Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Sabratha, Aug 14, 2012.
Could he have been ranked above Federer in his prime?
he proved at the 2005 ao that he can beat federer but it was a match that could have gone either way. i think federer still wins a majority of their matches because he has more shots and has the ability to counter a power player. i think if safin was consistent he could have seasons like novak had last year, but even then, novak lost to federer at a slam and was twice just a point away from doing it again at the uso. also, safin isn't as lithe and agile as djokovic so he would be a bit less able to defend. if federer is aggressive and attacking him, he'll be at a disadvantage especially on a fast court.
so to answer the question, yes, i think there would be times when he could be ranked ahead of federer, but i think federer still spends a lot more time ranked above him and winning more of their head-to-head battles.
If you mean by consistent hit the line on every shot, than yes.
No. I doubt even at maximum effort he would be better over a 12 month period in Federer's absolute prime, and that is what it takes to be ranked higher. It took the best or second best match of Safin's life to beat Federer, and even then he was a point from losing in 4 sets. That was on his best slam surface too. Federer is much better on grass and to some degree clay. I dont think even a consistent Safin would totally dominate the rest of the way the way Federer did, and Federer is actually a bad matchup for Safin as well, which is why Safin has such a very poor H2H, it is hard to believe he was "off" all those times, and had to play such an insanely strong match and fight so hard to finally eke out a win over him again. It is nothing like the Nadal vs Federer matchup where Nadal only has to play a slightly above average match to have a good chance to win on any non indoor surface, or only a mediocre match to be almost certain to win on clay. Yet even Nadal who is far more untouchable on clay then even a focused Safin on hard courts, and better combined on grass/hard courts than Safin is on clay/grass couldnt rank over Federer in his prime, and never really came that close. Safin is not a poor matchup for Federer like Nadal is, the reverse is true. Add to all that his prime was basically over with his long injury layoff from mid 2005-mid 2006, which followed another one already that had him miss almost all of 2003.
Safin more consistent could have definitely been the dominant player of 2000-2003, still not dominating to the extent of Federer in 2004-2007 however, before ceding to Federer sometime in 2004 I am guessing. Then again momentum and confidence is a big thing in tennis so who knows.
Safin was very consistently inconsistent btw. Just his brand of tennis. So silly question really. His best point was better than Federer's average, no ****. His best match was better than Federer's best match. But if Safin was consistently average on his own average, he wouldn't even have 1 slam. Being inconsistent made him good. Unless you mean consistently at his best, but then the question is what do you mean with his best? His best point? In that case consistent Donald beats Federer as well. Best match? Best tournament? best year?
I doubt that. Are you saying Federer never played matches better than Safin in the 2000 U.S Open final or 2005 Australian Open semi.
Ugh, sorry.. i meant to say than Federer's average match.
He would've been ranked sometimes above Federer but Federer a bit more above him. Specially because he plays better on his worst surface (clay) than Safin on his worst (grass). But it would've been pretty close.
I don't think Federer has more shots, Safin had everything too. Huge serve, amazing groundstrokes, great volleying skills, good movement. Peak vs Peak they're both at the same level basically if they play let's say on hard courts which suits both well. AO 2005 it's a proof of that. Both playing some astonishing tennis and it could've gone either way.
But well, Safin didn't have the drive and professionalism of Federer and he really suffered with injuries.
If Safin was consistent, he wouldn't be Safin. No question to answer. Kind of like, what if Safin had no temper? Or what if Roger didn't play well on hardcourts? Or what if Nadal sucked on clay?
I'd still say Federer has more shots. Just that slice backhand is a great example. I also don't think Safin was as good at the net as Roger. I always thought he had a tendency to plant his feet and bend from the waist when he was up at net, typical of today's baseliners.
I was talking about consistency in his game.
It wasn't just his consistency Safin's issue. His body let him down a lot too. After 2005 he was done (at least he wasn't a factor anymore at the slams) and he was only 25. Not to mention before that he also had an injury plagued 2003 and he almost leaves the TOP 100.
But if he had been consistent and had stay injury free from some years I would say he could have 3 AO 4 USO and a Roland Garros.
He had the potential to win 2 AO's, a US Open title (which he already has) and a Roland Garros title. Even 2008 Wimbledon would be up for grabs if he wasn't injured and played his peak tennis the whole way through.
No doubt he would have, unfortunately for you the harsh reality is that he wasn't (and as a consequence Fed piled up slams, was ranked #1 etc.), you'll just have to deal with it I'm afraid.
Safin's fh technique was prone to breaking down. his serve also needed to be better for someone his height.
people moan about federer's bh.
Safin's fh was worse, and he didnt have all the variation of federer's bh.
Safin had one game plan...if it didnt work - he lost. He only knew how to play at one speed.
That speed if executed well was deadly, but it also meant that if he wasnt playing his best, he sucked.
Separate names with a comma.