be good for him.

Anyway they're both great players and Federer's record isn't going to be broken for a long long time but suggesting the likes of Nadal and Djokovic only win because the surfaces have been "slowed" isn't right imo. If that's helped them then the laughable competition Federer had before Nadal came on the scene is a reason why he racked up so many Slams then.

Do some research into the topic. It will open your eyes. Who cares when they started slowing it down? Point is if favors one kind of tennis player over another. It favors staying back strongly over standing inside the baseline or coming to the net.

As I said, there's no point of a Federer and Nadal fan having this discussion with each other! We're both a bit biased :)