Federer would have struggled against serve and volleyers of the 90s

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MTF07, Jun 14, 2013.

  1. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    He just double bageled a serve and volleyer on grass today. He just burned balls past him at will. So much for that theory, Sampras fans. LOL
     
  2. qwertre

    qwertre Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    274
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Yes, the mighty giant, Zverev!!!
     
  4. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,869
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Federer has (or possibly had) truly elite passing shots and is one of the greatest shot-makers in history. He'd have done well enough against S & V'ers for my money.

    Respect.
     
  5. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    What about mighty giant Sampras at Wimbledon? Does that not count because Pete was too old (younger than Federer is now)? :)
     
  6. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,177
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    He did fine against Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and gave Tim Henman a tough fight in the Quarter finals winning a 6-2 set and forcing all the others to atleast 7-5. He also beat Philippoussis who serve and volleyed in straights hitting some great returns in the process.

    He has the ability to do well in any era. He would have coped just fine with serve volleyers.
     
  7. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,611
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    For an S&Ver to beat a top player, they need four key weapons... all at an excellent level:

    1. Serve
    2. Approach shots (both forehand and backhand)
    3. Volleys (including overhead)
    4. Movement

    There's nobody I know of who has those components at an excellent level. The last guy I know of who had all of those was either Sampras or Rafter.
     
  8. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,357
    He would definitely have been successful even on grass courts of 90's.
    There is no doubt about it.

    Just not as successful as now.

    Similarly, Nadal would have been definitely less successful on grass of 90's compared to now.

    Grass is much slower and bouncier now, there must be reasons why Federer and Nadal ruled on it last decade or so.

    But he would have been much more successful on clay if there was no Nadal.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
  9. buscemi

    buscemi Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    217
    In 2003, just before he went 5-0 in winning the TMC, Federer lost to Henman, 7-6, 6-1 in Paris. Then, in 2004, Federer would start the year going 23-1, winning the Australian Open, Duabi, and Indian Wells. His one loss was a straight set loss, 7-6, 6-3, to Henman in Rotterdam.

    Now, it is true that Federer would win his 2 remaining matches against Henman in 2004 and then would win his final 4 matches against Henman in 2005-2006. But keep in mind that Henman turned 30 in 2004 and was starting to see a decline in his game.
     
  10. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,226
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    If there was no Nadal, this board would be arguing if Federer with his 8 RG titles was the clay GOAT of if Borg was still in the conversation.
     
  11. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Henman had a career best year in 2004, reaching the RG semis, US Open semis and qualifying for the Tennis Masters Cup.
     
  12. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,070
    Boris Becker, who played in 80's and 90's with distinction has affirmed that Fed would be the only current player who would have still been winning multiple grass majors in any era and he said he didnt think Novak or Nadal would amount to anything in the 90's grass.
     
  13. buscemi

    buscemi Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    217
    As I said, Henman started declining toward the end of 2004 (soon after he turned 30) and into 2005. After the loss to Federer at the 2004 U.S. Open, he would split matches with Kounek and Melzer in Davis Cup play. Then he won 1 match and lost 1 match at Madrid, Basel, and Paris. And then, he went 1-2 at TMC.

    In 2005, his play would really drop as he lost in the third round, second round, second round, and first round at the Majors and finished the year ranked #36.

    Who knows what would have happened if Henman and Federer played numerous matches in both of their primes, but Henman's 2 wins in 2004 are some solid evidence that he would have held his own.
     
  14. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Henman did not beat Federer twice in 2004, he beat him once and was beatdown by Fed twice after that in Indian Wells and the US Open semifinals.

    His other win was in 2003, but during a time when Federer was really struggling with his confidence (I know he would go onto win the TMC, but that Agassi RR proved to be a career turning match. He was struggling prior to that and doubted his chances of doing anything at the TMC).
     
  15. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,224
    Wow, yeah, that qualifier was as skilled as the top players in the 90's who played on fast courts often... yeah.
     
  16. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,224
    They would certainly not enjoy their current levels of success, and it could include the normally fast hardcourts and indoor carpet that was the norm back then too.
     
  17. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    The only thing where Fed struggles is at not being completely awesome.

    Goran said, even when he plays bad, it looks good.
     
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,986
    It doesn't matter because Roger would still beat them. Maybe not handing them a double bagels but still be straight set win. S/v is no match against a baseliner in this generation.
     
  19. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Paul said, that Pete and Roger would not play the same in other eras. But that they would still be great. And he is probably one of the top experts in tennis.
    If Pete and Federer listen to his advice, he has to be.
     
  20. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,986
    Yes, I agree. But I think mightyrick was saying Pete/Rafter play all attacking tennis would beat Roger in today's grass.
     
  21. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    I doubt it. Not because of their games. But there is a reason this style is obsolete.Because of strings, players have great passing shots. With the flick of the wrist also. And ball speed and spin is better, that means harder to control the ball at the net. Athletes are well trained, they can chase volleys much better now and consistently. Also, with slower grass, serve and volleys are not as effective.

    And Sampras wasn't a pure S&V also. He is an all courter with amazing S&V skills.

    But since Fed is so talented and he already has amazing all-court skills, he would be great on fast grass also. He would just adjust and improve his skills to adjust to those players. He wouldn't have advantage of evolution though and accumulated knowledge.

    So it would be amazing to see Pete vs Roger on old grass. I think their matches would be very close. Like Wimbledon 2001. That was a good preview.
     
  22. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,611
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    When did Roger even enter the conversation? I said for an S&Ver to beat a top player. Not "an S&Ver to beat Roger Federer".

    I realize that Roger is a top player, but I excuse him completely from any realistic conversation like this. The guy is a freak and by default is excluded. Should I have said, "For an S&Ver to beat any top player in the world except for Federer..." ?

    I would think it a given that an S&Ver in today's generation would not have success against him.
     
  23. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    On old grass, Federer is a bad match up for Serve and Volley players. He can hold serve and attack with the best of them, but he was also one of the best defensive players out there. Look at how Hewitt fared against serve and volley players. Look at how young Federer did against an older Sampras, Goran and Krajicek. In fact an argument could be made he would struggle more with the finesse S/V players like Edberg, Mcenroe and Rafter, instead of the Becker Sampras, Krajicek, Goran etc. Federer now though would struggle with those power players. I would not fancy his chances if he had to face a power S/V player.
     
  24. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,191
    Fed would have a completely a different style of game in the 90s (Like he played pre-2004)

    You know what that means? A HIGHER RISK style of game equating to less consistency and more upsets.

    The only guy that could get away with a primary baseline game was Agassi. ANd that was because he was the cleanest striker in the history of the game

    The reason Fed became so consistent from 2005-2006 on because the conditions of the game changed. Plain and Simple. thus why you see guys like Nadal and Nole with insane consistency. They would have NEVER been able to sustain that same type of consistency in eras past
     
  25. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,068
    Federer would have been a serve and volleyer in the 90's, and no reason to think he wouldn't have been the best one, so I don't get the point of this thread.
     
  26. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,579
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I think that Federer would have adapted and served and volleyed more on his own of course back then. He would have worked on his volley more as it was tested often. He would be capable of hitting excellent passing shots consistently, but I think his fitness and physique would have to adapt as well to that different style of play. I would say that given that dynamic, there is more adjustment irequired due to the speed of the court, with the faster courts back then. He would adapt his game fine, yet he'd be facing a greater variety of players, from clay courters to serve and volleyers and all courters. Even the U.S. Open courts were faster then. I agree with 90's clay in that it would be more difficult for Federer to dominate consistently. It's hard to tackle very diverse surface speeds. You have to adjust your game more and you face specialists as well.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2013
  27. 70後

    70後 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    633
    It is an anti shotmaker, anti forward attacking game condition as a result benefiting people who never get tired doing the same nice and safe thing over and over again. Once the condition changed unexpectedly, the same two people couldn't handle a change were whining and threatening. Madrid 2012 really showed them up. No surprise the winner was the one real shotmaker left who did have the game to adapt. The 80's and 90's were a lot faster and much more unpredictable; it was about first strike, taking chances. Never getting tired to the exclusion of everything else would be mostly irrelevant in those conditions. The only top player I see right now who might have the kind of game to live also around the top back then is Federer and maybe Tsonga.
     
  28. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,742
    It is commonly agreed that the slowing of courts has hurt Federer the most so you are sort of totally wrong.
     
  29. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,478
    Not on 90's grass. 2000-2010's grass, yes.
     
  30. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    How do you know? If he was raised at that time, his game would be totally different. How do you know that he wouldn't adapt to any conditions?
     
  31. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    Federer has more options than Sampras and even with a higher risk game, would still be far more consistent. What people forget is that Federer was the best at getting big serves back and had defensive skills comparable to Hewitt. Out of the guys in 90s, only Edberg could possibly be a nightmare match up.
     
  32. pds999

    pds999 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,552
    If he really did say that then Becker is a bit of a fool. Rafa and Djokovic would have adapted their games, no question. Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 with an inferior baseline game (and movement) to either Rafa or Djokovic.
     
  33. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,634
    Location:
    Germany, Munich
    2004 was by far Henman's best year, dude.
     
  34. Clay lover

    Clay lover Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,909
    No, according to BP and TW experts, Nadal is the only one who will suffer againts S&Vers.
     
  35. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Agassi is not a better baseliner than Federer and he would tell you the same thing.
     
  36. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,854
    Fed would struggle to keep the ball inside the stadium without the modern strings.
     
  37. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,480
    Blasphemous
     
  38. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,255
    One cannot be prepared for something rarely seen today. The majority of today's players would suffer from being products of the smothering baseliner factory / training preference / competition which gripped the sport at the dawn of the 21st century (some--like Roddick--already trained that way in the previous decade).

    Poor example, as Sampras was far older by the time of that match. Sampras at the height of his career is a far different challenge, thus the "very close" notion is not strong.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2013
  39. underground

    underground Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,885
    Fed was still relatively young and wasn't at his best though.
     
  40. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,742
    He played gut when he beat Sampras fx.
     
  41. mikeespinmusic

    mikeespinmusic Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    He made quarters and semi's for a lot of grand slam tournaments in the early 2000's. He would've done pretty good even if the courts and balls didn't change. Its the unlucky ones like Roddick, Blake and Hewitt - their games got nullified practically overnight.
     
  42. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,742
  43. mikeespinmusic

    mikeespinmusic Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    He also "Polarized" the setup of his racquet around 2004 for more spin also. Im not sure when he went up to the 88 (retail say 90) head size but I'd imagine around the same time. Roddick polarized his babolat in 2006 also for the same reason. Aggassi was definitely the greatest striker in the history and was also one of the first few that used hybrid stringing. Kevlar mains and gut crosses. He knew what he doing :)
     
  44. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL, like federer with just one slam QF before that was at the height of his career then, especially in comparison to defending champion sampras
     
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,986
    But Sampras was much closer to his prime than a 19 years old Federer. Sampras was gunning for his 5th straight Wimbledon while Federer has only one mickey mouse title under his belt. No one gave Roger a shot, and Sampras was the huge favorite to win Wimbledon.
     
  46. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,191
    ROFLMAO.

    Fed isn't even one of the top serve and volleyers of the last 20 years. There have been MANY better.

    So why exactly would Fed be the best serve and volleyer all of a sudden?

    Wow talk about delusional.

    To play attack serve and volley tennis you are also putting your consistency at risk. There is no evidence to think that Fed with a serve and volley game, that he would be even NEARLY as consistent as he was from 2004-2007. Adding to the fact, his net game leaves a lot to be desired, so does his serve
     
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,986
    That's because he's force to master the baseline game due to the changing in the court and condition. Had the condition suits for s/v, he would be an excellent s/v player. He proved that he can s/v when he was young and beat Sampras in his own game.
     
  48. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Seriously, are you stupid? If you play serve and volley (which Fed doesn't) you're going to be a lot better at it than you would if you don't simply by repetition. Federer would obviously be a better volleyer if he came to the net more, and Federer was actually an excellent volleyer when he did come to the net a lot, circa 2001-03. Just as Federer's baseline game got much better when he adopted that style in 04.

    Federer wouldn't need to be a serve and volleyer in the 90's though, save MAYBE Wimbledon. And even there, he could get away with not doing it all the time. Because he is the best offensive baseliner in the history of the game.
     
  49. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,191


    Looking back through those Fed rosy tinted glasses. Its EASIER to dominate from the baseline than it is to be a dominant serve volleyer (Just ask Nole and Nadal). Too think Fed would be just as dominant in a serve-volley era as he was a NOTHING BUT BASELINE era its flat our delusional.

    Not to mention Fed will have to play in the most polarized era in tennis history of the 90s, to think he would be as dominant and consistent back then he was in the 2000's (with LESS opposition around) and faster courts with specialists and some of the best serve-volleyers ever is even more delusional
     
  50. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Um, the 90s had exactly ONE great serve and volleyer (Sampras), who wasn't even a true serve and volleyer for most of his career. No, Edberg and Becker were better 80's players, as much as you want to include them in the "Sampras era". The 90s wasn't even a serve and volley era away from Wimbledon.

    lol the "great 90s" the same era that saw the likes of Carlos Moya and Pat Rafter reach #1 and Michael Chang #2. Yeah, Fed would have had a field day in that era. Probably wins at least one CYGS.
     

Share This Page