re: The Unofficial Wimbledon Thread of 2016

[/img]
I'll watch the whole match tonight, but from stats, I don't think there is anything to suggest a choke or a giveaway.

What I really want to see is who won the first strike points (0-4 shot rallies). This is probably the most important stat in tennis. Accounts for serve itself as well as halo effect following serve.

Fed anywhere from -140 to -160. I hate to say it, but this looks like a great spot for Raonic to get over that big 4 hump.

Tsonga keeps choking in this 1st set, could have had it a few times but kept hitting his shots into the net.

That's one of those sets that could cause the loser to start folding. Tough to lose a set like that and pick yourself back up and put it behind you for the second set

quote:

---

Sampras have something to say

---

What does he have to say about it? He was basically in the same era as Fed and his numbers simply don't add up to Feds.

quote:

---

Who knows how many Borg wins if the Aussie Open was a priority in the 70's.

---

How can you say Borg is the best ever if he never won a US Open (especially when it was played on clay), didn't play the Aussie Open and then quit the sport at the age of 26 because he was burned out.

Sure, Laver, Borg, Sampras are 3 of the all time greats, along with Federer and Djoker and Nadal.

However, at this point, given Federer's titles and then continued success into his mid-30's, I don't see how anyone can argue that he hasn't had the greatest tennis career of all time, with the caveat that Djoker has a pretty good chance to match or surpass him.

quote:

---

What does he have to say about it? He was basically in the same era as Fed and his numbers simply don't add up to Feds.

---

No he was not. He was before. They slowed the game down partially due to Sampras and his era.

As for Borg, he never played the Aussie Open, except once and made it to third round.

The one I will give you is Laver. It's just impossible to measure him with current guys given all of the years he couldn't play in the majors due to the rules. He did have the benefit of three majors on grass, though.

I get your point about the Aussie with Borg. That really pertains to anyone before they improved the tournament in 1988 or so. He did put his heart and soul into winning the US Open, though, so not winning it is a mark against him.

Sampras' career is a joke compared to Fed's. The only thing you can say about Pete is that he never got dominated by a rival like Fed.

I would like to see Jo-Willy get this to a fifth. Would've been nice for him to have won that set on Murray's last service game when he had chances.

quote:

---

Wut? Sampras is a decade older than fed. Sampras won his first major when federer was 9 years old

---

Yes, I know Sampras is older than Federer, but they played against each other in Wimbledon. Comparing Federer and Sampras is much easier because, at some point, they were both playing at the same time, same courts, same surfaces, tournaments, etc. Its much easier to compare Federer's accomplishments against Sampras than comparing Federer/Sampras against guys like Laver and Borg.

Regarding the speed of the game, and the slowing down of the courts, that all happened about mid-point in Federer's career after he had already gotten most of his titles. And the slowing of the speed of the game/surfaces, didn't help Federer, instead, it helped his rivals (i.e., Nadal) become more successful on surfaces (i.e., grass), that they would have never had success on before the change in speed. Federer always had success on grass before the slowing of the game.

If the grass courts and hard courts weren't slowed down like they were, clay court specialist Nadal wouldn't have won as many GS's and Federer would probably have a few more to his name.

Good stuff. Where did you get those stats?