Isner excels on grass.
Isner has been seeded on 7 of his previous 9 appearances at the Championship. On 5 of those 7 occasions he was seeded, he failed to play to his seeding exiting in the early rounds, losing to unseeded players on four occasions. The other two occasions he was seeded, he just matched his seed by making the Round of 32. The two times he was unseeded, he exited in Round 1. Prior to this year, Isner has never made it past Round 3. That’s not excelling on grass. It’s consistent underachievement.
You seem to be denying reality again.
Del Potro through to the quarters now to face Nadal. Del Potro has the game to beat Nadal if he is up for it. The other quarter final in the bottom half is Djokovic against Nishikori. I think that match that Djokovic played against Edmund has fired Djokovic up and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him up his game now and go all the way to the final just to piss people off. I prefer a bad boy Djokovic to this good guy image he has been trying to cultivate for the last couple of years, Hope to jesus he has given it up now.
The top half of the draw is @Cicero_Dandi nightmare, the smallest guy is Federer and the other 3 are all big servers. I would expect Federer to beat Anderson in 4 sets and Raonic to beat Isner in 5. Outside of the serve I don’t think there is much to Isner’s game to back up the serve and I think Raonic has the much better all round game to win this one.
Semi Finals to be
Federer vs Raonic
Djokovice vs Nadal, I hope I am wrong on this one as it is Del Potro that goes through.
Serena in a bit of bother. The Italian girl has given her the runaround so far.
Just seen that. Ostapenko and Kerber are through. Camila is very easy on the eye.
She’s very easy on the eye.
Another vindication. My argument was rock solid at the start and its been comprehensively proven as the fortnight of tennis has progressed. Big servers prosper on grass, always have and always will.
We get it you don’t like grass, you don’t like Federer, you don’t like the all white rule, The clay is the greatest thing since wanking blah, blah, blah. Nadal is the second coming. Who gives a shit about your argument?
Some people prefer looking at the tennis on grass because the rallies are shorter, some prefer looking at tennis on clay because the rallies are longer, Why do you have a problem with people who don’t like the things you like?
It’s because you are a little Englander you like Wimbledon. That’s fair enough but don’t dress it up as anything to do with tennis
Serving is an important skill of the game. You don’t win the Championship though relying on just a big serve. A Championship winning player needs to be strong in all facets of the game.
You don’t see one dimensional players like Gaston Gaudio, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Carlos Moya, Alberto Costa or Andres Gomez ending up on the roll of honour at the Championship like you do at the French Open.
Richard Kraijcek, Goran Ivanesivic, Pete Sampras were all very one dimensional players who prospered on grass but did nothing on clay as their big serve was minimised.
I successfully predicted the prototype of player who would excel at Wimbledon. I used historical evidence as an example and I’ve been further vindicated.
6ft8 Kevin Anderson, 6ft10 John Isner, 6ft5 Milos Raonic - born and bred for grass court tennis.
The average height of the winner at the Championship since 1990 is 6 ft 1 and a half inches. The average height of the winner at the French Open since 1990 is 6ft 1 and a half inches. The same. Sampras and Federer have won 15 championships between them, both were 6ft 1. Hewitt was 5ft 10. Agassi was 5ft 11.
You’re banging on about 6ft 8 and 6ft 10 giraffes excelling on grass. In the near 140 years of the Championship stretching back to 1881, its only been won 5 times by players taller than 6ft 3. Yvon Petra (6ft 5) in 1946, Stan Smith (6ft 4) in 1972, Michael Stich (6ft 4) in 1991, Richard Kraijcek (6ft 5) in 1996 and Goran Ivanisevic (6ft 4) in 2001.
Kraijeck and Ivanisevic were excellent all round players, good on all surfaces and both were seeded inside the World Top 10 for years. Kraijcek was a semi finalist in the French Open, Australian Open and three times US Open quarter finalist. Ivanisevic was a US Open semi finalist and three time French Open quarter finalist. Ivanisevic beat Thomas Muster at Roland Garros and recorded wins there over two finalists Andriy Medvedev and Alex Corretja and Boris Becker as well.
Sampras is one of the greatest players of all time as a haul of 7 Championship wins, 5 US Opens and 2 Australian Opens is testament to. You’re been utterly idiotic to suggest Sampras was a one dimensional player.
Here’s the definitive list of the height of the Championship winners all the way back to 1881. Not many of your prototype 6ft 8 and 6ft 10 giraffes featuring on it. In fact there’s none.
A lie. Both were monster servers with little else to their game.
He’s one of the greatest servers of all time, he only made one SF appearance on clay at Roland Garros as his serve was neutralized and he didn’t have much of an all round game behind him.
A big serve on clay is not the same weapon it is on grass and to a lesser degree, on hard courts. This is why players who dominate grass and hard courts can sometimes struggle poorly on clay. Sampras was extremely one dimensional, a fairly average player if you take away his serve.
Hewitt was a very average player who spent his prime years flopping at slams after winning a few handy ones when the competition was very low, the fact he didn’t win a slam after the age of 21 says it all. Federer had it very handy in his early years against chumps like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Philippoussis, Safin etc.
In fact if you look at Hewitt’s Wimbledon run in 2002, it’s a who’s who of bums and journeyman.
R1 - Bjorkman
R2 - Carraz
R3 - Knowle
R4 - Youzhny
QF - Schalken
SF - Henman
F - Nalbandian
Not a slam among any of the players he had beaten, that’s the sort of field Federer was coming in to at the start of his career. Likewise his opponent, Nalbandian failed to encounter a Slam champion in his run to the final.
The fact is guys like Hewitt, Naldbandian and Roddick - all of whom were in and around the same age of Federer were his main challengers in his formative years - Roddick is 2 years his junior, Hewitt is a few months older and Naldbandian a few months younger.
Roddick won a US Open at 22, Hewitt won slams at 20 and 21 and Nalbandian made a Wimbledon final at 20. These lads went on to achieve the square root of nothing in the years after as you had guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka and Del Potro emerge who were on a far higher level than those bums, it raises huge questions over Federer’s early titles.
In a 4 year period 2004-2007, Federer picked up 11 slams, Nadal only turned 21 just before WImbledon 2007 and Djokovic was only 20 at the time. Once they got into their prime years the titles started to dry up for Federer.
You’re parroting and plagiarizing tired old mantras that former poster @Nemo_Kid used to come out with. Have you no original thoughts of your own?
I’m only stating facts. Your issue seems to be with a body of empirical evidence.