Roger Federer: When I Was Younger I Serve And Volleyed, But Then I Became Great From The Baseline

I remember watching that match against Sampras in disbelief- how can pistol pete lose at his game? Was the dominating thought whilst watching it. He’s right though, roger did change his game completely in order to get to the top.

March 5th, 2012 at 10:57 am

Tom Gainey: “After struggling through the early part of 2012, Federer has turned it on winning five of the last seven tournaments he has entered.”

How many tournaments has Federer won this year? FIVE? Apart fro Rotterdam and Dubai when did he win the other three?

March 5th, 2012 at 12:27 pm

He won the other three tournaments at the end of 2011 (Basel, Paris, and the World Tour Finals). It’s a bit awkwardly phrased.

March 5th, 2012 at 1:57 pm

Roger meant Juan Carlos Ferrero, not David Ferrer when he said “I didn’t believe in my ability from the baseline against the likes of Agassi, Ferrer, Nalbandian, you name it.”

Yes, Federer served and volleyed much when he was younger as evidenced from this article on 2003 Wimbledon final: “Serve and volley: Federer’s finesse offers new hope for old order”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/06/federer_sider/

Not only is it incredible the number of changes Federer had to make to his game over the last 13 years, but also incredible that Federer’s generation of players had to adapt to playing on courts that became slower and more homogenized after 2002 (compared to before 2002) in order to succeed, while Nadal/Djokovic’s generation started their ATP careers on these slower courts — that’s given them an advantage over the Federer generation. So kudos to all the 29 + year old players who have been winning ATP 500, Masters and World Tour Finals over the last four months.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/06/federer_sider/

March 5th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

Actually the homogebization of courts have started after 2000b itself, the old good wimbledon court was gone forever and we had a hugely slower court in 2001, in which even a S&V giant was left helpless and lost to a rookie federer on a curt which though was termed his fave, but was hardly his own1 The last time pete playd in is wimby court was in fact only in 2000 and never again!

March 5th, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Actually the homogenization of courts have started after 2000 itself. the old good wimbledon court was gone forever and we had a hugely slower court in 2001, in which even a S&V giant lke pete was left helpless and lost to a rookie federer; when pete lost to fed that wimbledon, t was still said that pete was beaten in his own wimbledon court, but it was hardly pete’s own court anymore. The last time pete playd in his own wimby court was in fact only in 2000 and never again!

ALL HAIL HOMOGENISATION OF TENNIS COURTS!!! Kidding Of Course! :/

March 5th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Pre-2001 Wimbledon was perfect. Slicers, blasters, movers, thinkers, the beauty and pace of the serve and volley game, the big serves, the sheer speed of the game… showcased as the pinnacle Sporting event of the summer (for the Americas and Europe anyway). Four distinct GS surfaces that played not alike. A tradition that seemed perfect, one that could run for ever and ever.

The homogenization of playing surfaces – a decision, not a progression – destroyed this perfect tradition while enabling the seemingly improbable: lengthy, quality matches of epic proportion (ex. 2008 Federer vs Nadal or 2005 Venus vs Davenport), a stranglehold on the coveted Silver Gilt Cup by two men, and the Rosewater Dish by two sisters. The all-time Men’s singles champ goes out with a whimper, not a bang. He must have been wondering who or what hijacked his tournament. Shouldn’t there be red clay caked on the shoes? This was not his Wimbledon anymore. Yet fastest serves are recorded, the longest match in history played, the media’s obligatory examination of every record, contrary to logic …perfect yet impossible? Grunting at the Grand Prix de SAR La Princesse Lalla Meryem, baseliners in Basel, BNP Paribas making it rain up in here.

If you are in love with the perfect, it’s been swept away. If you picture results that you never thought would happen, they just might.

March 5th, 2012 at 11:38 pm

Ajet, how many tourneys actually slowed down their courts in 2001 or 2002? 1 or 2? It was really in the years after 2002-2003 that more and more tourneys courts slowed and homogenized their court speeds.

Wimbledon changed its grass composition in 2001 to 100% ryegrass to improve surface durability. Many people assume that the change in grass slowed down the courts significantly in 2001. But no player complained or talked about about court speed in 2001 — when the difference compared to speeds in previous years would have been most obvious. In 2001, the court speed was likely still relatively fast — three of the four semifinalists were serve and volleyers (Ivanesevic, Rafter, Henman) and the fourth was past Wimbledon champ Agassi… the final between Ivanesevic and Rafter featured lots of volleying and nearly 40 aces. Thus Sampras had no excuse for losing to Federer in the quarterfinals in 2001 — if Ivanesevic, Rafter and Henman could reach the semifinals.

The complaints about the Wimbledon court speed really started in 2002 and 2003, and some players said it got slower and slower with each passing year. Tim Henman wasn’t complaining in 2001, but by 2003 to 2005 he was whining openly that the courts were slower.

Even though the grass changed in 2001, it seems likely that the key reason the courts slowed down and bounced higher was mostly due to changes in the compacting methods (rolling, etc.) as well as the general compacting of the soil over time. With each passing year the courts probably became slower and higher bouncing, and cold damp weather in certain years compounded the effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm

March 6th, 2012 at 2:49 am

Along with slowing down of courts in Wimbledon, another major change happening is with respect to the balls used. I remember last year Martina was commenting that if Wimbledon uses same balls as FO, then Roger would be the champion. But the balls which are going to be used in Wimbledon are 6 times heavier than the ones used in FO. She made her prediction clear that Roger may not win Wimbledon, which was the case later.

We could see a significant drop in Roger’s level of play at Wimbledon after FO. His match against Youzny was too competitive and the quality of Roger’s play was not that great. There are multiple changes happening which basically brings down the speed and the creativity on the courts, just not the court speed alone.

March 6th, 2012 at 3:57 am

Dave:

No matter what you say, I know that the wimbledon after 2000 was never the same. It became WAY SLOWER in 2001. And even as per federer, the court speed since 2001 has remained the same, so no questioj of it being slowed down year after year. SORY, i don’t have enuf time to give the links, but fact is fact and even federer said after losing to nadal in 2008 wimbledon, when asked if slow court has anything to do it, he straight denied it, and said that the wimbledon has been same since 2001. Weather change is another thing, but fed definitely knows what he sys, and I’m gonna believe him of course. And btw, we all know that many players including becker etc. have affirmed that the court post 2000 at wimbledon are incredibly slower in comparison to the courts upto 2000. If we’re being honest in this regard, we cannot ignore the fact that pete certainly was affected in that match loss to federer by the change in the nature of the centre court from revious years. The easiest of volleys in that match went awry for pete as he simply wasn’t acquainted with this far slow wimby surface.

March 6th, 2012 at 4:00 am

Dave:
sampras doesn’t need an excuse to lose to fed that year as a much worse thing happened to himin the form of his fave surface being completely changed to his own disadvantage. FACT.
And it hardly matters if you think ivanisevic or henman reached later stages than pete and deserve more credit, they’re no SAMPRAS AT WIMBLEDON! And henman was lucky not to get his ass kicked by federer as fed was still recovering from the massive victory he just had over pete in the earlier round!

And it didn’t surprise me as they reached later stage than wimbledon than pete in 2001 despite serving and volleying, as that’s all that was their strength, they could hardly play great from baseline. Not even pete could play too well from baseline, let alone these other guys you name! But that’s not their fault, they could hardly have tried to focus on baseline at gtheir learning stages when tennis was about lightning fast, low bouncing courts(unlike today’s courts, in which, to excel, you better focus on your baseline instead of giving primacy to S&V).

March 6th, 2012 at 4:11 am

The climatic impact on wimby courts you brought is limited only to the variations in respect of the nature of the current courts, but the grass was itself different before 2001, not only the nature was different priorly, event the elements were different! That is something.

March 6th, 2012 at 4:14 am

Ajet: I’m not sure about the court speed difference between 2000, 2001 and 2003. But one thing was certain while watching the match many times in youtube download. The commentators was going ga ga over Roger’s return of service. They were amazed by Roger’s service return of Sampra’s famed serve. Maybe the slightly slow courts with higher bounce could have had an effect on his return.

As far as wimbledon is concerned there are three reasons for the condition change

1) Court speed slowed down by change of grass
2) Higher bounce because of the new grass type
3) Very heavy balls to control the servers.

March 6th, 2012 at 9:00 am

Joe W: “Four distinct GS surfaces that played not alike. A tradition that seemed perfect, one that could run for ever and ever.”

Couldn’t have said it better. This was competition in the real sense of the term.

March 6th, 2012 at 11:05 am

nirma kumar:

your thoughts are not only interesting, but also substantial and logical. i like them. :)

March 6th, 2012 at 11:53 am

i mean nirmal kumar. :)

March 6th, 2012 at 11:55 am

I thought (I may be mistaken) that the grass at Wimbledon was changed *after* the 2001 tournament and the 2002 event saw its use for the first time. As Nirmal Kumar said, this led to slower speed and higher bounce. A lot of former players have talked about the balls being equally responsible for the slower conditions. Earlier, the balls used to be much lighter and used to come straight out of pressurized cans just before their use. This helped in keeping them firmer and harder for a longer period. I don’t mind the slightly slower conditions so long as the bounce is low. Nobody will like to see serving shootouts of the 1990s but the Serve and Volley guys have too much going against them at the moment.

March 6th, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Ajet, you have absolutely no basis to claim “No matter what you say, I know that the wimbledon after 2000 was never the same. It became WAY SLOWER in 2001…If we’re being honest in this regard, we cannot ignore the fact that pete certainly was affected in that match loss to federer by the change in the nature of the centre court from revious years.” Really??? If your “honest” speculation was the case, why did no player (including Sampras)whine about the court being waaaay slooower in 2001? Here are all the player interview transcripts for 2001 Wimbledon — find me one player (anyone) who whined that the courts were waaaay sloooower in 2001. Put your money where your mouth is. Show me some facts instead of you and Nirmal speculating ad nauseum and think you’re right.
http://www.asapsports.com/show_events.php?category=7&year=2001&title=WIMBLEDON

Ajet “it hardly matters if you think ivanisevic or henman reached later stages than pete and deserve more credit, they’re no SAMPRAS AT WIMBLEDON!” duh, there was also no Sampras at wimbledon in 1996 when Pete was at his peak! Maybe the fact that Sampras failed to win a single tiny title between July 2000 to August 2002 has something to do with why Sampras failed at 2001 Wimbledon.

Nirmal “As far as wimbledon is concerned there are three reasons for the condition change 1) Court speed slowed down by change of grass 2) Higher bounce because of the new grass type”. Wimbledon’s chief groundskeeper Eddie Seaward has repeatedly said that the rye grass itself wasn’t the key factor causing the slowed and higher bouncing balls. It was the compacting and rolling of the soil that was the primary factor that led to this effect. The AELTC stated: “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… The amount a ball bounces is largely determined by the soil, not the grass.” And they are right — anyone who has rolled clay courts knows the immediate effect on ball bounce.

Instead of speculating, learn the facts.

March 6th, 2012 at 3:25 pm

dave:

becker and rafter and even ivanisevic has said that the courts had drastically changed. too tiring an effort to search all the matter on those stuff on net and present it hear to convince your KNOWLEDGEABLE HIGHNESS(kidding of course!). And sampras didn’t whine coz he was classy and he had lost to an equally classy guy like federer, whose real worth only sampras would have noted the moment he was ousted! And so far as whining goes, it’s your job and not mine who calls nadal as not amongst the greatest, who has 1000 excuses to offer for each loss of federer, including DOING MOST WORTHLESSLY BASELESS SPECULATION like roger’ll have some wins over rafa(even though everything points to the contrary). Who’ll go out of his way to give federer more credit for his win, and also go way put f his way to discredit the wins of others over federer! Even if you see fed faltering a 1000 times in crossing the final hurdle against nadal, then even you’d not be able to grasp the simple fact that nadal is in fed’s head. It’s because you are pathetic at observing facts, but a master of twisting and spining things! too bad, your tricks won’t work against everyone who has brain!

And if you had really known what watching tennis means, then you’d have certainly understood and observed the difference between the way wimbledon was playing in 2001 and the way it played adterwars, but i guess you have roger federer tinted glasses all over your eyes! You’re so one-sided in your views that you must be a thing of amusement to neutral observers! Grow up dude, grow up! Stop dreaming of the ideal situation that you might be wishing to happen, and come to grip with reality! And listen, it’s you who messes up the best with yourself in presenting your own case by making baseless allegation and predictions which are laughworthy at best! And stop your eternal twisting f things for the mere sake of making federer look better or different than he is. Federer doesn’t need you to jump up to defend him, his tennis is enough for himself!
And stop trying to impose your idiotic views on others, others deserve better than that. Nobody is perfect including you. Get a Life!

March 6th, 2012 at 4:19 pm

these posts of dave mostly reflect what he wishes than what actually is, and nobody can present more one-sided views at times than this guy! he just isn’t ready to accept or face the reality staring him at its face! And the funny thing is he considers himself most logical and knowledgeable when it’s really anybody’s guess what he is. Just because pete didn’t offer an excuse doesn’t mean the surafce wasn’t changed and the way of play wasn’t affected. If that’s so, then he must believe at least his own idol federer about what he says, a lot of confusion in his mind he can clear that way! H ekeeps saying that the surface is geting slower as the years progress whereas, be it at 2008/09/10, whenever fed was asked, irrespective if defeat/win, he said that the surface is same since 2001, and only some minor weather-induced factoors watch to make it slower or faster in between matches in tournaments, otherwise, no change really since 2001, but this guy won’t admit it! If he cares so much about links etc., to appear like mr. know-it-all, then am sure he can also find out for himself about what others say is true or not, nobody’s preventing him! But see the stupidity and smutness of ths guy, he asks others to learn from him, I mean just ”cough cough”!

and btw, Does everybody really have to whine and offer excuses for things which others can clearly see, I guess not! This guy’ll readily deny that the surface disadvantage didn’t affect pete, but would always go over the top to attribute any kind of defeat/debacle of federer to some lame reason or the other and try to show what supposed disadvantages affected fed’s match, even when they are clearly not! Seriously, I cannot be serious about this guy anymore!

March 6th, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Ajet: “…whenever fed was asked, irrespective if defeat/win, he said that the surface is same since 2001″

I would not put too much weight on what Fed said. It’s no different that Fed saying he played well, which he says every time, regardless of the results.

I would give more credence to guys like Murray. He said last week that the courts have definitely gotten slow. ” Just so many of the courts are so slow now. It’s nice for us to get a change-up like here. Some of the tournaments are so slow it’s tough against so many guys that are moving well and serving big.”

I do miss the divesity that the four slams once offered. Each surface was uniquely different, which made the competition more balanced and fair. Now, players who thrive on fast courts are truly at a disadvantage at the slams. Serve and volley tennis (Sampras, Becker, McEnroe, Cash, Rafter…) has sadly become a thing of the past.

March 6th, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Joe W,

You my friend are a welcome breath of fresh air. Thank you for that reminder OF WHAT THE 4 SLAMS SHOULD BE ABOUT.

The commercial Tennis game is upon us. Long live “Pong”. Ugh.

What is the qualifications? Just stand back behind the baseline, bang it, and last man standing. End of match.

March 6th, 2012 at 10:54 pm

Ajet Says:
these posts of dave mostly reflect what he wishes than what actually is, and nobody can present more one-sided views at times than this guy! he just isn’t ready to accept or face the reality staring him at its face! And the funny thing is he considers himself most logical and knowledgeable when it’s really anybody’s guess what he is.

Very true abt Dave.
But you cannot blame him alone for enjoying the warmth of sh!t.
You need to give some credit to the other fed tards (like skeezer, madmax, etc) who applaud him whenever he writes those long posts claiming that Federer will win more slams.

March 7th, 2012 at 12:09 am

Ajet: You’re misleading us by desperately claiming “becker and rafter and even ivanisevic has said that the courts had drastically changed” because none of them were referring to the Wimbledon courts of 2001!

Boris Becker retired at 1999 wimbledon (so he did not play at 2001 Wimbledon).

Contrary to your misinformation, Rafter and Ivanesevic NEVER complained about the courts being slow in 2001 (they hit 38 aces in the final).

You have failed to find a single player complaining about the courts being slow in 2001 even though I gave you all the 2001 Wimbledon interviews.

You want to know why no players complained about the slow courts in 2001? Because the courts were NOT slow in 2001 despite the grass change — the previous 70% rye grass was simply changed to 100% rye grass (so it’s not as if there was no rye grass in the 1990s courts). You want to know why the courts were not slow in 2001? Because the courts were softer in 2001 (compared to later years) due to two weeks of constant rain and the method used to compact the soil that year. However, in 2002 and future years the courts did indeed become slower as the soil became drier and new methods of compacting the soil had the effect of making the courts slower and higher bouncing.

You need to apply your advice to yourself: “And if you had really known what watching tennis means, then you’d have certainly understood and observed the difference between the way wimbledon was playing in 2001 and the way it played adterwars.” Go check any match played in 2001 — I have the Sampras-Federer 2001 DVD — and compare them to matches oin 2000 or 1999. The 2001 commentators NEVER mentioned the courts playing slower compared the past. Federer and Sampras both serve and volleyed a lot. Now watch the 2002 matches — the courts seem to be slower.

You misportrayed what Rafter and Ivanesevic as referring to 2001 Wimbledon. It was not. What Rafter said in 2008 was that Wimbledon’s “slow grass helped Rafa to No.1” Rafter: “I didn’t see the Wimbledon final but it’s incredible how slow the grass is now… I just spoke to some of the players here (at the Tennis Masters in Graz) and Goran (Ivanesevic) said it’s incredible how slow the grass is now. He spoke to Federer about it and told me that’s why Federer doesn’t serve and volley, it’s just too slow. I think Wimbledon needs to change its grass and make it quicker because to me, watching grass court tennis from the baseline is not how it should be played on grass. It’s fine for clay but not for grass. I think they should make it quicker.” was Rafter or IVanesevic referring to 2001? Nope!

Like I said you and Nirmal speculate and make up stuff without facts, yet demand to be right. Your irrational ranting will not help you recapture your lost credibility. You of all people shouldn’t be accusing others of being “a master of twisting and spining things! too bad, your tricks won’t work against everyone who has brain!”

You must be a mind reader to claim “grasp the simple fact that nadal is in fed’s head.” What’s your proof? Your speculation? Maybe that’s why Roddick pokes jokes at arrogant people who think they can see inside another person’s head. Take a deep breath.

Nixon is just the alter ego of a troll who wasted 1/2 hour searching through my old posts from one month ago, lol. Take it easy, it’s just a discussion thread.

March 7th, 2012 at 1:20 am

dude dave,

it was around 2008-2010 that each of those three guys had come to wimbledon and had commented how slow the courts are compared to the day when the grass was not changed! find it yourself! I’m sure you can. I don’t need to waste time over convincing you or winning you over my or anybody else’s side. if you are so good at finding things out from the net, then am sure you can find this out too!

March 7th, 2012 at 1:30 am

dave:

stop your lies about the courts of wimbledon 2000 and 2001 being the same and equally fast!

March 7th, 2012 at 1:33 am

and aren’t you able to see through your f****** eyesnthat fed has repeatedly replied when asked about the courts at wimbledon that the courts of 2001 upto 2008/09/10 hasn’t at all changed much!

March 7th, 2012 at 1:36 am

and what if i am not a mind reader? are you a mind and body reader to know that nadal’s time-outs are fake??? how about you accusing nadal of many things of which you’ve no idea about??? huh!

stating facts is not misportraying, stating lies that nothing changed in wimbledon between 2000 and 2001 is misportraying!

March 7th, 2012 at 1:40 am

at dave:

and so what even if nadal won wimbledon in 2008??? is it illegitimate??? and what about nadal beating fed at fast dubai 2006???
and when did anyone tell you that the courts of wimbledon is playing slower each year??? anybody of credibility apart from fed fans???

i think the only thing that you can come up with is that the courts at wimbledon started palying slow only since nadal and others started winning in it over federer. huh!

March 7th, 2012 at 1:45 am

A giant misportrayor has no right to accuse others of misportrayal and claim innocence!

and whot he hell told this guy that madrid and serbia don’t want federer in it??? huh!
MISPORTRAYAL AT ITS UGLY BEST!

March 7th, 2012 at 1:48 am

Ajet, take a deep breath and calm down. Your claim is iirrelevant that “it was around 2008-2010 that each of those three guys had come to wimbledon and had commented how slow the courts are compared to the day when the grass was not changed!”

So what? Your whining was about the courts being slow in 2001 — not 2008-2010 versus pre-2001. Even tennis fools know the courts are slower in 2008-2010 compared to 1999. That was never your issue. So don’t disingenuiously change your issue.

Once again, answer this simple question: show us proof that anyone said the Wimbledon courts were slower in 2001. If you have no facts, then your claim that the courts were slower in 2001 is totally bogus and misleading.

You need to stop your lies such as “stop your lies about the courts of wimbledon 2000 and 2001 being the same and equally fast!… stating facts is not misportraying, stating lies that nothing changed in wimbledon between 2000 and 2001 is misportraying!” You have ZERO proof it was slower. And you don’t don’t understand what you’re yapping about. You read that the grass was changed and immediately jump to conclusions that the court was slower in 2001. Stop misportraying and making up stuff.

Ajet uncontrollably rants “and aren’t you able to see through your f****** eyesnthat fed has repeatedly replied when asked about the courts at wimbledon that the courts of 2001 upto 2008/09/10 hasn’t at all changed much!” You are the one who brought this up — not I. Since you’re continually whining about it, and are influenced by everything Fed says, I want you to post the full exact Federer comment with the link so we can all see exactly what Federer said and in what context.

Ajet: “and what if i am not a mind reader? are you a mind and body reader to know that nadal’s time-outs are fake??? how about you accusing nadal of many things of which you’ve no idea about??? huh!” When a player runs like a WABBIT both BEFORE and AFTER his medical time out and has a long history of taking dubious MTOs at opportune time, rational people would reach the conclusion that Nadal’s MTOs are fake.

Ajet: “so what even if nadal won wimbledon in 2008??? is it illegitimate???” Hey, don’t rant at me. You need to rant at Rafter and Ivanesevic for suggesting that “slow grass helped Rafa to No.1″ Rafter: “I didn’t see the Wimbledon final but it’s incredible how slow the grass is now… I just spoke to some of the players here (at the Tennis Masters in Graz) and Goran (Ivanesevic) said it’s incredible how slow the grass is now. He spoke to Federer about it and told me that’s why Federer doesn’t serve and volley, it’s just too slow. I think Wimbledon needs to change its grass and make it quicker because to me, watching grass court tennis from the baseline is not how it should be played on grass. It’s fine for clay but not for grass. I think they should make it quicker.”

Ajet: “what about nadal beating fed at fast dubai 2006???” Duh, Dubai was not fast in 2006. Only this year.

Ajet: “when did anyone tell you that the courts of wimbledon is playing slower each year??? anybody of credibility apart from fed fans???” Is Taylor Dent a Fedfan? Look it up in my links before ranting without facts

Ajet: “i think the only thing that you can come up with is that the courts at wimbledon started palying slow only since nadal and others started winning in it over federer. huh!” Once again read my posts carefully before making stuff up with facts, whihc you keep doing because you have no argument. E.g., Tim Henman whined in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc that the courts were getting slower. MAny others did during that period.

Ajet: “A giant misportrayor has no right to accuse others of misportrayal and claim innocence! and whot he hell told this guy that madrid and serbia don’t want federer in it??? huh! MISPORTRAYAL AT ITS UGLY BEST!” Who and what are you ranting about?

March 7th, 2012 at 2:04 am

Dave says to my update on court slowness in wimbledon: The AELTC stated: “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… The amount a ball bounces is largely determined by the soil, not the grass.”

Same Dave who mentioned above that grass does not have effect on quickness of the court had made the below statement while responding to Ajet

Dave’s response to Ajet : I think Wimbledon needs to change its grass and make it quicker because to me, watching grass court tennis from the baseline is not how it should be played on grass. It’s fine for clay but not for grass. I think they should make it quicker.”

If grass is not the reason for slowness of the court, why is that they are asking to change the Grass?

March 7th, 2012 at 2:29 am

dave:

appearing cool is not yourcup of tea, so stop pretending! and taylor dent is just one of some guy in this world who might be thinking thst the courts are playing slower, but others too have stated the opposite.

and i have to laugh at your dubai wasn’t fast in 2006, just now, hehehe! ;) you are funnier than i ever thought you can be, lol! and a formidsble liar as well!

well, you first need to provide evidence about how you know that nadal keeps faking, if you ever wanna be taken seriously by others!

and i dunno what makes you think that slow grass was all that was responsible for giving nadal wimbledon. any evidence??? don’t sit on wishes, tell me why you think fed should dominate rafa on fast, even if we all now how federer keeps choking in matches and nadal and even unravels! this is mere speculation on the part of you and others. and btw, many players includong federer even think now that the grass is ok in terms of speed to call it slow like clay, as ivanisevic claims! i guess those who play on this grass know better than goran about the conditions ofthe present wimbledon courts and thus, i would believe them more than goran, even though what goran is saying must have to have some meaning, it’s not your hot air opinion that can be ignored guiltlessly!

and obviously henman may complain about the grass getting slower in 2003/04/05, as it is his right as player to say this, but other players don’t necessarily accept! and so far as i know henman admires fed a lot, so he has things to say glorifying fed, just as some pro-nadal guys like gilbert and macenroe go on exclaiming how excellent nadal is who can win slams on both fast grass as well as slow clay, lol! ;)

March 7th, 2012 at 2:31 am

well said nirmal kumar!

March 7th, 2012 at 2:33 am

nirmal kumar:

it’s futile to explain anything to this guy who pretends as if he doesn’t know whay the grass was changed and whom it favoured! obviously he’d say that the change was made keeping an eye on encouraging the old-school players like sampras so that they don’t boycott wimbledon1 and i won’t be surprised if dave calls fed as great a volleyer as becker/edberg/pete/gran/rafter, lol! ;)

he keeps applying his same old predictable tricks each time, hehehe ;)

March 7th, 2012 at 2:37 am

Ajet – he does not even read his own comments. Basically he copies from different article and paste them here, expecting the experts will take care of providing the insightful comments.

But these experts have failed in their prediction so many times, and many times the fans seems to have much more objective opinion on a player more than experts. Being a huge Roger fan and after watching so many of his matches for pat 10 years, I could pretty much understand what he can do and cannot. He he does things which I think he cannot, it would only make his fans happy. One such thing would be to beat Nadal in a GS.

March 7th, 2012 at 4:44 am

Dave says : Like I said you and Nirmal speculate and make up stuff without facts, yet demand to be right. Your irrational ranting will not help you recapture your lost credibility

I’m not sure what stuff I made without facts. Pls explain. You can’t accuse just like that.

March 7th, 2012 at 7:01 am

Am I the only poster who is struggling to keep up with the dates? Apparently, the Wimby courts started being slower in 2001, no they didn’t, it was 2002 – rubbish, it was 2000 – no, it wasn’t, it was –

But hang on. What does it matter, what is this all about? Peering through the thickets of print, realisation begins dimly to dawn. It’s all about Federer. When is anything ever NOT about Federer when we have these infinitely long and protracted disputes?

If the grass is such and such, then Federer’s victory over Sampras is heroic, world beating, a heavy portent of things to come. If (dearly beloved) the grass is by no means such and such but instead is so and so, then Federer’s much heralded victory over Sampras was a mere curiosity. The boy done good work, true, but hold your horses – that grass (shake of the head).

However, I have news for everyone. We can all relax. The nature of the grass – although of tremendous historical interest – doesn’t signify so much after all. I think I am right in saying that before meeting Federer, Sampras played Barry Cowan. I saw that match, it was a 5 setter. We don’t know how much old Pete was drained by that, but what we do know for sure is that Barry Cowan was no great shakes as a tennis player. For one thing, he was a Brit – but anyway, Sampras was clearly not the old majestic Sampras. That the talented youngster Federer should have beaten him when Cowan came close-ish is not, in retrospect, a surprise. In short – an interesting encounter, an interesting result but not, in the end, such a big deal.

March 7th, 2012 at 10:22 am

Mistakenly thought that Federer was arrogant, but the only arrogant is that Dave, apparently with links discloses a part of things, bad reporting as journalists, blinded by their partisan things irrational worship by the Swiss, giving each time statistics in this single player all the time, and the others do not count then?. Denying and always looking for excuses to justify the defeat of the Swiss, who is fast only when no wins but loses the court when suddenly become slow. Oh, when you only see one side of things, like falling in love, you lose perspective on things and reality is blurred. Dave you have to be like a movie screen: wide.

March 7th, 2012 at 10:39 am

with respect of course, haha.

March 7th, 2012 at 10:40 am

The courts are fast only when he wins, but when he lose, the court suddenly become slow. I mean.

March 7th, 2012 at 10:45 am

Steve 27: with comments like “Federer was arrogant, but the only arrogant”, we all know your anti-Federer orientation on this site

Here, read the following and try to learn something:

SI’s Jon Wertheim: “Richard Deitsch and I were just marveling about this scene from Monday night (the Fed-Rod-Maria-Caro exhibition at MSG). Federer loses to Roddick and 15 or so minutes after the match, all players head to a press conference. Federer arrives first and sits down. He smiles, jokes with some familiar faces.

A patch of time elapses — maybe a few minutes — and none of the other players arrived. There’s no whiff of exasperation. No WTF look on his face.

Eventually, Roddick, Sharapova and Wozniacki walk in and the press conference begins.

Small vignette. And, yes, “waiting patiently after a $1 million exhibition” doesn’t qualify you for canonization. But it was telling. Imagine other similarly situated celebrities — we begin with Tiger Woods — being made to wait for a midnight press conference and passing the time pleasantly.

Again, you witness countless little-but-telling moments like this and it makes it hard to summon much outrage when Federer makes a borderline arrogant comment.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20120307/mailbag/index.html

What’s more Federer had just arrived in New York from Dubai less than a day earlier so surely he was jetlagged and tired.

But don’t expect Steve-27 and 28 to stop irrationally disparaging Roger as arrogant.

As wel, it looks like I’ll have to keep dealing with the continued arrogance of Ajet and Nirmal, who never can get enough of being wiped all over the website…

March 7th, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Dave, all champions are arrogant: Federer, Nadal Djokovic now, before were Lendl, Mc Enroe and others of course, is not a bad thing at all, but when you are defeated and uses phrases like this: “I wish that I too left-handed”, disqualify you as a professional, he has won almost every circuit lefties, should not have said something like that; his subconscious that he lied again: he can not accept a defeat.
By the way I really like Federer, as I said before:you have to have a broader view of things and do not take it so seriously and appreciate the humor of the “haters” as you call them, which Federer does not seem so “perfect”. I hope they meet in the semifinals again and give us a lesson in analysis and accurate reading of both players.

March 7th, 2012 at 4:50 pm

dude dave:

wipe yourself only if you want to, otherwise continue. But forget about wiping others off the website! it’s hardly upon your sweet will that people will come and go!

March 7th, 2012 at 5:14 pm

to wish that he was left handed means that hw wished that he could be a little different or something else. a man of federer’s stature should not have said this as it appears defeatist, but then again, nobody should expect man to be perfect and federer is also a humble man. so he can definitely be excused and given slack. nobody does everything right.

March 7th, 2012 at 5:18 pm

I always thoufht it was because of grass that WImbly slowed down. But the analyse and overwhelming facts tells me that Dave has cracked the slowing down theory of Wimbly from 2002. It also explaines the anamoly that Hewitt could win a grasscourtslam although he was no slouch on gras he surely was a baseline player.

Fed already proven that he could beat the best grasplayer at the time in history in 2001. That is just where you all are picking the figth with Dave. You cannot stand the fact that a young Fed beat Sampras on the fastest court there is. eerrr was)

March 7th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

a 10 year younger guy like fed winning against sampras on a changed court over 5 sets is hardly surprising!

March 7th, 2012 at 5:39 pm

”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.[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”.”- TENNIS COURT WIKIPEDIA

the immediate reaction to the change of surface at wimbledon busts the falsity and myth propagated by dave and co.
henman after playing in 2001 on the slow grass indeed ”spoke immediately as to how this change has efeected wimby”. now stop lying to yourselves and stop fooling yourself around!

March 7th, 2012 at 5:49 pm

again making it clear that henman spoke about the grass change made in 2001 btw, and not in 2002, for those who have comprehension problems!

that’s why every expert and even every (tom, dick or harry) tennis fan even knows that the court changed drastically in 2001 and the great old fast and relatively low bouncing samprasesque court was gone forever and has continued to play like that since then! and fed too has said that the court is more or less same since 2001, he never for once said that the court plays same as it used to do in 2000 and before! LEARN BLOODY FACTS!

March 7th, 2012 at 5:55 pm

again making it clear that henman ONLY spoke about the court changes made in ONLY 2001 ITSELF, and not at all about ABOUT ANY CHANGE happening in 2002, for those who have comprehension problems!

that’s why every expert and even every (tom, dick or harry) tennis fan even knows that the court changed drastically in 2001 and the great old fast and relatively low bouncing samprasesque court was gone forever and has continued to play like that since then! and fed too has said that the court is more or less same since 2001, he never for once said that the court plays same as it used to do in 2000 and before! LEARN BLOODY FACTS!

March 7th, 2012 at 5:59 pm

It’s because of the change made in 2001 in wimby grass court and soil that serve and volley died down and baseline tennis took up; thus no wonder if pete kept playing with less success in that match against federer and lost, as the surface would just not aid his service and volley game, SIMPLE AS THAT! And it is further known to every sane tennis fan too that it’s the reason that baseliners like serena, nadal, fed and venus dominated wimbledon instead of ultra-aggressive roddick or tsonga like players.

March 7th, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Ajet

No idea what the truth is regarding the state of the hallowed lawns of SW7. But I agree with you on this:”a 10 year younger guy like fed winning against sampras on a changed court over 5 sets is hardly surprising!” – with the proviso that this could be true whether the court was changed or not. I pointed out above that Sampras struggled to beat journeyman Barry Cowan over 5 sets. Wasn’t certain it was the round before, so I checked, and this is what I found.

In round 1, Sampras beat one F.Clavet – 6-4 7-6 6-4. Not exactly resounding. Then there was the 5 setter with Cowan. Next round, S.Sargsian (remember old Sarge?)went down 4-6, 4-6, 5-7, respectable again. I think it is fair to speculate that Sampras was not his old self that summer.

There is an undeniable fascination when the hero of one generation meets the up and coming hero of the next. And in retrospect, there is a temptation to give it a significance which it is unlikely to have. Especially if you are a Federer fan. But you are not like that, Ajet, you are, I get the impression, instinctively a searcher rather than a dogmatist – and I for one admire that.

March 7th, 2012 at 7:44 pm

thanks grendel! :)

March 7th, 2012 at 11:26 pm

and i very much agree with you too grendel that sampras wasn’t his old self anymore in wim 2001.

March 7th, 2012 at 11:29 pm

Skeezerweezer: there was a decision made, or perhaps a perfect storm of circumstances, where tv and tour exes realized that parity would solidify the brand. None of this was achieved. There really isn’t parity on the men’s side and tennis loses more market share (ratings) every year in the US. You are right – we are watching superb athletes who also happen to play tennis. The outcomes of matches are practically foregone conclusions.

March 8th, 2012 at 12:01 am

Jason Goodall shows how Federer’s 126 mph serve travelled slower in 2008 compared to 2003 Wimbledons: “A Hawk-Eye comparison of two of Mr. Federer’s serves both hit at 126mph but five years apart – one at the Wimbledon final in 2003 and one at the 2008 final – shows how the courts have changed. Both serves travel through the air at the same pace but the 2008 serve slows considerably upon contact with the court, and is travelling nine miles an hour slower than its younger incarnation when it reaches the opposing baseline.

This has resulted in a transformation of the kind of tennis played at Wimbledon. Serve and volley tactics have become less effective as returning has become easier. When Mr. Federer won his first Wimbledon title in 2003, he charged into the net behind 86% of his first serves over the course of the tournament. In 2009 he adopted this tactic just 7% of the time. What had been a trusted game plan six years earlier became a mere variation in order to keep the opposition guessing – in the last few years, Wimbledon has been won from the baseline.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575336920883530594.html

I’ll address Ajet’s misinformation next.

March 8th, 2012 at 12:45 am

2001 surface change set the foundation for all that ensued afterwards, and it started claiming pete and in the course has also claimed federer later.

the serve and volley tennis of 2003 btw is nothing original or intense compared to what it was in 2000 or prior. INFORMATION…

PROOF:
DOCUMENTARY in the form of uncountable articles, past players’ and current players’ observation, expert opinion available on net… and

GRAPHIC available in the form of you tube clips!

WHAT MORE CAN PEOPLE ASK FOR! HAHAHA!!!

March 8th, 2012 at 2:01 am

Ajet continues to mislead with his comments and these quotes: ”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.[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”.”- TENNIS COURT WIKIPEDIA (March 7th 5:49 pm)

Ajet took this quote from this link below but his quote is partly contradicted by footnotes No. 3 and No. 4…. too bad for Ajet that years ago I had already read the Wikipedia article as well as the footnoted articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_court#Grass_courts

QUOTE: “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” “.

– Ajet’s poor comprehension — or intentional misleading — compounded by his fantasy about the courts being slower in 2001 drove him to jump to the wrong conclusions about Henman’s comments.

– Checking footnote No. 4 shows that Tim Henman never “spoke out against this change in 2002” (Ajet). That was a mistake made by the Wikipedia writer. Henman was reminiscing in 2008 (during a 2008 interview) about how he felt in 2002.

– Bottom line, there were NO complaints about slow Wimbledon courts in 2001. Henman NEVER complained in 2001, like I said. Henman complained in 2008 about how slow the courts were IN 2002 when he strugged… NOT about 2001 when he reached the semifinal. This is exactly what I had said in my earlier posts — that complaints about slow Wimbledon courts started after 2002.

– Why did no player or anyone complain in 2001? Because the courts still played relatively fast that first year with the 100% rye grass. First, because it was very rainy before and during the 2001 championships, which made the court soil more moist and softer — the softer ground lead to lower and faster bounces. Second, the newly-laid soil, put in in Autumn 2000, had not yet become dense and harder due to natural settling of the soil (e.g., around a newly built house, the new soil tends to naturally sink and become packed with each passing year — causing driveways and pathways to become uneven) as well as the continual hard rolling of the courts for months before and during the Wimbledon championships. With each passing year the soil became denserand harder.

– But Ajet was so excited with any info he found, he did not bother to understand what he was reading. Ajet prematurely ejaculated his new found misinformation that there was an “immediate reaction to the change of surface at wimbledon” in order to to hurl further nonsensical charges against Honest Dave. Ajet claimed that his misinformation “busts the falsity and myth propagated by dave and co. henman after playing in 2001 on the slow grass indeed spoke immediately as to how this change has efeected wimby”… now stop lying to yourselves and stop fooling yourself around!”

– The above conclusively proves that it is really Ajet who is propagating “falsity and myth”. Ajet, you need to stop lying to yourself and stop fooling yourself around! All those posters who agreed with Ajet have proven their inability to discern fact and logic… from fiction.

QUOTE: “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.”

– The Wikipedia writer wrongly claimed that Wimbledon “changed to a harder and denser soil”. Wimbledon had not changed the mix of soil (clay, sand, silt) it had been using. Checking footnote 3 confirms only that the grass was changed in 2001, but nothing was mentioned about the soil.

– As I said, Wimbledon 2001 had the new grass. After the 2000 Wimbledon, the club tore out all its courts and replanted them (through reseeding) with 100% ryegrass during August – September 2000 for the 2001 championships.

– According to the chief Wimbledon groundskeeper Eddie Seaward the ball bounces higher now primarily because the ground is harder. In the past “The bounce was lower because the ground was softer. That’s the only difference.” “The hardness rating that we used to achieve on Day 13, we’re now seeing on Day 1.” “And that gives the players a split second more to play the ball.”

– The ground became denser and harder due to two consequences of using the 100% ryegrass: (a) The 100% rye grass allows more air movement through the grass leaves… and that moving air helps the (clay) soil get drier and harder quicker. (b) the pure rye lawns require less moisture, which causes a more compact/dense layer of soil at the surface. This soil density allows for more weight to be used (between 500 -1000 pounds) when rolling the courts. The previous grass mix would not have tolerated such heavy rollers.

– Seaward admits that what Wikmbledon did made the court more playable for Nadal: “You have to look at the overall picture as far as I’m concerned,” said Seaward, in a phone interview from his office on the Wimbledon grounds. “If we can get the right sort of players, the clay-court players, the Agassis and the Nadals to come here, then that’s going to be better for tennis and much better for the spectators, because they’re seeing all the stars.” “We hope that with time it may encourage more of the clay court players to come,” Seaward emphasises. “We want to help them get over the mind barrier [against grass]. It would be good for the tournament and good for the game.” As well, Seaward knows from experience that today’s players are so big and mobile that they would destroy the grass if it didn’t have a hard enough soil beneath it.

For those interested in reading further on this issue, I recommend the book Grass Tennis Courts by “Sports Turf Research Institute”, read the contributions by Eddie Seaward. Also see the multiple links in my next post once the moderator clears it.

March 8th, 2012 at 2:10 am

Ajet’s misleading half truths and speculation: “2001 surface change set the foundation for all that ensued afterwards, and it started claiming pete and in the course has also claimed federer later.”

As I have proven, Ajet has absolutely no proof that 2001 surface change was the factor that claimed Sampras. As I have repeatedly said, (a) the courts were moist enough in 2001 to play slower and faster and (b) no player (including Sampras) complained about the courts being slower. On the other hand, several players whined aboutnthe slower courts in 2002. The proof came from Ajet’s own post, lol. Here is a link from Ajet’s own Wikipedia quote which contradicts Ajet’s fantasy that the 2001 courts played slower: “Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft. (But the ground eventually dried, and baseliners have excelled since)”. Doesn’t Ajet read his own links?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

Here are the truthful parts of Ajet’s half truth: “2001 surface change set the foundation for all that ensued afterwards, and it… claimed federer later.” Unlike Ajet, I provide facts that I have understood. My quote of Jason Goodall above indicates that the 2008 courts slowed down the Federer serve (compared to 2003), thus helping Nadal in their match in which only 5 points separated winner from loser.

Ajet: “the serve and volley tennis of 2003 btw is nothing original or intense compared to what it was in 2000 or prior.” No one claimed that Federer invented serve and volley. However, many tennis commentators went gaga with how Federrer played in 2003.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/06/federer_sider/

Yes Ajet, what more can people ask for?

Links on Wimbledon’s grass court changes.
http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/infosheets/grasscourts_2009.pdf
http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2011-06-24-wimbledon-groundskeeper-eddie-seaward_n.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/sports/tennis/04grass.html
http://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/the-green-green-grass-of-wimbledon
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=143473

March 8th, 2012 at 2:47 am

the only one with poor comprehension skills is mr.dave, and lying is his trength. the guy won’t admit this fact, no matter what. and the fact is the grasscourt of 2001 was far more different than grasscourt of 2000. the guy again need to comprehendv that henman spoke against the change made in 2001 and not 2002! get it through your fat head man!

and even though i read and have been reading numerous articles and links about tennis, yet i don’t keep on providing it here as everybody who has time can find it out for him/herself. Thus, i only present what i have read without having to labor overnight to provide links to substantiate my views. and i needn’t be excited about giving a link here as it isn’t my own handiwork, unless ignorant dave who probably thinks that the links he has given here are the product of is own mind, lol! ;)
may be he loves living a vicarious life!

i woulda definitely provided something here in the form of link if i myself was a reputed article-writer and that was my original work, but that’s not the case and i am fine with being a blogger and thus would provide only bits and pieces what i have read elsewhere.

providing links doesn’t make you a legend as you’re no different from thse who don’t provide he link but only bits and pieces of what they read as the situation is same in both the cases: you’re believeing someone and producing his twocents if it appears logical and justified to you! but it’s hardly the final say on the matter! if everything were so simple, life wouldn’t be so complex… case ends!

now jokers keep trolling and keep talking to themselves, and wishing whatever they want! it means a squat! ;)

March 8th, 2012 at 2:48 am

Ajet I’ve proven your posts are dishonest, false, without facts and lacking incomprehension. You’re speculating and making stuff up. When caught in a lie, you keep repeating your lie! Not only have you lost whatever little credibility you had, your reputation is now that you speculate and make up stuff without facts. No wonder you’re anxious that I am providing facts from article and links — because it is exposing your false and misleading comments.

Ajet: “the guy again need to comprehendv that henman spoke against the change made in 2001 and not 2002! get it through your fat head man!” You are referring to the 2008 interview (that came from your post) where Henman was rembering the past: “I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking ‘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.’ ” Clearly Henman was talking about 2002, not 2001.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

Ajet’s misleading half truths and speculation: “2001 surface change set the foundation for all that ensued afterwards, and it started claiming pete and in the course has also claimed federer later.”

As I have proven, Ajet has absolutely no proof that 2001 surface change was the factor that claimed Sampras. As I have repeatedly said, (a) the courts were moist enough in 2001 to play slower and faster and (b) no player (including Sampras) complained about the courts being slower. On the other hand, several players whined aboutnthe slower courts in 2002. The proof came from Ajet’s own post, lol. Here is a link from Ajet’s own Wikipedia quote which contradicts Ajet’s fantasy that the 2001 courts played slower: “Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft. (But the ground eventually dried, and baseliners have excelled since)”. Doesn’t Ajet read his own links? See Time Mag link above.

Here are the truthful parts of Ajet’s half truth: “2001 surface change set the foundation for all that ensued afterwards, and it… claimed federer later.” Unlike Ajet, I provide facts that I have understood. My quote of Jason Goodall above indicates that the 2008 courts slowed down the Federer serve (compared to 2003), thus helping Nadal in their match in which only 5 points separated winner from loser.

Ajet: “the serve and volley tennis of 2003 btw is nothing original or intense compared to what it was in 2000 or prior.” No one claimed that Federer invented serve and volley. However, many tennis commentators went gaga with how Federrer played in 2003. Google the 2003 SI article: “Federer’s finesse offers new hope for old order”

Ajet speculates: “It’s because of the change made in 2001 in wimby grass court and soil that serve and volley died down and baseline tennis took up; thus no wonder if pete kept playing with less success in that match against federer and lost, as the surface would just not aid his service and volley game, SIMPLE AS THAT!” Jason Goodall proves you are wrong — Federer serve and volleyed 86% behind his first serve and Mark Philippoussis served and volleyed as well. If they two guys (who have both beaten Sampras in their careers) were able to serve and volley, why couldn’t Sampras?

Ajet misleads: “again making it clear that henman ONLY spoke about the court changes made in ONLY 2001 ITSELF, and not at all about ABOUT ANY CHANGE happening in 2002, for those who have comprehension problems!” As I have proven, Henman was referrign to how the court played IN 2002. Henman NEVER mentioned anything about 2001. You have massive comprehension problems, yet your arrogance clouds your self-aawreness.

What’s worse you twist the facts into something it is not, and some gullible posters have been fooled into believing you are illuminating. Fortunately intelligent posters like Sienna understand facts from Ajet’s fiction when she says: “the analyse and overwhelming facts tells me that Dave has cracked the slowing down theory of Wimbly from 2002… Fed already proven that he could beat the best grasplayer at the time in history in 2001. That is just where you all are picking the figth with Dave. You cannot stand the fact that a young Fed beat Sampras on the fastest court there is. eerrr was)”

Ajet misleads: “the court changed drastically in 2001 and the great old fast and relatively low bouncing samprasesque court was gone forever and has continued to play like that since then!” You are spoeculating without any proof that the court changed “drastically”. The only facts we know are that (a) the grass was changed for 2001 Wimbledon, (2) there were no complaints in 2001 and (3) te complaints started only in 2002 and after. A link tied to Ajet’s own post contradicts his fantasy that the 2001 courts played slower or were drastically changed: “Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft.” The Wimbledon chief groundskeepr has told us that softer courts keep the ball lower and faster.

March 8th, 2012 at 3:59 am

Ajet keeps misleading and twisting: “and i dunno what makes you think that slow grass was all that was responsible for giving nadal wimbledon. any evidence??? … and fed too has said that the court is more or less same since 2001, he never for once said that the court plays same as it used to do in 2000 and before!… taylor dent is just one of some guy in this world who might be thinking thst the courts are playing slower, but others too have stated the opposite.” ” You should not believe everything Federer says like a kool-aid drinking fan. Instead you should use facts like my Jason Goodall article that proves the courts are slower in 2008 than 2003.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575336920883530594.html

Ajet: “i won’t be surprised if dave calls fed as great a volleyer as becker/edberg/pete/gran/rafter, lol!”
Pop quiz: Who said Federer’s Net Game in 2005 Wimbledon was as good as Pete Sampras at Wimbledon?
“(Federer’s) playing a quality of tennis that is probably the best I’ve ever seen here. It’s amazing. If you line him up against Sampras, give Pete an edge on the serve. Groundstrokes, both sides, you have to give the edge to Federer. NET GAME and mobility are about the same. Roger may be even a little better mover than Pete. Certainly his backhand is far better than Pete’s was.” John Newcombe, considered one of the greatest serve and volley exponents in tennis history, won 8 rand slam singles titles and 17 grand slam doubles titles.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon05/news/story?id=2099903

Ajet: “it’s futile to explain anything to this guy who pretends as if he doesn’t know whay the grass was changed and whom it favoured!” What’s “whay”? It favours Nadal.

Ajet: “obviously he’d say that the change was made keeping an eye on encouraging the old-school players like sampras so that they don’t boycott wimbledon”
Wimbledon’s chief groundskeeper Eddie Seaward admits that what Wikmbledon did made the court more playable for Nadal: “You have to look at the overall picture as far as I’m concerned,” said Seaward, in a phone interview from his office on the Wimbledon grounds. “If we can get the right sort of players, the clay-court players, the Agassis and the Nadals to come here, then that’s going to be better for tennis and much better for the spectators, because they’re seeing all the stars.” “We hope that with time it may encourage more of the clay court players to come,” Seaward emphasises. “We want to help them get over the mind barrier [against grass]. It would be good for the tournament and good for the game.” As well, Seaward knows from experience that today’s players are so big and mobile that they would destroy the grass if it didn’t have a hard enough soil beneath it.

Ajet: “and i have to laugh at your dubai wasn’t fast in 2006, just now, hehehe!” Find me one player who said Dubai was fast between 2006 to 2011. Several players have said the 2011 courts are fast.

Ajet: “well, you first need to provide evidence about how you know that nadal keeps faking” Use your common sense — a player runs before and after his medical time out just like he has been running through the whole match. Obviously there is no loss of performance.

Ajet: “and obviously henman may complain about the grass getting slower in 2003/04/05, as it is his right as player to say this, but other players don’t necessarily accept!”

Ajet: “a 10 year younger guy like fed winning against sampras on a changed court over 5 sets is hardly surprising!” When Sampras lost to Federer he was exactly Roger’s age in July 2011. Federer has not lost to a 19 year old in a long time.

Ajet: “LEARN BLOODY FACTS!” Yes Ajet, please do. We’ve been waiting for you to do it.

Nirmal Kumar: (Dave) does not even read his own comments. Basically he copies from different article and paste them here, expecting the experts will take care of providing the insightful comments.” I have challenged you to prove your case and put your money where your big mouth is — when have I done this? what percentage of my comments contain quoted comments from experts?

Nirmal Kumar: “I’m not sure what stuff I made without facts. Pls explain. You can’t accuse just like that.” See above for an example, lol.

Nirmal Kumar: “many times the fans seems to have much more objective opinion on a player more than experts. Being a huge Roger fan and after watching so many of his matches for pat 10 years, I could pretty much understand what he can do and cannot.” The type of comment you expect from a person lost in his oversized ego. You’re not Ramanathan Krishnan or even his son Ramesh.

March 8th, 2012 at 4:00 am

DAVE

the crazy thing here is ivanisevic and rafter would always have to blast through any court to win matches because that is what their game is, theirs is purely S-V game and not at all baseline game, that’s it!

and btw it’s not me who needs to be upset about federer beating sampras even on the fastest court because I’m sane enough to be able to see that fed and sampras can beat each other any given day on a fast surface coz both are the most talented players in tennis history, it’s fool like you who may over-emphasise the fact of one 5-set beating of a 10 years older sampras at a drastically changed wimby court of 2001 by fed to derive satisfaction by your pathetic attempt of making fed look much better than he really is or give much more credit to him than he really deserves so that the idiot fed worshippers like you may claim that fed is perfect! I’m not into those mean things of crediting one more or discrediting any player! I respect all players includng pete and fed, and am a fan of both, even though fed is my all-time fave and pete comes second! but it’s your stupidity that you don’t get that fact that fed is not perfect and eve he had enjoyed advantages in the form of beating a 35 year old injured agassi to win US Open, and it’s not only his opponents like nadal who’re enjoying age advantage over fed!
and moreover, if you only had a little brain or objectivity, then you could have yourself realised how balanced the fact of a young fed beating sampras gets considering that sampras is 10 years older, hahaha!
i am not interested in giving lame excuses like you for each of fed’s loss or go hysterical over each of his victory.

And btw what makes you think that the surface got slower and slower when even the current players are not complaing, they, who have been playing on it since 2001 instead of retired guys like ivanisevic/henman/rafter! You’re so unsure always about everything that all you do is keep giving imaginary conclusions of your own, try to be a little unbiased, you may get better instead of always coming across as hilarious!

and it makes me surprised to see how great is your comprehension problem that you cannot understand what henman was exactly complaining about!

March 8th, 2012 at 5:37 am

dave:

and the way everybody was going crazy about the fed-rod 09 wimbledon final describing fed and roddick blasting their serves and hitting forehands on a fast wimby court, one would think that the courts were as fast as they ever were.! so your pathetic excuses (predictably to demean nadal’s wins in 08 and 10) that the courts became slower and slower post-2001 doesn’t hold much strength either! had you gone hibernating in 2009? i keep wondering!

keep it up btw, you keep confirming your ignorance and subjectivity and I keep reinventing your foolish self with each stupid response of yours!

March 8th, 2012 at 5:45 am

Ajet..you are rignt. Basically Roger served highest number of Aces in that match. Infact even in 2007, it was the serve which prevented Nadal from winning the title. If you had read Rafa’s book, we could see how much Roger’s serve at wimbledon has an impact in his wins.

March 8th, 2012 at 8:09 am

Ajet and Nirmal: every objective person can see that I’ve more than proven my case with facts. I’ve shown every time that the facts, logic, principles of your arguments are false, disingenuous or flawed. You guys have argued like fundamentalists who are threatened by alternative views to your fossilized world view. You have both failed my challenges to provide substance to back up your claims.

Now Ajet has made up new stuff to accuse me of trying to defend Federer’s 2001 Wimbledon victory over Sampras. Finding out the truth is simple: just read all my posts with the word “Sampras” in it — I rarely defended Federer’s victory over Sampras, and then only in direct response to wild speculations.

My posts were primarily and consistently aimed at debunking Ajet’s unsubstantiated speculation — built on a house of speculatve cards — that the 2001 Wimbledon courts were drastically slower. That’s because the issue was whether the 2001 Wimbledon court was slower since our debate started with Ajet’s unsubstantiated speculation “we had a hugely slower court in 2001, in which even a S&V giant was left helpless and lost to a rookie federer on a curt which though was termed his favewhether the courts were slower in 2001”.

So the issue was whether the 2001 Wimbledon court was slower. The issue was never whether new grass was installed (it was) or whether Dave defended Federer’s victory over Sampras (Honest Dave rarely did) as Ajet tried to twist it into.

Bottom line, there is evidence that the court was not slower in 2001 (according to evidence from Ajet’s own posts), there is no evidence the court was slower in 2001, there is no evidence any player or expert complained about court speeds in 2001, and the evidence shows whining about the slow courts only started since 2002.

As we can see from my WSJ link above, court speeds have slowed down Federer’s serve in 2008 (slower) compared to 2003 (faster). Given how well Federer served in several Wimbledon finals, e.g., 2007 and 2009, imagine how many more free points — and titles — he would have won with the 2003 courts.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/EB-AG916_TENSur_G_20100701230340.jpg

Grendal disingenuously and falsely claimed that this was a “dispute between a pluralist and a fundamentalist. Such a dispute cannot be resolved because, whatever they purport to be arguing about (grass, apparently), it is really about something quite different.” That’s nonsense. The central issue was clearly about Ajet’s unsubstantiated speculation that 2001 Wimbledon court was “hugely slower” — this debate (at least on my side) had nothing to do with grendel’s disingenuous speculation that “It’s all about Federer. When is anything ever NOT about Federer when we have these infinitely long and protracted disputes?” (grendel was no neutral party in this debate between Ajet/nirmal and Honest Dave, as I have had debates before with grendal). I presume grendel was trying to misrepresent me as a “fundamentalist”, when the reality is the opposite. Second, this debate was also about Ajet/nirmal’s unsubtantiated speculation/misinformation confronted by Dave’s factual, logical and principled information. My aim was simple: to show that these wild speculations are usually unfounded and a figment of ego

I’m done on this debate. I’ve proven my case, there is no further need for me to keep responding to endless twists and disingenuous arguments from Ajet on this thread.

March 8th, 2012 at 3:25 pm

Nadal is in Dave’s,head. hahhaa

March 8th, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Dave:

I KNOW YOU COULD NEVER BEAT ME ON FACTS. However, wild dreaming, lying, comprehension problem and twisting is your territory! I don’t venture out to go there!

March 9th, 2012 at 1:11 am

”Steve 27 Says:
Nadal is in Dave’s,head. hahhaa”

HAHAHA, AGREE! ;)

March 9th, 2012 at 1:15 am

Steve27 says : Nadal is in Dave’s,head. hahhaa

I’m happy to know something is in Dave’s head.

March 9th, 2012 at 1:28 am

dave’s posts n refrences taught me a lot about changes to wimby’s courts. ajit n nimal, u prove the saying ’empty vessels make the most noise’. If u have no facts n dunno what u are talking about, stop blabberin n learn from dave. He’s ur daddy on facts.

March 9th, 2012 at 2:09 am

Master Ace:

Dave’s your real daddy, I get it now.

March 9th, 2012 at 2:39 am

Yes Master Ace. I dont why people get so offence with him. Just because someone knows exactly what the problemis with Winbledon and the slowing down of the court. I thought it wasindeed teh grass change but Dave has put enough logic and proof that it was just in later year that the soil and therefor the bounce changed. Evendo that only was perhaps possible because of the new grass. But that takes nothing away that his year of 2002 is the year that players noticed the surfacechange the first time. ANd the proof is in the players. We clearly see baseliners.

Bur I think the other ones have a problem with Fed beating Sampras on a quick Wimbledon court.

But they loose this battle.

March 9th, 2012 at 2:44 am

Master Ace: Maybe a novice like you who have limited access to internet may be bothered about these facts. But there are available all over the place for any educated person to go and find out. Also what it has enlightened i’m not sure. It’s been a fact known for many. We had access and knowledge of these links for many years. What’s new to learn in this?

March 9th, 2012 at 2:53 am

Yup sienna. i think ajet wants dave to pat him on his head. No one complain court slow in 2001. dave prove players notice court slower for first time only in 2002. Court got slower and slower after 2002. Worse in 2009. How can ajit see dave’s proof yet keep repeating his bs? ajit lose battle on facts.

March 9th, 2012 at 3:08 am

Yes. SOmetimes people get stuck in aargument on a site. And it is very hard to take a step back and try to adjust your point of view. Against the odds they try and enforce their views/ Although not completely fault but still given the proof and evidence you should be able to step over it.

Or grow up that can also do the trick.

March 9th, 2012 at 3:28 am