PDA

View Full Version : Fed would never win wimbledon


rosenstar
10-12-2009, 08:31 AM
Sorry if this has been posted already, but otherwise enjoy:

http://blog.wimbledon.org/2009/10/12/junior-and-open-wimbledon-champions/#more-589

statto
10-12-2009, 08:55 AM
Interesting that he felt his natural surface was clay.

IvanAndreevich
10-12-2009, 09:37 AM
Interesting that he felt his natural surface was clay.

Have you ever seen Federer move on clay? Obviously it's a surface he's extremely comfortable on. It doesn't suit his game as much as faster surfaces due to his playing style, though.

Fed is awesome on fast clay, though. Hamburg, and now Madrid MS.

Agassifan
10-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Fed is among the best clay courters in history. Probably in the Top 5 all time.

statto
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Have you ever seen Federer move on clay? Obviously it's a surface he's extremely comfortable on. It doesn't suit his game as much as faster surfaces due to his playing style, though.

Fed is awesome on fast clay, though. Hamburg, and now Madrid MS.

Is Hamburg clay that fast? I thought it was pretty slow.

Fed is among the best clay courters in history. Probably in the Top 5 all time.

I can think of more than five off the top of my head who are way ahead of Federer on clay.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 10:30 AM
Hamburg clay is slow.

big bang
10-12-2009, 10:32 AM
Fed is among the best clay courters in history. Probably in the Top 5 all time.

dont fool yourself!

ksbh
10-12-2009, 10:41 AM
Why is this such a surprise?

For over 3 years, most Federer fans on this forum gave Nadal no chance of winning Wimbledion or a hard court slam. He went on to achieve both, beating no other than Federer in the final!

People routinely get their bearings wrong when it comes to predictions.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 12:35 PM
Fed is among the best clay courters in history. Probably in the Top 5 all time.

Federer isnt even top 15 all time on clay.

IvanAndreevich
10-12-2009, 12:44 PM
My bad about Hamburg.

It's slow, but VERY low-bouncing. What I was trying to say is that Federer plays great on clay which well-suited to his game: either fast, or low-bouncing will do :)

Apologies.

Federer isnt even top 15 all time on clay.

OK, name 15 players who will be favorites against a prime Federer on clay in a best of 5 match.

egn
10-12-2009, 12:53 PM
OK, name 15 players who will be favorites against a prime Federer on clay in a best of 5 match.

12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas Muster
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Ken Rosewall
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi Brugera
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Von Cramm
Ille Nastase
Panatta

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 01:02 PM
12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas Muster
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Ken Rosewall
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi Brugera
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Von Cramm
Ille Nastase
Panatta

Ferrero? LOL! That's a stretch.

fed_rulz
10-12-2009, 01:15 PM
12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas Muster
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Ken Rosewall
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi Brugera
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Von Cramm
Ille Nastase
Panatta

why is muster constantly rated higher over Federer?

Muster: 1 FO, 1 FO SF, and 1 FO QF , 6 clay masters
Fed: 1 FO, 3 FO Finals, 1 FO SF, 5 clay masters

I remember that muster won some 30+ clay titles, mostly mickey mouse ones. Records wise, Fed clearly trumps muster.

Ferrero obviously does not rate higher over Fed.

akv89
10-12-2009, 01:17 PM
Federer would easily fall within the top 10 clay courters in the open era. It gets very hard comparing any accomplishments to pre-open era players.

stormholloway
10-12-2009, 01:41 PM
12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas MusterX
Mats WilanderX
Ivan LendlX
Ken RosewallX
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi BrugeraX
Juan Carlos FerreroX
Von CrammX
Ille NastaseX
PanattaX

Nah.... fail.

egn
10-12-2009, 01:43 PM
why is muster constantly rated higher over Federer?

Muster: 1 FO, 1 FO SF, and 1 FO QF , 6 clay masters
Fed: 1 FO, 3 FO Finals, 1 FO SF, 5 clay masters

I remember that muster won some 30+ clay titles, mostly mickey mouse ones. Records wise, Fed clearly trumps muster.

Ferrero obviously does not rate higher over Fed.

Huh sorry I am basing on actually watching the two play on clay. Watch Muster from 95-96 in his prime. I favor him over a prime Federer. YOu said in Fed's prime. So I assume the other player is at their best as well.

egn
10-12-2009, 01:44 PM
Ferrero? LOL! That's a stretch.

Ferrero at his best was one hell of a clay courter 2 semis, 1 final and 1 french open and 4 master series had he not been injuried and his career ruined who knows. Ferrero had a better suited game for clay in my opinion.

fed_rulz
10-12-2009, 01:48 PM
Huh sorry I am basing on actually watching the two play on clay. Watch Muster from 95-96 in his prime. I favor him over a prime Federer. YOu said in Fed's prime. So I assume the other player is at their best as well.

I don't know about Muster's prime Vs Fed's prime (btw, i never mentioned anything about prime Fed in my post). Even hypothetically speaking, if muster's prime existed for all of 1 year, how does that make him a clay court great? great clay court talent, who could beat fed in his prime may be, but surely not a great. He surely has not achieved as much as Fed...

Surely you cannot include someone in the list if their prime exists for a short span of time, now can you?

egn
10-12-2009, 01:50 PM
I don't know about Muster's prime Vs Fed's prime (btw, i never mentioned anything about prime Fed in my post). Even hypothetically speaking, if muster's prime existed for all of 1 year, how does that make him a clay court great? great clay court talent, who could beat fed in his prime may be, but surely not a great. He surely has not achieved as much as Fed...

Surely you cannot include someone in the list if their prime exists for a short span of time, now can you?

The person said 15 players vs a prime Fed I named 12 who I would favorite over Fed. Over Musters 2 peak yeras he won 4 clay Master series and French Open title and had 110+ wins on the surfaces and only 5 losses if I recall correctly.

Blinkism
10-12-2009, 01:53 PM
People forget how amazing of a clay player Federer is.

Before 2003, his biggest achievements came on clay.

Heck, he beat Kuerten en-route to his first MS title in Hamburg on clay.

His lateral movement on clay is fantastic, yes.

fed_rulz
10-12-2009, 01:53 PM
The person said 15 players vs a prime Fed I named 12 who I would favorite over Fed. Over Musters 2 peak yeras he won 4 clay Master series and French Open title and had 110+ wins on the surfaces and only 5 losses if I recall correctly.

ok, i see now. you were responding to IvanAndrevich's post. makes sense. thanks.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 02:14 PM
Ferrero at his best was one hell of a clay courter 2 semis, 1 final and 1 french open and 4 master series had he not been injuried and his career ruined who knows. Ferrero had a better suited game for clay in my opinion.

As opposed to Fed, who'd only have 5 FO titles now if it wasn't for the GOAT on clay, or one of them, being in his way at every turn. I'm sure Fed would have more FO titles if he'd peaked when guys like Martin Verkerk were making FO finals.

statto
10-12-2009, 02:28 PM
12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas Muster
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Ken Rosewall
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi Brugera
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Von Cramm
Ille Nastase
Panatta

I would add to that list Coria, Vilas and Moya.

How anyone can think Fed is one of the best five clay-courters of all time is beyond me. It's like saying Nadal is one of the best five grass-courters (because he'd have won three Wimbledon's in a row if it hadn't been for the possible GOAT on grass).

paulorenzo
10-12-2009, 02:30 PM
Bjorn Borg- yah
Rafael Nadal- yes sir
Thomas Muster- no, although he is a clay court specialist, most of his clay court tournament wins were smaller tournies, and almost all of his masters wins were against players who weren't great on clay.
Mats Wilander- no. wilander was good though.
Ivan Lendl- no, lendl was good on all surfaces, but not better than federer on any of them. it would be a closer match up on hard.
Ken Rosewall- no, if rosewall is up here, then laver should be here too since they were about even in clay slams. but this is a hard topic since it's open vs pre-open era.
Gustavo Kuerten- yes, kuerten is a monster.
Sergi Brugera- no, just because someone only had success on clay, doesn't mean he can automaticlly be dubbed as better than fed on clay. he had less success than muster.
Juan Carlos Ferrero- no, although ferrero has a beautiful game on clay, he goes for winners a bit too much, record shows, fed usually loses to grinders.
Von Cramm- no.
Ille Nastase- no, or in any other surface, unless Nasty gets in fed's head and fed folds.
Panatta- no

you should have included guillermo coria and guillermo vilas instead of panatta nastase, ferrero, brugera and rosewall.
coria was a mental midget, i admit, but when he is on he has a more diverse game than nadal on clay with more court sense and touch.

AAAA
10-12-2009, 02:31 PM
I would add to that list Coria, Vilas and Moya.

How anyone can think Fed is one of the best five clay-courters of all time is beyond me. It's like saying Nadal is one of the best five grass-courters (because he'd have won three Wimbledon's in a row if it hadn't been for the possible GOAT on grass).

Coria lost both of the two matches he played against Federer on clay.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 02:32 PM
I would add to that list Coria, Vilas and Moya.

How anyone can think Fed is one of the best five clay-courters of all time is beyond me. It's like saying Nadal is one of the best five grass-courters (because he'd have won three Wimbledon's in a row if it hadn't been for the possible GOAT on grass).

Coria? Are you freaking kidding me? Fed schooled Coria on Clay.

Moya? Sorry, not better than Federer.

I'm not saying he's top 5 of all time, but he's definitely better than some of the names being mentioned.

flyinghippos101
10-12-2009, 02:48 PM
Fed easily fits top 15. Top 10 might be pushing it. But to say Ferrero, Coria and Moya is better on clay is ridiculous

kOaMaster
10-12-2009, 02:50 PM
you forget that fed had the probably best clay player since borg on the other side of the court. his tennis on clay is staggering. he reached 4 finals IN A ROW! get of with that weak era ****, in the mid 90s clay tennis competition was not stronger than.

the only two clear players above him are nadal and borg. any others? I seriously doubt it.

and don't come with those pre-open-era players. no one knows about them and hardly anyone has seen them playing in their prime.

statto
10-12-2009, 03:02 PM
you forget that fed had the probably best clay player since borg on the other side of the court. his tennis on clay is staggering. he reached 4 finals IN A ROW! get of with that weak era ****, in the mid 90s clay tennis competition was not stronger than.

the only two clear players above him are nadal and borg. any others? I seriously doubt it.

and don't come with those pre-open-era players. no one knows about them and hardly anyone has seen them playing in their prime.

As I posted, you could say the exact same thing about Nadal and grass - three Wimbledon finals in a row and opposite one of, if not the best grass-courters ever.

With that reasoning on grass you'd put Fed, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Laver, but no-one else. Is Nadal really one of the best ten grass-courters of the open era? I don't think so.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 03:05 PM
As I posted, you could say the exact same thing about Nadal and grass - three Wimbledon finals in a row and opposite one of, if not the best grass-courters ever.

With that reasoning on grass you'd put Fed, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Laver, but no-one else. Is Nadal really one of the best ten grass-courters of the open era? I don't think so.

Federer's span of success on clay is longer than Nadal's span of success on grass. It's not the same thing, as of now, Fed has been successful on clay for a longer period than Nadal on grass.

hoodjem
10-12-2009, 03:10 PM
Greatest Clay-courters:

1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Laver
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Borotra
11. Drobny
12. Santana
13. Gimeno
14. Vilas
15. Muster
16. Courier
17. Federer


See these--
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=261831
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=291689

CyBorg
10-12-2009, 03:11 PM
Ivan Lendl- no, lendl was good on all surfaces, but not better than federer on any of them. it would be a closer match up on hard.
Ken Rosewall- no, if rosewall is up here, then laver should be here too since they were about even in clay slams. but this is a hard topic since it's open vs pre-open era.
Gustavo Kuerten- yes, kuerten is a monster.

That's not very well reasoned. Lendl was far more consistent and dominant on clay than Kuerten.

And I agree that Laver should be on this list too. Both he and Rosewall are among the more accomplished clay courters ever. More than Federer for sure.

CyBorg
10-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Greatest Clay-courters:

1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Laver
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Borotra
11. Drobny
12. Santana
13. Gimeno
14. Vilas
15. Muster
16. Federer


See these--
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=261831
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=291689

That's a good list. Also more successful on clay than Federer was Courier. I guess it could be argued that Fed's better - I'm not sure.

Also let's not forget Nastase. More inconsistent than Fed on clay for sure, but he has his RG and numerous other clay court accomplishments as well.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 03:19 PM
OK, name 15 players who will be favorites against a prime Federer on clay in a best of 5 match.

Borg
Vilas
Nadal
Lacoste
Cochet
Courier
Kuerten
Wilander
Lendl
Rosewall
Laver

Well here are 11 I would pick for sure. Some others that are debateable but that I am not as sure of would be:

Santana
Pietrangeli
Muster
Ferrero
Drobny
Borotra
Gimeno

So on 2nd thought maybe top 15 all time on clay but not top 10.

Karlovic's Sunglasses
10-12-2009, 03:20 PM
Federer sucks on grass.

aleexxxxx
10-12-2009, 03:20 PM
Fed is most definately top 10 clay of all time. You can argue top 5. Anyone who says otherwise is just a straight fedhater. Or nadal fan.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 03:25 PM
12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas Muster
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Ken Rosewall
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi Brugera
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Von Cramm
Ille Nastase
Panatta

Would have to disagree with some of those. Bruguera, a big no. I know he has an extra French but still no. Ferrero is iffy. Von Cramm definitely not. Panatta definitely not too, he was a bad matchup for Borg but he definitely isnt better or more accomplished on clay than Federer. Nastase no, way too inconsistent and missed out on winning some more big clay titles to players he could have/should have beaten.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 03:28 PM
I would add to that list Coria, Vilas and Moya.


ROTFL at Coria and Moya being better than Federer on clay. Completely ridiculous, and I am one of the biggest Federer haters on TW. Even in their primes those guys were getting schooled by Federer on every surface including clay. Moya has only made it past the French Open quarters once and only won 2 Masters, and Coria in his short prime lost to Verkerk, Gaudio, and pre prime Davydenko at the French.

Blinkism
10-12-2009, 03:33 PM
Fed is most definately top 10 clay of all time. You can argue top 5. Anyone who says otherwise is just a straight fedhater. Or nadal fan.

I agree with your first point, Federer is definitely Top 10 clay of all time.

But wouldn't Nadal fans want to hype Fed up as a clay courter? Because Nadal's biggest achievements are against Fed.

Chadwixx
10-12-2009, 03:51 PM
I don't know about Muster's prime Vs Fed's prime (btw, i never mentioned anything about prime Fed in my post). Even hypothetically speaking, if muster's prime existed for all of 1 year, how does that make him a clay court great? great clay court talent, who could beat fed in his prime may be, but surely not a great. He surely has not achieved as much as Fed...

Surely you cannot include someone in the list if their prime exists for a short span of time, now can you?

In all fairness to muster someone mashed his knees between two car bumpers the day before his hardcourt final with lendl. He was getting very strong up to that point.

Ive also never seen a guy work that hard after the injury. The guy was an animal and could wear out fed on a slow enough court. Many said he wouldnt walk again, yet came back. Check out some pictures of his wheelchair while training, pretty amazing.

big bang
10-13-2009, 02:00 AM
In all fairness to muster someone mashed his knees between two car bumpers the day before his hardcourt final with lendl. He was getting very strong up to that point.

Ive also never seen a guy work that hard after the injury. The guy was an animal and could wear out fed on a slow enough court. Many said he wouldnt walk again, yet came back. Check out some pictures of his wheelchair while training, pretty amazing.

Muster ruled!! one of my all time favourites:) he would do exactly the same to Fed as Nadal does, big lefty topspin down the backhand side, running down every ball and fighting as his life depended on it.. Muster could run forever and not get tired, he was a beast with insane mental strenght..
He would have won many more titles if it wasnt for that horrible accident.

dropshot winner
10-13-2009, 02:10 AM
Muster ruled!! one of my all time favourites:) he would do exactly the same to Fed as Nadal does, big lefty topspin down the backhand side, running down every ball and fighting as his life depended on it.. Muster could run forever and not get tired, he was a beast with insane mental strenght..
He would have won many more titles if it wasnt for that horrible accident.

No, Muster doesn't have Nadal's forehand.

Verdasco's forehand is the most similiar to Nadal, it's just a bit flatter but has as much spin as Muster's, but more pace.
And yet Verdasco can't do to Federer what Nadal does. That's mostly because Verdasco (and to lesser extent Muster, Bruguera etc) don't move as well as Nadal does, and because their shots don't bounce up as high and fast, which allows Federer to run around the backhand, or to turn defense into offense more consistently with the backhand.

Many think that Nadal beats Federer only with the forehand, but that's not the truth.
It's mostly Nadal's movement that allows him to play the forehand out of nearly impossible situations. Borg is the only one with comparable movement.

Federer's best on clay is top5, his results aren't but that's a different story.

helloworld
10-13-2009, 02:40 AM
Fed is among the best clay courters in history. Probably in the Top 5 all time.

Fed is not even in the same league as Nadal on clay. If Fed is top 5 on clay, he would have done much better against Nadal on clay. Federer would be lucky to be top 10 on clay.

abmk
10-13-2009, 03:10 AM
fed's not in the top 5 on clay for sure, anywhere in b/w 7-8 and 13-14 I'd say ...

8pNADAL
10-13-2009, 04:12 AM
i can't believe federer is a top 5 claycourter alltime, when he only managed to win 4 games in the 08 final

ChrisCrocker
10-13-2009, 04:31 AM
That's top 5 on my list for the open era.
borg
nadal
Lendl
Wilander
Kuerten

ahile02
10-13-2009, 04:33 AM
Huh sorry I am basing on actually watching the two play on clay. Watch Muster from 95-96 in his prime. I favor him over a prime Federer. YOu said in Fed's prime. So I assume the other player is at their best as well.

You're joking, right?

nfor304
10-13-2009, 04:39 AM
Bjorn Borg- yah
Rafael Nadal- yes sir
Thomas Muster- no, although he is a clay court specialist, most of his clay court tournament wins were smaller tournies, and almost all of his masters wins were against players who weren't great on clay.
Mats Wilander- no. wilander was good though.
Ivan Lendl- no, lendl was good on all surfaces, but not better than federer on any of them. it would be a closer match up on hard.
Ken Rosewall- no, if rosewall is up here, then laver should be here too since they were about even in clay slams. but this is a hard topic since it's open vs pre-open era.
Gustavo Kuerten- yes, kuerten is a monster.
Sergi Brugera- no, just because someone only had success on clay, doesn't mean he can automaticlly be dubbed as better than fed on clay. he had less success than muster.
Juan Carlos Ferrero- no, although ferrero has a beautiful game on clay, he goes for winners a bit too much, record shows, fed usually loses to grinders.
Von Cramm- no.
Ille Nastase- no, or in any other surface, unless Nasty gets in fed's head and fed folds.
Panatta- no

you should have included guillermo coria and guillermo vilas instead of panatta nastase, ferrero, brugera and rosewall.
coria was a mental midget, i admit, but when he is on he has a more diverse game than nadal on clay with more court sense and touch.

How is Brugera a worse clay courter than Muster and Coria? He won fewer tittles overall but 2 wins from 3 French Open finals automatically puts him at least equal with Muster and light years ahead of Coria.

Vilas is definitely a better clay court player than Fed imo.

nfor304
10-13-2009, 04:49 AM
Fed is most definately top 10 clay of all time. You can argue top 5. Anyone who says otherwise is just a straight fedhater. Or nadal fan.

Top 10 maybe but certainly not top 5.

He is definitely not better or more successful on clay than Vilas, Borg, Nadal, Guga, Rosewall, Lendl

mental midget
10-13-2009, 04:53 AM
restricting this to modern era players (no borg-wooden racket, different game) the only guy i'm giving much of a chance against roger playing at his best, would be kuerten: power, speed, big serve. but he loses more than he wins imo.

the rest of these guys-seriously, you've seen federer when he's on, right? how anyone who's seen all these guys perform, and not recognize that an in-form federer is just a different animal altogether, is not being honest with themselves.

Spider
10-13-2009, 05:13 AM
I am not a Federer fan but have to say he is surely in the top 10 best players on clay at the moment. You can't take some players who peak for one or two seasons and put them against someone who has been the epitome of consistentcy for the last 5 years or so. One RG semifinal, and 3 straight final appearances. To top that, he won his first RG this year (if this wasn't in his resume, then it is very much open to debate).

In addition to this, he has done quite well in the other clay events as well (consistently and that's the key). If Federer can win one more RG or more than that before he retires, he will surely be the best on clay behind Borg, Nadal and Kuerten (in that order).

TheMusicLover
10-13-2009, 05:26 AM
I agree with your first point, Federer is definitely Top 10 clay of all time.

But wouldn't Nadal fans want to hype Fed up as a clay courter? Because Nadal's biggest achievements are against Fed.

If you are a RATIONAL thinker, yes. Unfortunately you seem to be one of the few rational Nadal fans over here. ;)

fed_rulz
10-13-2009, 05:36 AM
In all fairness to muster someone mashed his knees between two car bumpers the day before his hardcourt final with lendl. He was getting very strong up to that point.

Ive also never seen a guy work that hard after the injury. The guy was an animal and could wear out fed on a slow enough court. Many said he wouldnt walk again, yet came back. Check out some pictures of his wheelchair while training, pretty amazing.

I agree on all that; but I was referring to posters who put muster ahead of Fed in terms of CC greatness, which is ridiculous. Muster could have achieved much more if not for the injury; but he didn't, and sadly cannot be given additional "could've would've" credits. IMO, achievements speak for themselves,and based on that Fed MUST be ranked ahead of muster.

pc1
10-13-2009, 06:32 AM
12 off hand..

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal
Thomas Muster
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Ken Rosewall
Gustavo Kuerten
Sergi Brugera
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Von Cramm
Ille Nastase
Panatta

I agree with most of the list and I would add Rod Laver (an unknown name. lol.), Bill Tilden, Nusslein, Orantes, Vilas, Gimeno, Lacoste. A few of them on the list by EGN have already beaten Federer at the French like Kuerten in 2004 when Kuerten was already washed up and of course Nadal.

I would be most intrigued with a matchup of Nastase against Federer. I can't think of many dream matchups that would be more fun than that.

Johnny Mac in 1984 was better than Federer despite his loss to Lendl at the French. I've heard some people say that Mac's play in the first two sets against Lendl were unequaled. Overall however you can't say that McEnroe's clay record was as good as Federer's. McEnroe did win a number of clay court tournaments however.

I can also see Jimmy Connors as better than Federer on har tru. I'm not so sure about red clay.

christos_liaskos
10-13-2009, 06:58 AM
A British commentator/critic said the same thing about Borg at the time when he won Junior Wimbledon in defeating Bunny Austin. He said he had a good fighting heart but his game wouldnt transfer onto the senior grass court game...shows how much these people know :D. Some of you may know of this, I have it on a 'Wimbledon Greats - Bjorn Borg' DVD

goober
10-13-2009, 08:34 AM
Sorry if this has been posted already, but otherwise enjoy:

http://blog.wimbledon.org/2009/10/12/junior-and-open-wimbledon-champions/#more-589

The title of your thread is very misleading. To be fair the guy did not actually say Fed would never win Wimbledon.

So is Federer a future Wimbledon champion? Probably not unless he learns to vary his tactics. He has been brought up on clay and it showed, his trips to the net being about as frequent as a blue moon.

Actually you could argue he was correct. Fed had to learn to vary his tactics and come to the net. It sounds like he made an educated prediction based on Fed's play as a junior. I bet if you predicted that Nadal when he was age 17 would never win a Wimbledon, nobody would call you crazy.


.

NamRanger
10-13-2009, 09:09 AM
Muster had a broken knee half the time, so if we're talking about that one year Muster absolutely dominated on the clay, I think Muster actually probably wins alot of matches against Federer when it comes to the clay.

Muster is an absolute machine on the clay that never missed. He also threw alot of junk balls and was capable of hitting winners when needed. He's not exactly a guy I would like to play.





People tend to overrate Federer a little bit on clay, and don't realize that he did luck out quite a few times during his FO runs. For example, Davydenko in the FO 07 SF lead in every set and had Federer totally on the run. Nalbandian in the 06 SF tore a hip flexor while beating Federer. Hell, this is a guy in 2002 who was picked to go to at least the SF who lost to that Azari guy.



He's really good on clay, but he is certainly not unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination. This is a guy who lost to Radek Stepanek and Volandri for crying out loud.






Oh, and people WAY underrate Lendl on this forum so much. This isn't like some random nobody on the clay guys. He won the FO, and he nearly beat prime Borg on clay in the final.

jackson vile
10-13-2009, 10:19 AM
It is funny how ****s want to deny the fact that Roger grew up on clay and was a clay court player. LOL

If not for Nadal, Roger would have all of those FOs plus MS titles.

slice bh compliment
10-13-2009, 10:26 AM
Similar....

I remember an interview in the John McEnroe Story (with Bud Collins) in which Sympathy for the Devil was playing...John was sitting on a bed getting ready for a college match and he explained that he'd grown up on clay and that it was his most natural surface.

Then he goes on to have a few worldbeating grass and indoor seasons....and 4 US Open titles.

ubermeyer
10-13-2009, 04:56 PM
that guy obviously thought coming to the net was the only important part of tennis... :shock:

cigrmaster
10-13-2009, 05:14 PM
Agassi and Chang were pretty good on clay.

boredone3456
10-13-2009, 09:58 PM
I could see Fed being argued as top 10 all time on clay now that he has a French title to his credit, along with his other French Finals and clay court titles...but top 5 sorry I don't think so. At the very least Borg, Nadal, Rosewall, Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten rate above Federer on clay. Yes you could say that Fed would have more if not for Nadal, but the fact that 1 top five player so clearly dominates another supposed top 5 player on the surface isn't saying much now is it? Fed is good on clay...arguably top 10 if you put him at number 10....maybe number 9....but no way top 5 at this point sorry.