Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Graphiteking, Dec 26, 2012.
......and he can even play touch shots!!!
And is the greatest volleyer of any time!!!
Peak Federer is almost invincible on hard courts unless you're talking really slow **** like Miami where someone like Peak Nole (or even Peak Murray) can take him out.
He can obviously play touch shots. Not sure if anyone has said he's the greatest volleyer of all time though...
The funny thing is, in this thread I wasn't even arguing.. just naming the players who would fare best on every surface, at their peak.
I realize this is a battle of opinions but I cannot see the Nadal losing on clay or Federer losing on hard. Both of them at their peak are far too dominant. Over the hill Federer sent Murray to 5 and Djokovic to 5 2 years in a row on the at the US and Australia. Federer played his best ever Roland Garros last year and still couldn't beat Nadal. Ain't gonna happen.
When you read the whole post, the part that you put in bold is only the logical conclusion. The subject of the topic was, how would Federer do in the 90's.
I doubt if you're aware of it, but the 90's were very much an era of specialists. You had guys that were amazing on clay but couldn't do anything on grass, like Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten. It all had to with the variety in court surfaces that nowadays is just not here.
Then you had the fastcourt specialists who got the major part of their wins at (fast) hardcourt and grass, like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Becker, Krajicek, Stich, Ivanisevic.
Some of those guys could also make a decent run on clay, but none of them ever actually won RG.
Then you had players who were at their best at medium paced surfaces: Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikoff. They were not clay court specialists, but had the ability to do very well there. The 3 guys I mentioned won all won RG.
Agassi made 2 other RG finals to boot. It is an exceptional achievement that he managed the career slam in the 90's, way more than in the last decade. Courier pretty much dominated the early 90’s, he was the nr.1 before Sampras hit his stride. He made one Wimby final. Soon after he couldn’t keep his level up and faded away. Kafelnikoff didn’t do much on grass but was also nr.1 for a while.
Federer woulds struggle to win a Wimbledon, just because there were too many specialists out there who had a game tailor made for this surface. Fed is still more a baseliner than an all courter. Only Agassi managed to win on grass as a baseliner in the 90's, due to his incredible return game from both sides. Federer is a more than decent returner, but just doesn’t have the ability that Agassi had to be that aggressive en and accurate at the same time. The best serve & volleys guys wouldn’t let him get away with his ‘just keep the ball in play’ style of returning. Fed’s net game also isn’t quite on their level.
At RG he could have taken advantage in a year that the great clay courters somehow didn’t show up, at least didn’t deliver. Like Kafelnikoff did one time.
Then it leaves the hardcourts for Fed to win a few more slams. On the fast ones he would only have Sampras and Agassi ahead of him from the mid nineties on, when Becker and Edberg were over the hill or already retired. Agassi and Sampras also had one or two years where they (or their best games) didn’t show up. I guess he could have taken one USO from Rafter.
Om the slow ones, he could have fared pretty well also in the early nineties. I could see him take 2 or 3 AO’s.
So Federer maxing out, I’d say he could have gotten five majors. Indeed, about in the same range as Courier and Kafelnikoff.. maybe they would have won one or two less.
For someone like you that ’s probably like sacrilege. But still, all those lol’s and !!’s, and all your attempts to ‘correct’ other posters are just there to cover up your anger and insecurity. It only shows you’ve still got a long way to go.
To NatF: Rosewall isn't on my list cause I've never seen him play, other than in some old footage. Same goes for Laver, Newcombe and other greats from the 60's and 70's.
Rosewall at his best played at the highest level of any mens player ever.
hawk eye, but the Federer fans value your list as a sacrilege because you omitted Roger...
Even as a Rosewall admirer I would say that Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver and Borg at their best were at least equal.
But I welcome you in the "Rosewall club".
Bobbyone I know, that speaks volumes doesn't it..
Rosewall's serve disqualifies him, it's the most important shot in tennis.
Except I don't need to read the whole post. You started off with a bunch of filler and eventually ended up coming to the conclusion that Federer would be no better than Courier and Kafelnikov. I'll say it again, you essentially compared Federer to two guys who won a combined 6 slams. You'll have to forgive people for having a good laugh at you. I don't care what the era or the decade is, Federer's winning more slams than Courier and Kafelnikov. Probably at least 10, and even that's doing him a disservice.
@ the bold part : LOL, of course, I'm aware of it. specialists who underachieved massively on their best surfaces and obviously were not a threat on the others
federer would win atleast 4 wimbledons and 4 USOs in any era. His peak play on both is miles ahead of agassi and arguably better than pete's.
none of these so called specialists would threaten federer at a slam that much except on the rare occasion
goran was getting ousted by the likes of stoltenberg at wimbledon. edberg in wimbledon 93 form would be crushed by federer ... afterwards he didn't even make it to the semi of any slam. becker's best on grass was in the mid-80s to early 90s, not in the mid-90s where he couldn't even break sampras once in 3 matches at wimbledon
many of these so called specialists were MIA even from there best slams or affected by injuries
federer's prime level is on par with muster/bruguera/courier on clay. He'd take one or two slams from there and take the other weaker ones from moya, kafelnikov , agassi ....
lol @ him not being able to win even one wimbledon in the 90s. His serve, net game , slice, movement are light years ahead of agassi.
his grass court game is better than sampras. federer returns a LOT more aggressively vs SnVers than he does vs baseliners ... whats the matter - forgotten the wimbledon encounter vs your hero where he beat sampras though sampras was playing well and serving brilliantly ? even vs phillippoussis in wimbledon 2003 final ....
LOL @ agassi being ahead of federer on fast medium courts. agassi has 30% chance at max beating federer on a medium fast court
sampras isn't better either. he was getting beaten by korda/rafter and had to save MP vs corretja in some of his best years there. federer OTOH won 5 years in a row at the USO and made a 6th final ....
kafelnikov was no #1 for a while ? LOL ....... are you aware of the circumstances in which he became #1 ? he had 7 losses in a row. It was so embarrassing that the ATP had to revise their rankings ...
what is insecurity is you trying to put federer down because he's surpassed your hero sampras easily in terms of achievements ( he had already proven to be better in terms of peak play waaaaaaaayyyyyyy before ) ....
no, its because he posts agassi is ahead of federer on a fast hard court ...
its because he compares federer to courier and kafelnikov.
if you get the jealousy out of your head that federer is widely acclaimed as the best and greatest of all time , maybe you'd begin to see some sense and have some perspective ....
would put federer, borg, sampras, gonzalez, laver, mac, nadal, djokovic, hoad ahead of rosewall at his best in a set of matches across surfaces ....
yes, this ..... its blatantly obvious from his posts that he dislikes federer because he's surpassed his hero sampras ....
federer has excellent touch shots.
he's a good/very good volleyer, but nowhere close to the greatest.
Show me anyone who seriously said here in this section that federer was/is anywhere near the greatest volleyer of all time ...
should I start saying that laver fan boys claim that laver's serve was the best of all time ? LOL !!
NatF, how strong Rosewall's service was is irrelevant for the question how strong Muscles was. As you should know, Rosewall compensated for his "weak" service by his other shots that were awesome. His overall game enabled him to win 23 or 25 majors and at least 137 tournaments. Thus we see that he must have been extremely strong, especially in his peak when he won 9 consecutive majors...
abmk, You forgot Vince Spadea and Ray Keldie!!
You...used the word "awesome?" Dude...
So you are basically saying that in a decade when grass beasts such as Courier, Washington, and Pioline were making the final at Wimby, Fed would struggle to even get 1 trophy. Is that correct?????? Are you sure that you actually watched tennis during the 90`s???
IMO he would not win 7 titles as in the current era, but neither would Sampras if they had to face each other, probably around 3-5 for both.
How is the serve irrelevent? It would be a liability in today's game. I'm well aware of Rosewall's backhand/volley's etc...9 consecutive majors is an exaggeration. 9 that he competed in yes but that's not 9 consecutive. We wouldn't say Nadal won 2 consecutive Wimbledons because he missed 09 due to injury.
It is not irrelevant. It is the most important shot in tennis actually, especially today.
I recall reading a post by Krosero who noted that Rosewall liked lower bouncing surfaces because it helped his serve. No such luck today.
You first sentence already reveals that you have read the whole post . I’m sorry, the rest you come um with is pretty disappointing. Tennis has changed a lot since the 90’s. Since the early 2000’s almost all the majors have been won by baseliners, even on the surfaces that are supposed to be fast. Just compare it with the decades before.. Only that says a lot. No sense of understanding at all at your side. I’m giving your guy five majors, and I’m being generous here.
All 3 players you name were easily dismissed in the final. Lesser Gods reach slams finals in every decade, these things happens. Courier doesn't fall onto this category BTW.
For example In 1983 we had Lewis, remenber him? Yes, he reached he final, just one match you would say, but he still was far away from from winning a major title.
It's irrelevant in case that Rosewall won more than the other greats even with a "weaker" service. The result counts. Tony Trabert once said that he never feared Rosewall's service. But in fact Muscles leads 50:26 against Tony...
9 consecutive is not an aggeration. You can't win an event if you don't participate. It's still an awesome achievement.
NatF, Rosewall's strongest surface was clay where there is a higher bouncing...
who said I accused you of that?
and Laver serve, while not an all timer, is clearly well above fed volleys...
Yes but if he had participated in every event he could have had his streak snapped. You can't lose at an event if you don't play it It's a nice achievement but it's not winning 9 consecutive slams.
He won more because of his longevity. Saying the serve is irrelevent is pretty laughable. You can't accept Rosewall has a weakness. It is the most important shot in tennis. Players can win matches on their serve alone more so than any other shot.
Edit: Clay may have been Rosewall's best surface but it's also the surface where serve is the least important.
Abmk, I’m not going to say I didn’t read your whole post. That would be pretty lame, wouldn’t it?
Well, Agassi beat Becker in the early nineties who's serve, net game and slice were light years ahead of Agassi. But Agassi was that good at certain things that he could overcome that, as I already explained. Yes Fed would have to return more agressively, but the fact remains he's no Agassi or Connors in that respect. Against Sampras, Becker just happened to run into a better version of himself. Though indoors he still could give Sampras fits. At his peak, BB is a strong contender for the best indoor player ever.
We can all come up with certain opponents where a champion struggles against a player he’s supposed to beat easily. Doesn’t make much sense. We’re talking about peak level here.
So Federer beat Sampras in 2001. So what, the next year he was beaten by another Swiss, George Bastl who wasn’t even top 100. It’s all in the game. And you are more prone to that when your best years are already behind you.
A washed up Kuerten with major hip problems beat Federer at 2004 at RG. He resurrected himself once more after been written off for a few years. Sampras did the same thing in 2002 at the USO by winning the whole thing. In 1982, a 30 year old Connors beat prime McEnroe at Wimbledon and grabbed the USO as well. Luckily, sports is no maths were you can predict the outcome.
Fed can only win 5 slams in the 90s is less likely than Sampras can only win 1 slam in this era.
5 is just the number of US Open titles he'd win.
Clueless NatF, What is better: If you have a great service (f. Stan Smith) but don't win too much or if you have a decent service (Rosewall) and win more than any other player? Try to use your brain instead of your aggression against Rosewall and against me!!!
Where was I agressive? You essentially said the serve wasn't that important of a shot. I found that funny. You're the one calling me clueless and being aggressive. A moderator has already warned us. Do us both a favour and relax.
Your comparison of Stan Smith is irrelevant. Rosewall was able to get away with his mediocre serve because of the conditions and the players he faced, if anything that just speaks ill of his era.
If hawk eye said 5 USO, then I agree. But he said Roger max out at 5 majors total in the 90s.
I was making a joke. There were no consistant threats at the AO or the USO, Federer would clean house at both of those, probably 10 right there.
Sorry for "clueless". But you and the other members of the armada use to attack ALL of my words and opinions even without reason. It's not easy to bear these attacks day after day!!!
Why is Smith irrelevant???
Rosewall beat the strongest servers. He faced many all-time greats. You underrate level of the older times.
I accept the apology despite the excuses attached...
Because how much Stan Smith won doesn't really have a bearing on Rosewall. I think you use the term all-time great too loosely. In today's era Rosewall's serve would be a liability. That much is true.
but not the movement nor the FH of federer ....
once at wimbledon in 5 sets, with becker not close to peak level on grass in 92 QF. the other match where boris did get up to play better, he beat him in4 in their 95 semi with agassi at his peak as well
he doesn't have to be as aggressive as either ......he has a far better serve than both, a much better slice than both... a much better FH than connors and much better net game and movement than agassi ..
he's a better returner than any of sampras, stich, krajicek, goran .... ( a better passer as well )
yes, becker was strong indoors in the 90s, but the only place where he was consistently so . he was past his best on grass
yes, exactly, boris was not at his peak level on grass in the 90s apart from the rare match ....which is why he couldn't break sampras even once in their 3 encounters. far worse players/returners did break sampras at wimbledon ....
sampras was 4-time defending champion in wimbledon in 2001 and played well vs federer ... federer returned his serve really well ... that was more the point I was trying to make ... even vs henman when he lost, it wasn't because he couldn't return his serve, he did return it well and broke him multiple times, only problem was his inconsistency and not able to keep it up mentally after the win over sampras. he also returned very well vs phillippoussis in wimbledon 2003 final ... there are quite a few more examples where he's returned aggressively/well vs Snvers ....
sampras was much much worse the next year vs bastl on the graveyard court. If you can't get the difference , that's your problem
jeez, and yet you say that federer would win as many slams as courier and kafelnikov in the 90s when he's MUCH better than them combined ... there is something called as reasonable speculation. No one knows exactly what would happen, but when one spectulates, one can be reasonable.
Basically you claim that the clay field and the grass field of the 90s were stronger than now. It's an interesting argument which is plausible, but it is plausible as well that, due to the surface specialization, the surfaces field (the clay field more so than the grass field, I will develop later) were in fact weaker.
We can safely assume that tennis players become better when they are challenged by great other players. You don't progress by beating again and again inferior players, we all know that in our own practice.
Most of the best players and most talented players of the 80's and 90's were aggressive players, who were more suited for fast surfaces. The large difference between these fast surfaces and clay prevented them to be a consistent threat on clay, either because their games were too ill suited, or because they choose to focus on faster surfaces (or both, more likely). As a result, the top clay courters were not necessarily the more talented players of the moment: they were the best of the rest. They had to prove themselves either against third or second tier players, or against top players who, despite the maladjustment of their games, were still able to reach QF or SF due to their sheer talent.
This theory is backed up by looking at all the players who were either not suited of clay, or total journeymen who were still able to go far in Roland Garros: Gomez, Svensson, Stich, Becker, Krajicek, Berasatagui, Larsson, Sampras, Rosset, Dewulf, Rafter, Mantilla, Pioline, Hrbaty, Meligeri, Norman, Squillari. Most of these players listed had very limited success at Roland Garros or at the clay Masters 1000, except for one SF run in their career.
RG was very open in the 90's, because none of the players who were talented enough to really dominate were good on clay. It allowed second tier players to take the empty place. I can imagine that players of the caliber of Almagro, or Monaco could have had a lot more success on clay in the 90's. These clay specialist have been hurter a lot by being in competition not only with the other good clay courters, like it was the case in the 90's, but also by the other good tennis players in general, which are in fact more talented and have more potentials.
This reasoning doesn't apply in the same extend to grass because and faster surfaces, probably due to tradition, the best players' games were very well suited for these surfaces. In the absence of Bruguera, Muster, the top players still had to rise their level to win against Edberg, Becker, Stich, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, Martin, etc.
My conclusion is that the clay field may have been a lot more weaker because of the absence of the top players of the 90's. The absence of specialist today doesn't mean that the clay field is weak. It means that it is not different enough from the other surfaces to "penalize" the best overall players to meet success on it.
Side note regarding Fed's success at Wimbeldon:
You noted that Agassi was the only base liner to met success at Wimbledon. You claimed that Fed don't have his or Connor's return. He don't have their serve either. Federer would be great at holding serve, the balance between his baseline skills and net skills would probably good enough. Beside, you forgot how good Federer is at giving himself chances. He always comes with a level good enough to have a shot at the titles. He doesn't beat himself like one notable grass courter used to do.
Of course it's not a 'prediction' when I say Fed would max out at 5 majors in the 90's. We all know Federer vs Becker, Edberg and so on will never happen except possibly on the senior tour.
The whole point of that topic was, how would Fed do in the 90's.
My take on this is he' d max out at 5 slams, probably without a Wimbledon. Of course I didn't expect any Federer fanboy to find that reasonable. Still, when you take circumstances into account like the difference in surfaces and the nowadays non-existing serve & volley game, it does actually make sense.
Lendl, the best baseliner and most succesfull tennis player of the 80's, couldn't win one Wimbledon in his era. He worked like no other on his net game, managed to make 2 finals, but he still had not enough game on the grass of those days against the likes of Becker and Cash. On the slow grass of the last decade it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have won a few. He wouldn't have to volley that much, let alone serve & volley. Pat Cash on the other hand would probably struggle to make it into the quarters. The sport has changed dramatically since the early 2000's: Federer, and also Nadal, are the ones that have benefitted most up until now.
I agree with you that the fast court specialists on average did significantly better on clay than vice versa. That doesn't imply that clay court specialists were in general 'less talented players'. A player like Bruguera had plenty of touch and feel. More important, grinding and consistency by generating heavy topspin is a quality, too. Yes it can be developed, but you have to have the fysical (and mental) predisposition for that gamestyle. It just didn't translate well to grass or fast hardcourt.
Spanish and South American players all grow up on red clay, and as a consequence there is tradition of producing players with a style that suits that surface.
From the US and Australia, almost all the great players had/have an merely attacking style of play. Growing up on faster surfaces, many serve & volley players emerged, and those who weren't hit relatively flat from the baseline, and pretty agressive most of the time (Connors, Agassi, Courier, Blake)
Of course there are always exceptions. But I've never seen a male player from Australia who relied on heavy topspin groundstrokes. Even Hewitt, who can easily be labeled as a defensive baseliner, was mainly a flat hitter and definitely not a great dirt baller.
So for me, the origin of players is a way more deciding factor than their talent, regarding the surface they prefer and the style of play they adopt.
Regarding your sidenote: I doubt if Federer could have won a Wimbledon title on the old grass, knowing Ivan Lendl didn't manage to win one. I won't totally exclude it, but is wasn't very likely to happen. His competition in the 90's would certainly have been as tough as Lendl's in the 80's.
I said speculation, not prediction ...whatever ....
federer was a lot more talented and a MUCH more natural grass courter than lendl ....
federer doesn't have any problem with uneven bounces/footing on grass ... lendl wasn't that much of a natural with either .... ever noticed the difference in their backswings ( both fh and bh ) ?
and of course federer is a clearly better mover than lendl as well ....
@ the bold part : newsflash : anyone sane and anywhere near objective would find that an utterly dumb prediction ....
and comparing the grass court calibre of federer and lendl and equating them is being just as clueless
as hard as lendl worked on his net game, federer when playing well is just the clearly more natural and better net player ... just ask murray how he found it handling a 30+ year federer at the net in the wimbledon final ...
federer is the greatest grass court player of all time. You need to deal with that fact. he's surpassed your boy sampras .....
if you think its 'reasonable' to speculate that federer would win zero wimbledons in the 90s, then the same should be applicable for sampras in the 00s ......so you think sampras would end up with 0 wimbledons in the 2000s ? :lol:
fact is these 2 are amongst the greatest grass courters of all time and would easily win multiple wimbledons on any kind of grass ......
what a load of cr*p. So because edberg was from sweden just as borg/wilander were, he had a similar style of play/surface preferences, did he ? LOL !
You aren't such a clever reader, are you?
Nothing is ever 100 % black or white, as it seems to be in your own little delusional world. I guess you're also not familiar with the word 'exceptions'.
Even from Spain and South america there were, an still are, pro players with an attacking style. We're talking about a small minority here.
You must be someone that believes all the players in the NBA are over 2.00 m. And all black, of course.
Boris Becker largely grew up on clay but would fysically never be a baseline grinder. He had a big serve and other assets that work on fast courts. Same goes for Richard Krajicek. Edberg was such a natural serve & volleyer that only a blind coach would try to make a baseline grinder out of him.
A last attempt to relieve at least some of your ingnorance, a quote from a recent Boris Becker interview:
As I said before, you've still a long way to go. But at least try to let go all that anger and rigidity, it will get you nowhere.
There is old and new grass.It is altogether so polar opposite that there is no such thing as universal grass GOAT if we consider both kinds of grass.
We´ll never know how many titles Sampras could win on current grass or how many Federer on old grass.Both would have much less success, sure.I bet, Borg on modern grass would be unbeatable, Laver would do extremely well.
kiki, I agree regarding Borg and Laver.
Oh¡¡¡ in Rosewall´s era there were no big servers? Gonzales,Newk,Ashe,Smith to name the most relevant.He just happened to have one of the all time best ROS...
and he also played two of the most talented, if not THE MOST talented guys in Laver and Hoad, not mentioning all time legends such as Segura,Kramer,Trabert and, as he approached his 40 th anniversary, guys you just may heard of such as Connors,Vilas,Orantes,Nastase,Kodes or Gerulaitis.
Yes, that was a weak opposition...certianly, he was so lucky not to face a Hewitt,Nalbandian,Roddick,Davidoff and greek God named Baghdatis or that milk and coffee guy named Blake ( or the poor Gonzalez, that from chile...)
Separate names with a comma.