[Serve&Volley01]

Originally Posted by legolandbridge

Renshaw edges Federer here as King of Grass due to his tally of 6 doubles titles and the disadvantage of having to play the finalist as 1st round.

Truth.

[The Bulldog]

Renshaw played in an era when dukes and bishops contested Wimbledon. It was a truly elitist sport back then.

Also, he only had to play one match each time.

[abraxas21]

Does someone really think Federer would have gotten 7 Wimby titles in renshaw's era?

in those days players actually knew how to play on grass. Not to mention that it was real grass in the first place!

[Mountaindewslave]

Originally Posted by Serve&Volley01

Are you sure about this?

I can't believe everyone here is writing Renshaw off when his record of 6 consecutive Wimbledons will probably be never matched EVER. Tennis was just as competitive back then as it was today, just different people.

that is false. it was not nearly as competitive at the time, just think about when Renshaw played in contrast to when tennis started? how could competition be even close to what it was with great grass court players in the Open Era? you can always argue a 'talent' case but you certainly could not argue a difficulty in relation to depth of field with Renshaw > Federer, because not only were there fewer people around back then / playing the sport, but also because tennis was not really international

no one's claiming that Renshaw's consecutive Wimbledon's aren't impressive, but I do not understand how you can't grasp the perspective that there just was not a deep or big field at the time, it's tennis early days

[Mountaindewslave]

Originally Posted by ProdigyEng

Can I take a ride in your time machine please?

nothing about 'seeing' anything. there are indeed facts known about the time period, tennis was not international at the time, and it was nearly as popular in that time as it was a century later
there is no plausible way you could argue that Renshaw had extreme competition of the time, hell he was mostly only playing other Englishmen
the circumstances are the circumstances and I would not entirely use them to hold anything against his records, BUT when directly comparing two great grass players of very different Eras things like this are important to take note of. if I was arguing Renshaw was less talented than Federer then it would be something you'd need a time machine for, but just arguing that his accomplisments were easier at that time than they would be today is something you can generally assume

[HKz]

You guys do realize that for Renshaw's 2nd through 6th Wimbledon titles that as defending champion each time he only had to play the challenger round which is one match against a player that wins a regular draw which consisted of 6 matches... sounds fair to compare...

Hell sometimes some players were given random byes in later rounds due to irregular draw sizes such in Wimbledon 81 where the bottom half player was given a bye in the semifinal...

[Serve&Volley01]

Originally Posted by HKz

You guys do realize that for Renshaw's 2nd through 6th Wimbledon titles that as defending champion each time he only had to play the challenger round which is one match against a player that wins a regular draw which consisted of 6 matches... sounds fair to compare...

Hell sometimes some players were given random byes in later rounds due to irregular draw sizes such in Wimbledon 81 where the bottom half player was given a bye in the semifinal...

Yeah but as we noted it is actually HARDER for Renshaw because his R1 is the finalist. There is no earlier matches he could play himself into form with. Also Tennis WAS international. It was just mainly played in 3 countries: England. US. France.

Lastly how do you know what happened at Wimbledon 1881 I'm just curious since facts about slams before 1900 must be hard to find.

What is fact is Renshaw and Federer both share the record of 7 Wimbledon's and Federer cannot break that record without another win. Until he does they will have to share the prestige.

[Serve&Volley01]

I found this article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...illiam-renshaw

Can someone who had great grand parents from that era confirm Renshaw's playing style?

So if Renshaw invented the Serve & Volley, he can truly be considered probably the greatest grass player ever.

I'm also wondering where Renshaw would rank in the greatest players of all time. I'm sure he will be BELOW Bill Tilden and Federer but would still probably be top 10 considering he had more slams than Lacoste and those guys.

[cardio]

You guys forget that 120 years ago champion payed only ONE match against challenger in Wimbledon. Whole tournament was to determine who is gonna play vs last year champion.

It gave huge advantage to champ, he was fresh both mentally and physically in final .Challenge system was abandoned only in 1922.

Of course Fed is way-wayy better than Renshaw, he played all rounds fair and square like all other players.

So grass King "thing" is between Sampras and Fed, I think. I would prefer Sampras though because he played on real fast grass.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by cardio

You guys forget that 120 years ago champion payed only ONE match against challenger in Wimbledon. Whole tournament was to determine who is gonna play vs last year champion.

It gave huge advantage to champ, he was fresh both mentally and physically in final .Challenge system was abandoned only in 1922.

Of course Fed is way-wayy better than Renshaw, he played all rounds fair and square like all other players.

So grass King "thing" is between Sampras and Fed, I think. I would prefer Sampras though because he played on real fast grass.

Neither Sampras nor Federer had much say about what they played on. I'd say you can either proclaim Sampras as fast-grass King and Federer as slow-grass King or simply Federer as grass King. Makes no sense to pick Sampras as grass King - despite his slightly inferior resumé - because it was faster then. Next we'll have people claiming Nadal is not clay King because clay was slower in the past.....

[TigerTim]

Originally Posted by Serve&Volley01

I found this article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...illiam-renshaw

Can someone who had great grand parents from that era confirm Renshaw's playing style?

So if Renshaw invented the Serve & Volley, he can truly be considered probably the greatest grass player ever.

I'm also wondering where Renshaw would rank in the greatest players of all time. I'm sure he will be BELOW Bill Tilden and Federer but would still probably be top 10 considering he had more slams than Lacoste and those guys.

"The 1889 final however, may have been Renshaw's most memorable. He faced Harry Barlow in the All-Comers final for the right to play his brother in the Wimbledon final. After forcing the match to a fifth set, Renshaw fell behind 0-5 and faced six match points.

He would save all of them and defeat Barlow in one of the most incredible comebacks ever seen."

nice.

[End da Game]

Originally Posted by latso

i know the numbers pretty well, but we have to be honest here - Roddick was nowhere near anytime, except maybe for this 17-15, which was a surprise overall.

Duck was a nice lad, but he was in position to take a Slam final off Federer as much as Ferrer would ever be against Nadal. Too much love.

Fast grass being arguably Fed's bestest surface ever i would imagine him winning it all there.

You never know. Maybe at the said speed some guys like Karlovic and Isner would have been tougher threats than Roddick or Rafa on slowish herb.

I remember roddick was a set and a break up in the 2nd set, then the rain delay came, afterwards federer broke back and took the 2nd set, then it was very close in the last two sets. And LOL, Ferrer has never even been to a slam final so theres no comparing him to roddick.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by The Bulldog

Renshaw played in an era when dukes and bishops contested Wimbledon. It was a truly elitist sport back then.

Also, he only had to play one match each time.

TRUE! Wimbledon was not the only important grass court tournament until the USO went off grass. In the Renshaw, Laver eras most tournaments were on grass, therefore, there were more high quality grass court players. This era is probably the weakest grass court era ever. Therefore, my ranking would be: LAVER, SAMPRAS, FEDERER. ROSEWALL and GONZALEZ were very great grass court players too, but lost over 10 of their peak years at Wimby, US, and Australin grass court slams. Laver lost 5 years

[dazed1]

Originally Posted by heya

If you count opponent Roddick's amazing, inspiring volleys and light body & aerodynamic bald head, yes, Rogi is the greatest tactician of all.

Hi Mr.Delusional, again out of your cave?

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by thrust

TRUE! Wimbledon was not the only important grass court tournament until the USO went off grass. In the Renshaw, Laver eras most tournaments were on grass, therefore, there were more high quality grass court players. This era is probably the weakest grass court era ever. Therefore, my ranking would be: LAVER, SAMPRAS, FEDERER. ROSEWALL and GONZALEZ were very great grass court players too, but lost over 10 of their peak years at Wimby, US, and Australin grass court slams. Laver lost 5 years

No, the 90s and until they slowed the grass ought to be the weakest grass era. Why? Because at no other time in history has there been less rewards for good grass players. Before there were more important tournaments on grass, so more reason to be good at it. Now, the difference between grass and other surfaces is less, so being good on grass will also grant you success elsewhere.