[Super Djoker]

Such a fail thread ! what about Pete Sampras ? for me it,s Pistol Pete !

[howyesno]

Originally Posted by Litotes

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.

seriously? if there was no reward for good grass players in 90s, how comes there were so many players with a game tailor made for grass, like ivanisevic, henman, philippoussis, rafter, krajicek, rusedski among others. if you say "no other time in history" that would imply this particular time in history is more rewarding for good grass players, yet there is not a single one grass specialist on top level.

in reality, sampras competed in much stronger competition and is, in my opinion, the best grass player ever.

[TigerTim]

One must remember that in the 90s grass courters also had carpet with which to utilise their skills and gain many points with serve volley. Basel, Vienna, Paris, Kremlin Cup, St Petersburg, Lyon, Rotterdam even London were all major carpet events.

[tyruk14]

Pete Sampras.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by howyesno

seriously? if there was no reward for good grass players in 90s, how comes there were so many players with a game tailor made for grass, like ivanisevic, henman, philippoussis, rafter, krajicek, rusedski among others. if you say "no other time in history" that would imply this particular time in history is more rewarding for good grass players, yet there is not a single one grass specialist on top level.

in reality, sampras competed in much stronger competition and is, in my opinion, the best grass player ever.

I didn't say "No reward", I said "less". Still more than in many other sports.

The fact that noone now looks like a grass specialist is because being good on grass nowadays will also give you better results elsewhere. And the fact that the style of play which was successful on fast grass is less so on slow grass. So, as I said, if you feel the difference calls for both a "fast grass King" and a "slow grass King" then be my guest. If you choose just one, then Sampras is IMO no longer a contender, having been surpassed by Federer both in Wimbledon and in the grass warmups.

[howyesno]

you made a strawman with "fast grass King" and a "slow grass King" and want to move discussion in that direction. brilliant strategy. the fact is - there were no grass specialists for federer at all to compete when he was winning wimbledons, while there were bunch of them for sampras in his time.

not to mention you never cared to explain logic how the era with grass specialists is weaker than era with no grass specialists?!

and because I'm in a good mood, free hint for you: grass is grass, physics of the grass game didn't change at all, the ball still stays low on slices, ball still bounces irregular from time to time, it is still much harder to move than on hard courts and clay. for the real reason for play style change (no specialists) you need to take a look at strings and rackets.

[Mr.Michael]

Originally Posted by TigerTim

"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.

Harry Barlow must be one of the biggest chokers in history.

I read that article too, not bad. It said that there were 2500 people watching Renshaw winning in 1881 and packed houses elsewhere too. When you look at the crowds at Doha and China, I'd say that 1881 doesn't sound that bad after all.

[Serve&Volley01]

Originally Posted by TigerTim

One must remember that in the 90s grass courters also had carpet with which to utilise their skills and gain many points with serve volley. Basel, Vienna, Paris, Kremlin Cup, St Petersburg, Lyon, Rotterdam even London were all major carpet events.

Can we stick to the 1890s and 80s instead of the 1990s since that is what the thread is about?

[TigerTim]

Originally Posted by Serve&Volley01

Can we stick to the 1890s and 80s instead of the 1990s since that is what the thread is about?

Didn't federer begin his career in the 90s

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by howyesno

you made a strawman with "fast grass King" and a "slow grass King" and want to move discussion in that direction. brilliant strategy. the fact is - there were no grass specialists for federer at all to compete when he was winning wimbledons, while there were bunch of them for sampras in his time.

not to mention you never cared to explain logic how the era with grass specialists is weaker than era with no grass specialists?!

and because I'm in a good mood, free hint for you: grass is grass, physics of the grass game didn't change at all, the ball still stays low on slices, ball still bounces irregular from time to time, it is still much harder to move than on hard courts and clay. for the real reason for play style change (no specialists) you need to take a look at strings and rackets.

I'm not the one who introduced the concept of fast grass as somehow being a mitigating factor enabling a player with less merits to be regarded as greater than his superior. For me, grass is grass. If you want to find the greatest grass player of all time, look for who has won most on it. You'll then find you have a choice between Laver and Federer. Laver won more, but also had more opportunities. How you weigh that is up to you. Sampras, however, won less than Federer with exactly the same opportunities. As it is patently impossible to prove he faced stronger opponents, no circumstantial evidence to suggest that he did, and theories can be made in either direction, sticking to the merits seems the obvious solution.

[heya]

Renshaw could play all court tennis because no one beat him 7 times when he didn't do his best.
No one had improved shoes and a powerful racket back then.
He would've defeated Henman, Ancic, Nadal & Roddick in any era. Federer would lose if he faces match point because he can't defend the court with his own volleys..

Borg and Sampras only had tough matches with great Wimbledon opponents.
Federer struggled badly against inconsistent grass players including ones outside the top 40..

[Corey Feldman]

when Renshaw was winning Wimbledon = no player could serve 130MPH
when Borg was winning Wimbledon = 1 player could serve 130MPH
when Sampras was winning Wimbledon = 5 players could serve 130MPH
when Federeich winning Wimbledon = 50 players could serve 130MPH

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

when Renshaw was winning Wimbledon = no player could serve 130MPH
when Borg was winning Wimbledon = 1 player could serve 130MPH
when Sampras was winning Wimbledon = 5 players could serve 130MPH
when Federeich winning Wimbledon = 50 players could serve 130MPH

Owned!

[TigerTim]

Racket technology?

[Benny_Maths]

Originally Posted by howyesno

not to mention you never cared to explain logic how the era with grass specialists is weaker than era with no grass specialists?!

Take a 50 year old who has never played tennis and train him to play on grass courts exclusively. You will then have a grass court specialist who in reality is worse on grass than any top 50 player today. This example shows you that specialisation in itself has nothing to do with skill level or competition.