Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

JennyS
06-09-2005, 01:57 AM
Wimbledon has always been seen as the most prestigeous Grand Slam, and some consider it a "must" for an all-time great player to win. Martina Navratilova said a couple years ago that if any player says Wimbledon isn't the major they want to win then they aren't capable of winning it. I would guess that Andre and Andy probably rank the US Open ahead of Wimbledon.

A lot of folks complain about all the fluke winners and finalists (Costa, Verkerk, Gaudio and Puerta) at the French Open, and blame it on the surface. However, you could argue the same about grass. Alexander Popp and Ivo Karlovic would probably be favored over Rafael Nadal, Guillermo Coria and Carlos Moya at Wimbledon, but would be underdogs at the other three majors.

A lot of folks are probably going to judge Roger's greatness on how many times he can win the big W. However, wouldn't it be more impressive if he could win the US Open 6 or 7 times?

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 02:00 AM
I would be more impressed if he won the USO 6 or 7 times since there are more contenders on that surface. Not to imply that doing it at Wimbledon isn't impressive.

Regardless, I'm in the minority. Most people want to dry hump Wimbledon and I will never understand it. At least not in the modern day I won't.

Nav and Sampras talking about Wimbledon as the only slam that matters means about as much to me as it would if Guga said that Roland Gaross is the only slam that ever interested him. It's easy to talk up the slam that you won the most.

buddyholly
06-09-2005, 02:03 AM
Absolutely!

Sjengster
06-09-2005, 02:03 AM
You're not in the minority on this board, that's for sure. As always, 'tis a case of different (ground)strokes for different folks. I prefer the natural Slams myself, so I would much rather Federer won some more Wimbledons and also managed a RG title along the way.

The bias of the English-speaking media and public towards Wimbledon is annoying, but also somewhat inevitable - over here it's our home Slam, the only tennis event that will receive any high-profile coverage, and there seems very little anyone can do to convince people that the tennis season lasts for more than just four weeks a year. I'm all in favour of Slam democracy myself.

buddyholly
06-09-2005, 02:06 AM
Just joking. They are all equal in ''Slam'' terminology. You might want to argue that Wimby is a more important tournament than RG or the Aussie Open, but it is exactly 25% of the road to a Grand Slam.

NYCtennisfan
06-09-2005, 02:12 AM
It just is and probably always will be considered so. I don't think anything will change this.

Sjengster
06-09-2005, 02:23 AM
Just to add: people are always fond of generalising in the big clay/grass debate, when they mention the least attractive characteristic of the surface and apply it universally to every match played on it, when it is not the case. There's no doubt that clay overall has more depth than grass, but that rings a little hollow when Nadal has just had a 24-match winning streak on clay snapped; equally, implying that grass is the best and most natural surface for tennis when it is played on for 4 weeks of the year doesn't really carry much weight. These two surfaces always polarise fan opinion, but if the surface balance on what is still fundamentally a hardcourt tour could be made more equal, tennis would be all the better for it. No more ridiculous calendar crowding, no more specialised seedings, no more player boycotts, and a new generation of players equipped with the skills to succeed at both RG and Wimbledon. In theory, at least.

ys
06-09-2005, 02:50 AM
I would be more impressed if he won the USO 6 or 7 times since there are more contenders on that surface.

And whose problem is that? It is much more remarkable to be that good in something very few others are.. Wimbledon is pure tennis skills, tennis least influenced by what racquet technology brought into sports. Reaction, reflexes, soft hands. The times when the haters would say that Wimbledon is serve only has gone. 3 last Wimbledons were won by baseliners. Roddick can win US Open with big serve. He can't do the same at W.

Whose tennis is more enjoyable? One of Henman or one of Puerta?

Scotso
06-09-2005, 03:10 AM
Sorry, but it's not true. Wimbledon was never the most important... as they're all equal in the points reguard... and prestige is relative... most hispanic players (a good number of tennis players) hold Roland Garros more sacred.

Scotso
06-09-2005, 03:12 AM
And whose problem is that? It is much more remarkable to be that good in something very few others are.. Wimbledon is pure tennis skills, tennis least influenced by what racquet technology brought into sports. Reaction, reflexes, soft hands. The times when the haters would say that Wimbledon is serve only has gone. 3 last Wimbledons were won by baseliners. Roddick can win US Open with big serve. He can't do the same at W.

Whose tennis is more enjoyable? One of Henman or one of Puerta?

Puerta's is.

And every tennis commentator (except the extremely biased) would say you are dead wrong. Roland Garros is the hardest slam to win, and requires the most skill. A big server can win Wimbledon, even with little other talents.

Aphex
06-09-2005, 03:12 AM
Puerta.

Aphex
06-09-2005, 03:15 AM
And I think the evil hardcourt slams are the most difficult to win, since more players figure they have a chance at them.

lina_seta
06-09-2005, 03:22 AM
mmm nop.. Wimbledon is the most prestigious GS no doubt :)
cuz they make it like a royalty event something like that...

but if it werent the most prestigious and important GS why would they make a movie about it and not on HC or clay?

mm well i like it more than others...
hard court too common, clay too dirty ;)
and grass season is the shortest, thus most special

robinhood
06-09-2005, 03:25 AM
hard court too common, clay too dirty ;)
and grass season is the shortest, thus most special

My thought exactly!

Lady Natalia
06-09-2005, 03:30 AM
I believe part of the answer to this question of Wimbledon is it's age. It's the oldest of the Slams. Tennis is big on history and tradition. For decades, the French would allow foreigners. The Aussie was considerably further and not considered that as important (up until the early 90s). And then there's the US which was widely popluar, but not as historical as Wimbledon. The other Slams, over the years moved locations, changed surfaces(expect RG), but Wimbledon stayed the same.

All that is changing. Of course, the French have opened their gates for decades now. In the last 10 years, the Aussie has been picking up speed, and attracting tennis to Asian countries. Wimbledon and the US are still the great events they always have been. Wimbledon or more so Centre Court has the adavantage because of age!

Nastase
06-09-2005, 03:34 AM
It has a lot of prestige but for me it shouldn't be considered as the most important, that should be Roland Garros. You guys take notice of this, in RG players who get to the final rounds must have at least two things, first one a great physical form and second good shoots not only serve and voley. On the other hand there have always been unknown players in Wimbledon who also get to the quarters or even the semis basing his game only in a great service like Alexander Popp for example. I see no real tennis most of the time in grass except when Roger Federer plays which is a pleasure for the eyes.

WyveN
06-09-2005, 03:39 AM
Roland Garros is the hardest slam to win, and requires the most skill.

If Roland Garros required the most skill to win then surely FO champs would win hardcourt slams more regularly.
And do Costa, Chang and Gomez have more skill then Edberg, Sampras and Mcenroe (and possibly Federer if he fails to win FO)?

WyveN
06-09-2005, 03:46 AM
You guys take notice of this, in RG players who get to the final rounds must have at least two things, first one a great physical form and second good shoots not only serve and voley.


How do clay good shots differ from good serve and volley? How is one better then the other?




On the other hand there have always been unknown players in Wimbledon who also get to the quarters or even the semis basing his game only in a great service like Alexander Popp for example.

Popp's Wimbledon career is hardly spectacular. Any other examples?

Zoupa
06-09-2005, 03:51 AM
To me, Wimbledon is NOT the most prestigious slam. I consider that title to belong to the USO. I might be biased though as I prefer that style. That and as someone already said, many people contend for the title.

Wimbledon's second, then AO, then RG. I don't like RG because I'm sick of these tennis players that can only make any noise on clay.

Nastase
06-09-2005, 03:51 AM
You're getting a wrong point of view WyveN, that comparation is unfair, why dont you put those against Borj, Wilander, Nastase, Agassi, Kafelnikov, etc... Sampras is one of my favourites players but you must admit that he has been "taking a walk" on the circuit due to his amazing service and voley, I've never liked Edberg at all and McEnroe is for me in one of the best tennis players in history but you are forgotting the he almost won RG, he even had a ball match in that final.

Lady Natalia
06-09-2005, 03:56 AM
To me, Wimbledon is NOT the most prestigious slam. I consider that title to belong to the USO.


I respectfully disagree with that, but you may have a point. If everyone is going how long shots can win or do well in certain slams then the US would be the greatest. In this thread there have been examples given of "not so great" players winning RG and Wimbly. You can defintely add The Aussie in there. That Slam is a breeding ground for "Dark Horses". That leaves the US. Most it's winners are legends. You gave me something to think about..

Scotso
06-09-2005, 03:57 AM
If Roland Garros required the most skill to win then surely FO champs would win hardcourt slams more regularly.
And do Costa, Chang and Gomez have more skill then Edberg, Sampras and Mcenroe (and possibly Federer if he fails to win FO)?

Even you have to admit that Sampras would have been nothing without that serve. It's why he never won Roland Garros.

McEnroe should have won RG but he choked, same for Edberg. They had skill.

WyveN
06-09-2005, 04:00 AM
You're getting a wrong point of view WyveN, that comparation is unfair, why dont you put those against Borj, Wilander, Nastase, Agassi, Kafelnikov, etc...


I am not the one who is claiming one surface requires more skill then the other, KBF is. By that logic If clay requires more skill then FO champions must be more skilled then those that failed to win it.


Sampras is one of my favourites players but you must admit that he has been "taking a walk" on the circuit due to his amazing service and voley


Sampras only started serve volleying at a later stage of his career, plus he won AO twice, hardly a service that assists serve volleyers. Serves and volleys were obviously the main parts of Sampras's game but you dont win 14 slams with just those 2 shots.

Scotso
06-09-2005, 04:00 AM
I respectfully disagree with that, but you may have a point. If everyone is going how long shots can win or do well in certain slams then the US would be the greatest. In this thread there have been examples given of "not so great" players winning RG and Wimbly. You can defintely add The Aussie in there. That Slam is a breeding ground for "Dark Horses". That leaves the US. Most it's winners are legends. You gave me something to think about..

Maybe... but some very questionable people have made finals there. So it's quite lucky there haven't been any loser champions :p

Philippoussis
Todd Martin :tape:
Greg Rusedski :tape:

Lady Natalia
06-09-2005, 04:03 AM
Maybe... but some very questionable people have made finals there. So it's quite lucky there haven't been any loser champions :p

Philippoussis
Todd Martin :tape:
Greg Rusedski :tape:

You make a very good point.

Scotso
06-09-2005, 04:04 AM
Sampras only started serve volleying at a later stage of his career, plus he won AO twice, hardly a service that assists serve volleyers. Serves and volleys were obviously the main parts of Sampras's game but you dont win 14 slams with just those 2 shots.

It doesn't hurt them.

WyveN
06-09-2005, 04:07 AM
Even you have to admit that Sampras would have been nothing without that serve. It's why he never won Roland Garros.


He wouldnt win anywhere near 14 slams thats for sure but he wouldnt be nothing either.
His volleys were great, his fh was one of the best and he was a great mover as well.



McEnroe should have won RG but he choked, same for Edberg.


Edberg made it past the QF stage once at the FO in 14 attempts. Compare that to his record at the other slams, obviously not skilled enough by your logic.

Lady Natalia
06-09-2005, 04:07 AM
I think also it depends where you live. Most obviously a North American will choose US, some will choose Wimbly. South Americans...Roland Garros. Europeans are spilt btw Wimbledon and RG. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and some more will choose RG...while the more English speaking countries will choose The Championships. Asian countries, I dont know, but I would assume they would pick The Aussie.

So basically there are several answer to this question. And everyone is debating with the correct answer.

WyveN
06-09-2005, 04:09 AM
Maybe... but some very questionable people have made finals there.

Philippoussis
Todd Martin :tape:

These 2 have made more then 1 slam final in their careers at 2 different slams as well. When you do it twice, especially at different slams, it is no longer questionable.

Nastase
06-09-2005, 04:22 AM
How do clay good shots differ from good serve and volley? How is one better then the other?





Popp's Wimbledon career is hardly spectacular. Any other examples?

Well, I suppose that you didn't mean that the best clay shots are serve and voley, you can use those more than usual when your rival is crashing you in back of the court but you won't win anything on clay playing that way for long time, why don't you ask Sampras, Henman, Rafter, Philipoussis, Roddick, etc...

I consider good shots the amazing passing of Nadal, Gasquet's backhand, every shot of Federer, Ferrero's and Moya's drive, Coria's left over, Agassi's globe, etc... those are great shots not the brutal service of Popp who is just crap on every surface except from grass, anyway if you consider a QF as a spectacular result I see what you've got...

You said you want examples so I give you names like Florian Mayer, Vacek, Kratochvil, Sa,etc... now tell me about their spectacular results or their skills.

Pete has been my favourite player for years as I told you before and I'm not telling you that he has won 14 GS titles only using his serve and volley but he based his game on it, his drive was amazing too but his backhand was kind of Moya's. He never managed to win RG but be sure of he really tried hard to improve his game on that surface.

Scotso
06-09-2005, 04:22 AM
These 2 have made more then 1 slam final in their careers at 2 different slams as well. When you do it twice, especially at different slams, it is no longer questionable.

Disagree.

NYCtennisfan
06-09-2005, 04:44 AM
Even you have to admit that Sampras would have been nothing without that serve. It's why he never won Roland Garros.

McEnroe should have won RG but he choked, same for Edberg. They had skill.

Sampras wouldn't have been the greatest player ever but if he had just an above average serve, he still would've been a good player. You forget that he outhit Agassi many a time from the backcourt when he beat him in most of their big matches. In fact, he outhit almost everybody from the backcourt on hardcourts. People sometimes forget this because he threw in so many clunker return games because he already had a break in hand or knew that he would break eventually while his serve would be untouched. Watch the '95 USO final to see some beautiful hitting and point construction from Sampras. Sampras had skill and a lot of it.

As for JMAC, he never really even cared about claycourt tennis. How many European red clay events did he play outside of RG? Not many and he still should've won that '84 RG title but chocked. The man had prodigious talent.

WyveN
06-09-2005, 05:20 AM
Well, I suppose that you didn't mean that the best clay shots are serve and voley, you can use those more than usual when your rival is crashing you in back of the court but you won't win anything on clay playing that way for long time, why don't you ask Sampras, Henman, Rafter, Philipoussis, Roddick, etc...


Why have Wimbledon champions generally performed better at RG then RG champions at Wimbledon & on carpet?




[QUOTE] those are great shots not the brutal service of Popp who is just crap on every surface except from grass


And Puerta is crap outside clay. Just means their respective games are suited to a particular surface.


You said you want examples so I give you names like Florian Mayer, Vacek, Kratochvil, Sa,etc... now tell me about their spectacular results or their skills.


If your trying to say serve-volley players are unskillful then that is not true as even fast serves require skill & talent despite being unpleasing visually.

WyveN
06-09-2005, 05:22 AM
Disagree.

I only worry when you agree with me.

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 05:48 AM
And whose problem is that? It is much more remarkable to be that good in something very few others are.. Wimbledon is pure tennis skills, tennis least influenced by what racquet technology brought into sports. Reaction, reflexes, soft hands. The times when the haters would say that Wimbledon is serve only has gone. 3 last Wimbledons were won by baseliners. Roddick can win US Open with big serve. He can't do the same at W.


Roddick didn't win Wimbledon last year because he had to play Roger in the finals. I would say he was playing much better there than he was when he won the USO. He simply met more formidable opposition than JCF was in the USO finals.

I never said that Wimbledon was only about serve, btw. That isn't the root of my issue with Wimbledon. That said, I don't really see how it can be argued that grass courts are quite beneficial to a particular style of game that I find hideous. That doesn't mean that players of other styles can't excel as well. You can have it both ways.

Whose tennis is more enjoyable? One of Henman or one of Puerta?

I find them both enjoyable :shrug:

Seleshfan
06-09-2005, 06:14 AM
But who's pubes would you rather see? huh?

oneandonlyhsn
06-09-2005, 06:19 AM
But who's pubes would you rather see? huh?

Puerta no doubt :p

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 06:29 AM
But we've already seen Puerta's.

The real question is: Which would you rather have sit on your face?

*Ljubica*
06-09-2005, 06:35 AM
Sorry, but it's not true. Wimbledon was never the most important... as they're all equal in the points reguard... and prestige is relative... most hispanic players (a good number of tennis players) hold Roland Garros more sacred.

Totally agree. Wimbledon is only "sacred" in the eyes of the AELTC and the daft British media :devil: All Slams are equal.

Seleshfan
06-09-2005, 06:36 AM
But we've already seen Puerta's.

The real question is: Which would you rather have sit on your face?

Ugh, neither. I enjoy breathing too much. But if I had to choose, I guess Henman, he seems lighter, and his legs are skinnier, I think I could sneak in a few deep breaths with Henman on my face.

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 06:41 AM
Puerta would be suffocating, this is true. His thighs are bigger than Rafa's.

Neely
06-09-2005, 07:05 AM
Absolutely and I think it is already by many many people. You just have to pay attention how people and players who already won Wimbledon plus any other Slam are measured. In most the only Slam that really counts is Wimbledon, so for Becker it will be always "Boris Becker, the multiple Wimbledon Champ" when he is introduced somewhere. Everybody seems to forget that he has won the Australian Open and US Open too. Same for Nalbandian, he simply has the "Wimbledon finalist 2002" tag, of course his best Grand Slam result, but that's the only thing that counts and nobody mentions that he has done very well in the other 3 Slams too.

Pete Sampras: "dominated Wimbledon", "Wimbledon subscription champion"
Björn Borg: "five Wimbledons in a row"
Steffi Graf/Navratilova: "Wimbledon, Wimbledon, Wimbledon, Wimbledon"


Lots of players were successful at more locations and not only Wimbledon, but if there's only one criterion to describe or to introduce a player, the one to pick is in most cases Wimbledon: simply incredibly huge

Also I think that the biggest majority of the players who didn't win a Slam but could chose to win any Slam would select to win Wimbledon if it was possible.

Neely
06-09-2005, 07:20 AM
Popp's Wimbledon career is hardly spectacular. Any other examples?
Oh, but unfortunately wrong. For a guy being ranked almost consistently outside the top 100 and who can hardly get a win on anything but grass, Popp's Wimbledon career with those QFs is for sure spectacular. Of course, it's nothing compared to the one of others who won it or to the great Federer's standards, but still spectacular and incredibly very surprising for his standards.

those are great shots not the brutal service of Popp who is just crap on every surface except from grass
Wrong again, Popp's serve isn't so good like many people think. He's tall and can hit a good angle, but his serve or his serve speeds are not the main reasons for him to win points. Also, in round terms, I would say that his serve is to 90% under 205 km/h. The reason Popp performs so well is that he is just feeling home and comfortable on this specific surface, moving well (especially considering his big height) and with the right intuition and instinct for the game on grass.

It's a VERY BIG fallacy that Popp's main reason for his good results on grass in the past is his serve, but I don't blame people for saying that as it might suggest itself to think this way (big player, successful on grass... oh wait, he must have a big serve, right?) and furthermore not everybody can know him well enough to make valid statements about his game.

deliveryman
06-09-2005, 07:40 AM
Puerta's is.

And every tennis commentator (except the extremely biased) would say you are dead wrong. Roland Garros is the hardest slam to win, and requires the most skill. A big server can win Wimbledon, even with little other talents.

Making a slam "hard" to win isn't relative to the skills one must posses. The determining factor when answering the question "which is the hardest slam to win" lays in the competition. The more competition, the more competitive people on the surface, the harder it is to win.

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 07:41 AM
All this talk of Wimbledon is making me nauseous. That should be my cue to leave the thread, but I'm a sucker for punishment.

spec7er
06-09-2005, 08:18 AM
In these modern times, I wouldn't say Wimbledon is the most important of all the slams. I think it's the most prestigious event in tennis. It has the prestige and the tradition behind it. It's unique in the sense that you had to do the curtsy when entering the centre court (not anymore though). All players need to wear white. They were very traditional and can be said to be purists. These are the things that make Wimbledon special but not really more important than the other slams.

To win a slam is an amazing feat already. All the slams have certainly become important because gone are the days when top players chose to not attend these major events. In all the slams you would most likely see the top 100 fighting it out to win one of the most important tournaments in tennis and this evens out the slams. The only difference you have here is that some players will feel a greater affinity to their home slams or to where the games are most suited to.

Adman
06-09-2005, 11:07 AM
Yes the most important slam is Wimbledon I think that it is the most important because it is so there!!!

Action Jackson
06-09-2005, 11:22 AM
Viva ethnocentrism and English-language media propaganda.

Like any Slam some are more important than others to respective players, cause some people don't think Wimbledon is the greatest, it's not an outrage and vice versa with the other events.

If ys, says Wimbledon is the best, that's enough of a reason not to like it

JennyS
06-09-2005, 02:00 PM
This has turned into a very interesting thread. I think a lot of times people get so caught up in the history and prestige of the Slams in determining who the greatest players are that they don't look at the biggest determining factor of all: surface.

What if Roland Garros was played on grass, Wimbledon on clay, the US Open on Rebound Ace and the Australian Open on decoturf hardcourts? The results would be quite different.

A lot of people when they bash Roland Garros (and the Aussie as well) for having fluke winners, yet are all the one-time Wimbledon winners any less flukey. Outside of their best Slam, how would these one slam winners of the last 15 years or so be ranked?

Michael Stich, Richard Krajicek, Albert Costa, Goran Ivaniseic, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda, Sergi Brugera, Thomas Muster, Carlos Moya, Gaston Gaudio,Michael Stich.

Action Jackson
06-09-2005, 02:03 PM
What if men could have babies, what ifs don't anything.

Alvarillo
06-09-2005, 02:16 PM
for me isn't the most important, every Slam is very important, for me Roland Garros is the best !
but everyone has its opinion so.. it doesn't matter what i think!

buddyholly
06-09-2005, 02:23 PM
What if men could have babies, what ifs don't anything.

I'd want yours!!!

Boris Franz Ecker
06-09-2005, 03:32 PM
Wimbledon is by far the most important Grand Slam and there's no discussion about that.
It doesn't matter which one is no 2 or 3, only the no 1 counts.
Spanish or south american players are to weak for Wimbledon and they had to search other goals. That doesn't change things.
Supporters of these players try to ignore basic tennis knowledge. Who cares?
The real big names write history at Wimbledon. Nadal knows that.

Action Jackson
06-09-2005, 03:35 PM
I'd want yours!!!

Oh what an honour.

delsa
06-09-2005, 03:36 PM
As an answer to the thread title: is it? Not for me at least and for many tennis fans i know too...

Action Jackson
06-09-2005, 03:38 PM
Supporters of these players try to ignore basic tennis knowledge. Who cares?


Yes, thank you genius I will look to you as a guiding light and a shining example of what it means to reach the echelons of tennis knowledge.

You wouldn't be saying the same things if Becker won RG?

Not everyone thinks like you or myself, so your subjectivity on this means it must be right, hahahaha.

ys
06-09-2005, 03:43 PM
Wimbledon is by far the most important Grand Slam and there's no discussion about that.
It doesn't matter which one is no 2 or 3, only the no 1 counts.
Spanish or south american players are to weak for Wimbledon and they had to search other goals. That doesn't change things.
Supporters of these players try to ignore basic tennis knowledge. Who cares?
The real big names write history at Wimbledon. Nadal knows that.

:yeah:

Fumus
06-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Most important?

All the slams are worth the same amount of race points.

Most prestigious?

Yea, tradition and history definitly says so. It's the most wholesome of all the slams. No ads all over the place, the players have to wear all white. The courts are grass the lines are painted with chalk. The cool/prestigue factor is definitly above the other slams.

Action Jackson
06-09-2005, 03:51 PM
ys, cause you consistently sprout rubbish and think it's quality, whereas I know what I write is garbage most of the time.

Seriously, it doesn't matter it's a Slam and whoever wins a Slam is because they deserve it and considering that there are so few legit contenders to win Wimbledon, doesn't make it more prestigious.

For some people, for some it isn't and no amount of crap from either side is going to change that.

Fumus
06-09-2005, 03:53 PM
ys, cause you consistently sprout rubbish and think it's quality, whereas I know what I write is garbage most of the time.

Seriously, it doesn't matter it's a Slam and whoever wins a Slam is because they deserve it and considering that there are so few legit contenders to win Wimbledon, doesn't make it more prestigious.

For some people, for some it isn't and no amount of crap from either side is going to change that.

Yea but I think Prestigue-wise most people would rank the slams.

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. Roland Garros
4. Aussie Open

Nastase
06-09-2005, 05:20 PM
It's a VERY BIG fallacy that Popp's main reason for his good results on grass in the past is his serve, but I don't blame people for saying that as it might suggest itself to think this way (big player, successful on grass... oh wait, he must have a big serve, right?) and furthermore not everybody can know him well enough to make valid statements about his game.

Well, I see that you're one of those who think that everybody is wrong except himself, the only falacy here is considerer Popp as a good players, his game is awful like many other german players by the way because the only two talented players you have are Haas (who always lose under presure) and Kiefer (he's a good player). The MAIN reason of Popp's succesfull in Wimbledon was his serve and I don't mind if you want to admit it or not, that's your problem, you might suggest yourself how could he felt confortable moving around the court with his size as you said, the only thing he did well was covering the net. By the way I haven't blamed anybody but I'm not going to put up with people who think that Cañas and Puerta are bad players.

Julio1974
06-09-2005, 05:35 PM
I like watching both Wimbledom and RG. Of course, I'd feel tortured if I were forced to watch Mantilla-Pavel on clay or Karlovic-Popp on grass. But in between one can find amazing matches on both surfaces. There is only one thing I don't like about Wimbledom: the services has become a deciding factor to a great extent. It did not used to be like that in the past, as former Wimbledom winners of the 70s and 80s winner already explained. I remember McEnroe saying that it was necessary to make some changes in this regard.

Julio1974
06-09-2005, 05:37 PM
Another comment I wanted to make: those who think than Nadal can only play on clay, and will not become a star, you are damm crazy.

Sjengster
06-09-2005, 09:54 PM
Well, I see that you're one of those who think that everybody is wrong except himself, the only falacy here is considerer Popp as a good players, his game is awful like many other german players by the way because the only two talented players you have are Haas (who always lose under presure) and Kiefer (he's a good player). The MAIN reason of Popp's succesfull in Wimbledon was his serve and I don't mind if you want to admit it or not, that's your problem, you might suggest yourself how could he felt confortable moving around the court with his size as you said, the only thing he did well was covering the net. By the way I haven't blamed anybody but I'm not going to put up with people who think that Cañas and Puerta are bad players.

I agree, the constant stream of grass propaganda from Neely is irritating, but in her defence I would concur that Popp has more than just the serve to aid him at Wimbledon. Yes, he can hit some heavy deliveries at 6'7", but he also returns well with his long reach and has a superbly crisp backhand that does a lot of damage off the ground. Let's not forget that he was two sets to love up on Philippoussis back in 2003 and virtually had the match won in the final set, only for the Scud to come up with the most amazing dive volley winner to save a breakpoint at 5-5. Popp could easily have been a GS semifinalist, and it's interesting to note that on each of the three occasions he has reached the second week of Wimbledon, he has lost to the eventual runner-up.

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 10:35 PM
Another comment I wanted to make: those who think than Nadal can only play on clay, and will not become a star, you are damm crazy.

:yeah:

Seleshfan
06-09-2005, 10:55 PM
Another comment I wanted to make: those who think than Nadal can only play on clay, and will not become a star, you are damm crazy.

Yeah, just look at Kournikova, she couldn't win on any surface, and look what a star she's become! And look at Federer who wins on every surface, he's practically on every channel and magazine cover.