[Clay Death]

some of those complaints are not legitimate great tennizen, general shankar..

fish is a one dimensional player who is highly overrated. guys like him and roddick get huge mileage from their serves.

fed really has no business complaining at all. he is the one who is sitting on 16 slams--the most singles slams in history.

more next time. basically with the runaway speed and pwer in the game, you need slightly slower courts so the game/tennis can actually be played or you risk losing the global appeal of the sport.

so fed, fish, and some of the other players really need to shut the hell up.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by ssin

This is all about betting and guessing anyway. I could come up right now with some "arguments" pulled from my behind. One can surely guess and argue at the same time, it's fun or waste of time, anyway you want to look at it, but it can't be taken too seriously.

Of course it is, and I have no problem with that. It's annoying when some pompous clown comes and proclaims his guesses are superior to everything else/whoever disagrees is a tard.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Taejin

Of course it is, and I have no problem with that. It's annoying when some pompous clown comes and proclaims his guesses are superior to everything else/whoever disagrees is a tard.

It's simple Djokovic fans think tennis is great at the moment and the surfaces are brilliant as they are.

But don't forget there was actual very diverse playing styles on clearly defined surfaces, that's why it's much easier to get the career slam or is Fed a pompous clown for suggesting he benefited from the homogenisation. You know he actually started playing before the surfaces were homogenised.

Djokovic and Nadal didn't, but hey of course they will play exactly the same way and have exactly the same results with faster hardcourts, carpet and lower bouncing grass.

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Clay Death

some of those complaints are not legitimate great tennizen, general shankar..

fish is a one dimensional player who is highly overrated. guys like him and roddick get huge mileage from their serves.

fed really has no business complaining at all. he is the one who is sitting on 16 slams--the most singles slams in history.

more next time. basically with the runaway speed and pwer in the game, you need slightly slower courts so the game/tennis can actually be played or you risk losing the global appeal of the sport.

so fed, fish, and some of the other players really need to shut the hell up.

concurred.....fed and his followers are just being bitter.....i had no idea that fish cried his bit in this matter as well.....no wonder he did.....

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by leng jai

Federer has a playing style that is heavily skewed towards fast conditions. How is this even debatable? Some people will argue anything on the internet.

What fast conditions? Is his slice and dice part of "fast conditions" ? And he didn't seem to like when Nole blasted him in the last USO.

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

It's simple Djokovic fans think tennis is great at the moment and the surfaces are brilliant as they are.

But don't forget there was actual very diverse playing styles on clearly defined surfaces, that's why it's much easier to get the career slam or is Fed a pompous clown for suggesting he benefited from the homogenisation. You know he actually started playing before the surfaces were homogenised.

Djokovic and Nadal didn't, but hey of course they will play exactly the same way and have exactly the same results with faster hardcourts, carpet and lower bouncing grass.

I guess you think that tennis gods conspired to make Nole the top player. I also doubt that you were making this stuff up when Federer was a top player 5 years ago? Putting faster conditions whatever that means to 2 fastest players out there will only make them more dominant, not less . What are you going to complain about then, moon season, wind, planet alignment, aliens?
Or you want to go back to the old days where so called top players didn't even play half a season, where players were limited and had no pressure, avoided other top players and fans didn't even know half the players in the top 10?
I don't think you are looking for variety , you are looking for the same old and limited and puff competition so that your favourite(s) can win .

[luie]

I still don't believe nadull would be successfully on old grass
And his game to LIMITED to adapt to the various faster low bouncing grass .
His serve generally is WTA standard and crushed by a good returner
Ferret/Davy /Novak.
Nadull has good natural movement on grass/ natural surfaces
Similar to Borg . Borg won 5 Wimby titles. Borg won titles
Predominately from the baseline but won good At net .unlike nadull.
However Borg won something like 21 indoor titles
Proving he can play on fast low bouncing surfaces besides grass
So it's no stretch that he could transfer his skill to grass .
Nadull however has just 1 indoor title in indoors , despite no carpet
And slower conditions . So it's difficult to give him the benefit
Of the doubt that he could adapt to fast low bouncing grass like
Top spin baseliner BORG.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

what do you think you are?

I know I'm not some clown arguing nonsensical viewpoints on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Taejin

Nope, sorry Lengtard, but your whole post is based on a bunch of assumptions and guess-work, presented to look as hard cold facts. In the end it's still a guesswork and what-ifs.

You mean TRIPtard.

Originally Posted by Start da Game

based on what results exactly do you base your claim that fed is a fast courts player?

You are seriously suggesting that he's not? Please think hard about your response before you reply.

Originally Posted by Clay Death

some of those complaints are not legitimate great tennizen, general shankar..

fish is a one dimensional player who is highly overrated. guys like him and roddick get huge mileage from their serves.

fed really has no business complaining at all. he is the one who is sitting on 16 slams--the most singles slams in history.

more next time. basically with the runaway speed and pwer in the game, you need slightly slower courts so the game/tennis can actually be played or you risk losing the global appeal of the sport.

so fed, fish, and some of the other players really need to shut the hell up.

Didn't bother reading this whole shit but just wanted to say that fed didn't complain as much he made a comment. And obviously Fish's playing style is more suited for fast courts.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

What fast conditions? Is his slice and dice part of "fast conditions" ? And he didn't seem to like when Nole blasted him in the last USO.

Having match points = blasted now? Oh wait weren't you the same clown who claimed that Fed's main shot is his backhand slice?

[rocketassist]

Last year's USO was slow as fuck.

[August]

Some Nadtards keep on saying Fed didn't win Wimby on fast grass, but were the balls similar already in '03 as they are now?

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by August

Some Nadtards keep on saying Fed didn't win Wimby on fast grass, but were the balls similar already in '03 as they are now?

Those Slazenger balls have been shit for a few decades now.

The slowing of the courts really only started after that 94 final with Sampras and Goran. They slowed it slightly each year since then, before converting to the different grass in 2001. The 2000 final under the night with Sampras-Rafter sort of closed an era, and the 01 event was very transition, with Fed beating Sampras and Ivanisevic finally winning that epic.

Then from 02 to present, it has been all baseliners winning Wimbledon. Except Fed in 03 who still came to the net.

[munZe konZa]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Last year's USO was slow as fuck.

It wasn't slow when Nole won those match points , poor Federer didn't even move

[August]

Originally Posted by Johnny Groove

Those Slazenger balls have been shit for a few decades now.

The slowing of the courts really only started after that 94 final with Sampras and Goran. They slowed it slightly each year since then, before converting to the different grass in 2001. The 2000 final under the night with Sampras-Rafter sort of closed an era, and the 01 event was very transition, with Fed beating Sampras and Ivanisevic finally winning that epic.

Then from 02 to present, it has been all baseliners winning Wimbledon. Except Fed in 03 who still came to the net.

The homogenization of surfaces undermines the purpose of different surfaces. The only reason to have grass courts at Wimby is traditions. Otherwise we could as well have clay courts there and the game wouldn't be any different. And having different kinds of balls to homogenize play is just as stupid. Come on, what's then the point in having different surfaces? Maybe the only ones who don't want more variety in surfaces are Nadtards and Noletards, and the ones running pro tennis business.

[Pirata.]

Originally Posted by munZe konZa

It wasn't slow when Nole won those match points , poor Federer didn't even move