What player would give Federer the most problems winning since 1984?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by pc1, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,370

    Old man,
    You simply did not appreciate Roger's unique bh flick, but instead make it sound as it's nothing special. Old school like you are only blind by living in the past and can't see what's the present has to offer.


    Sampras was being honest, and does NOT have every single shots that Roger had. You know very little about Roger. To prove my point, here's what Pete said about Federer's unique bh flick:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article2925245.ece
     
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    mandy,

    agree about coming in more in the early rounds of the slams part ....

    disagree with the final set resistance part , I'd expect more from a 15-time slam champion in the final set ! Having said that, delpotro played exceptional in that set and made it very very hard for fed
     
  3. Wilander Fan

    Wilander Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,559
    Thats my point. The game changed in the Sampras era because of the rackets.
     
  4. Wilander Fan

    Wilander Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,559
    I dont know if this was your intent but I thought your response was condescending.

    Not only have I watched Wilander play, I actually met Wilander at a seniors event in Connecticut where I was sent by my company to discuss sponsorship. He was fresh off retirement and sitting next to me. This was about 20 years ago and he was talking to the tournament director who was trying to talk him into playing in the future.

    Its pointless to go on the internet and talk about my tennis but Ive played alot and at a fairly high amateur level. I dont see why you would even bring this up since I was talking about the pro game. The point about the running forehand comes from having watched many many pro matches since the early 80s. Nobody was hitting that cross court running forehand on the stretch until Sampras came up. I am not talking about simply hitting a running cross court. I mean sending back a screaming winner cross court by flicking the wrist up and no racket prep.
     
  5. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Do you really think you can make analyses on the kinesthetics of a passing shot based on grainy youtube footage?

    If that's the case, you seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding your ability to breakdown mechanics that go far beyond anything that some "fedfanboy" has posted in this thread.

    The fact of the matter is that Federer's backhand and Lendl's backhand are very different, regardless of what you want to say about them appearing similar. They use different grips, Lendl's has a different swing trajectory and follow through, and I'm sure if you hooked them both up to motion sensors and electrical receptors, you would see that the kinesiology behind them is different.

    That's not saying anything groundbreaking; that's stating the obvious. Different people have different shots. To make the statement that there is no discernible difference there is a flimsy, weak argument if I've ever seen one. I have no issue with stating that Federer's backhand sets up for more 'flick' shots than Lendl's or Sampras's. And I'm not going to pretend that I have the understanding and insight capable of definitively arguing otherwise (like a certain someone in this thread is claiming).
     
  6. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    ]

    My god. We're going farther and farther into non sequitur idiocy. Sigh. Racquet meets ball, produces shot, if same shot, racquet did SAME thing. It is the SAME shot. Was it produced with different mechanics? Usually not markedly different beyond variations in grip etc. The basic mechanics are unchanged in their fundamentals, BUT this is not the issue. The issue is whether he had THAT shot. For example, did Becker have Sampras' slice serve? YES, he did. Did he use a different grip? YEP. Did he use a different stance? YEP. I

    f you want to argue that Federer STYLISTICALLY APPEARS to flick his wrist more, sure. Never disagreed. Not once. Though, again, as I posted over and over, you'd be suprised how little they vary in mechanics. That "flick" (and not one of the fanboys has yet to define this, because they don't understand it, which is smart, because it's largely a VISUAL impression) is not a "new" technique, any more than some forehands can appear wristier than others. However, if they produce the same shot (which WAS my original premise, go back and read it fanboys...and kiddies, NOT who did it the most, or WHO made it popular among new tennis fans), you will see that I am correct.

    I won't reply, unless a THOUGHTFUL, DIRECT answer is produced. PLEASE READ ALL I have written here, then QUOTE directly what you wish to refer to. This OT blather is ridiculous.
     
  7. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Incorrect. The shot was hit before Sampras. You are simply factually incorrect.
     
  8. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Uh huh...

    Cute.

    You really overestimate your own intelligence. You think in linear arguments of "racquet meets ball, ball goes through air, ball bounces" = same shot because your ability to comprehend the physics of the game are about as simple as a third grader.

    Meanwhile, you turn around and claim me of the one that produces "non sequitur idiocy." For someone who doesn't even comprehend the basic premises of which I speak, you sure like to pretend like you're someone smart. Instead of a logical, well thought out argument, I get this pseudointellectual BS that makes me wish punches carried through computer monitors.

    If your goal was to demonstrate that your intelligence is on par with most mosquitoes, good job. You succeeded brilliant.

    Now, if you have even a basic understanding of physiology and kinesiology, you wouldn't be arguing this point with me, because you would have already realized that it's a pointless argument. Is it possible for Federer to produce a serve like Karlovic's? Sure. He can, if he strikes it perfectly, generate a serve that has the same angles or speed or spin as Karlovic's. But the difference between them is that Karlovic has kinesiological advantages (not the least of which stem from his height advantage) that makes it routine whereas it would take a once-in-a-lifetime freak shot for Federer to generate the same angle.

    So your argument is that others are capable of flicking the same kind of angles from the baseline as Federer? Sure they could. If they get 10 balls in practice and are asked to do it, they could probably crank out a number of them. Can they do it, consistently, in a game setting with split-second reaction time? Not as likely. Why? Because their grips and mechanics may differ enough that they don't have the ability to do it. Maybe their backswing isn't compact enough, maybe their conventional hitting plane isn't aligned that way to do it on the fly. Whatever the case may be, certain players execute certain shots with greater regularity and precision despite most every player capable of hitting the shot.

    So basically, you concede that there is a stylistic difference in the shots. You concede that there is a kinesiological difference in the shots, but you won't concede that there is a difference in the shots?

    Now, if your argument is that Sampras, Federer, et cetera didn't "invent" the shot, you're being pedantic and obtuse. I doubt even Wilander Fan will argue that Sampras or Federer, through a stroke of divine providence, pulled out a jump smash or backhand flick out of his ass and executed a shot that no one has ever seen or attempted before. There are very few "new" strokes in tennis. Someone, somewhere, in some sandlot court, has probably executed every shot in the book. If Sampras or Federer popularized a shot that becomes their trademark (e.g. like Nadal's looping forehand) such that people seek to emulate it, the point is clear.

    Now, given that such an argument is not worth the time and effort to argue or refute, I'm going to assume you're trying to make something more substantial. If that's the case, I'm not seeing it, because every one of your dozen or so posts in this thread have been offensively condescending, pointlessly pseudointellectual, and mindlessly innocuous.

    I don't have to "QUOTE directly" what I wish to refer to. I'm pointing out your obvious fallacies in your argument, not the least of which is basic ad hominem argumentation.

    So, guess what, kid? If you want to make an argument, make a proper one. If you want to bullsh-t your way to an illogical one, I will call you out on it. So if you don't want to get embarrassed, stop testing your luck by throwing insults my way. I give more than I take.

    PS: I also note that you conveniently ignored TMF's Sampras quote where Sampras himself admits that he has never seen that "flick" before. Do I need to add "cowardly dismissive" to your long list of faults that are materializing in this thread?
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  9. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Correct. You only need to that if you wished to have intelligent rational discourse. If you want to continue non sequitur rants and misrepresent arguments you needn't (eg, Now, AMAZINGLY, you're saying I didn't address what TMF accused me not knowing, when even he shut up about it because I pointed out that I HAD addressed it in my original post...lol...how can this get any worse? You kids NEED TO READ what you're replying to).

    Anyways, you have chosen the latter. Well done. Incidently, if you'd been on the board, you'd know, I now have a masters degree in kinesiology, specifically in biomechanics. I love your accusation though, that's a first for me! Again, quote directly with due care and rigor. Otherwise
     
  10. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,467

    Just a few minor comments. Obviously Federer has a superb running forehand as did Sampras. Sampras came up in the late 1980's and there have been a ton of great players who had super running forehand that weren't defensive. Even back in the 1930's, Fred Perry who had an ox-like wrist could hit cross court forehand winners on the stretch. Laver, Hoad and if I recall Guillermo Vilas could do it also. All these guys had really powerful wrists and could flick shots back at tremendous speeds crosscourt, forehands and backhands. Laver was often put down by some because he was in a way playing Ping Pong tennis because of his wrist flicking.

    Now perhaps I didn't get the tone of the entire discussion but if it's just about crosscourt running forehands on the stretch, I would think it started way before Sampras.

    It's amusing to me the Sampras/Federer relationship. If I had to guess I would think that Sampras felt he had to say Federer was the GOAT but I'm not sure if he believes it. I've also read some comments by Sampras which indicates he feels he would do more than very well against Federer. Obviously players of that great level have big egos and deservingly so. Sampras was put on the spot and I think he felt he had to say Federer was the GOAT. Now Federer may be the GOAT but I'm not sure if Sampras really believes that just from some recent comments.

    Of course Federer has shots that Sampras doesn't have. Federer is a unique player but Sampras also has shots that Federer doesn't have because Sampras is also a unique player.

    Check this link to another thread on Tennis Warehouse. It talks about an interview on the old Tennisweek website. The website no longer exists. However if I read this correctly, Sampras doesn't believe Federer is better than him and is using Nadal as an excuse.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=282618
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,370
    My issue with you is you have a problem accepting Federer's unique ability to hit the bh passing shot with a flick of the wrist. And since you don't appreciated it, there's no need for you to downtalk his ability. You claimed Pete is generous as implying that he wasn't impressive at all, and he has all the passing shot that Roger have. You are dead wrong b/c Pete said he doesn't have it! Are you telling me Pete is delusional???
     
  12. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    Grinders like Nadal and Wilander.
     
  13. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,370
    It's not unusual for a player believing he's better than the other. Two years ago, Paul Pierce believe he’s a better player than Kobe, but that doesn’t stop fan from believing Kobe is better, or will go down with a better legacy. Also, players/experts/fans’s opinion can change over time. Many people have said Roger’s the greatest today, but in the past they didn’t think so. Not to say everything Pete said in the past and has change today, but possible for some. Since Roger is still active and still winning, time is on his side, and any recent quotes outweigh the past since they are outdated.

    I agree with Pete and Roger has shots that neither one has.
     
  14. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,579
    Fed returns well against big servers THAT DO NOT S&V (Roddick, Ivo, etc) because he can block the return back. If he just blocked the return back against Sampras he might as well give the match away. The only time Agassi beat Sampras was when they were playing on a slower court and Agassi could attack Sampras's serve aggressively. Even a marginal volleyer like Stepanek has given Fed problems in the past. There is NO ONE in the present tour that can volley like Sampras did in his prime. However, H2H I would put Sampras and Fed at 50/50. Fed winning on the slower courts and Sampras winning on the faster courts. And if Sampras's serve is really on fire, he could beat Fed on any court because his forehand was so good, too. Sampras would never allow the match to become a baseline rallyfest. He would force Fed to pass at every opportunity. In a 5 set match that can get mentally impossible. If anyone could do it, it would be Fed, but I still give the edge to Sampras. Of course, this is being said on the premise that the courts would be 90's speed and not 00's speed.
     
  15. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,467
    That's why a match up of Sampras and Federer would be so fascinating. It would take Federer out of his usual block the big serve back mode and force him to drive the ball back off the serve on his backhand which is out of his comfort zone.
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    uhh, and he's not going to do that , fed's fairly capable of getting the returns to dip and with great placement consistently ....something he did/does when he faces SnVers

    correct, but this fed who is a MUCH better mover and can get to many more shots than agassi ever could

    umm, fed smoked stepanek at the USO ,last time I remember

    Let's remember the only match they played was the 2001 wimbledon one, where pete served as well as he ever did ( played well ) and still lost !

    force fed to pass at every oppurtunity ????? wouldn't sampras get a little tired handling those passing shots of fed ???? don't ya think ?

    What'd cause sampras trouble would be the relentless returns at his feet and the passing shots which would need very good court coverage ( ala hewitt ) rather than mere offensive returning and not being backed up very good court coverage ( ala agassi )

    I'd give sampras slight edge on carpet, say 50-50 on grass and edge to fed on decoturf II
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  17. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    Obviously if Fed was playing in an era of S+Vers, he would adjust his return accordingly. A 19 yr old Fed returned brilliantly against a 29 yr old Sampras who was serving extraordinarily well (even for him). He also handled an S+Ver in Philippoussis at Wimby in straights.

    My point is, you can't assume that Sampras would necessarily give Fed trouble just by looking at how Fed returns today. Fed's return today is a product of the players he faces. If he faced more S+Vers, his return would certainly be different than today.
     
  18. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,467
    Good point.
     
  19. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    This is an interesting argument, and not necessarily false. However, it tends to ignore that Federer, especially at certain parts of his career, has been much more aggressive on the return. He is certainly capable of ripping the ball back. For example, he hit a number of clean return winners against Sampras himself on Sampras's favorite surface. I think Sampras will have to adjust as much to Federer's passing shots from both wings as Federer has to adjust to Sampras's Serve and Volley style.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  20. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Convenient that you miraculously materialize with "masters degrees" in subjects where you were just demonstrating your ignorance a few posts ago. Good showing. I guess that's why you have to love the internet, as anyone can be an authority on just about anything, right?

    I point out that you are an idiot because you demonstrate that you are an idiot. If you want to argue that I'm pointing out non sequiturs, you better be able to point out where it is a non sequitur. Instead, you can't, and are forced to make all sorts of grandiose claims of your education as well as attack things from a needlessly pseudointellectual bent. Congratulations on a job well done.

    As I said, if you want to make a decent argument, make one. If you want to make a fallacy-laden, stupid argument, don't cry foul when I take it apart and embarrass you with it. Got it, yet? I know you can be a little dense, so don't hesitate to ask for flash cards if you need them...

    As for my post, I like how you, once again, ignored the relevant points in order to post your irrelevant misdirection. For someone who's so quick to cry "non sequitur," you sure can't keep your own argument in line.

    So which is it?

    Are you arguing that there is no difference in the shots despite conceding there are stylistic differences and there are very likely biomechanical and kinesiological differences? If so, this argument is beyond stupid, and if you really do have a master's degree in kinesiology, you would know this.

    If not, what are you arguing? As far as you have presented and as I can tell, you are arguing nothing. You claim that Federer and Sampras did not "invent" the shots respectively, with not the least bit of consideration for what Wilander Fan actually meant with the statement. Congratulations! You spent several pages worth of bashing on anyone who challenges your argument arguing something trivial and otherwise not the essence of their point. Good job on building a bunch of straw men. I'm sure they need them in the cornfields of the mid-west.

    And of course, when real evidence comes up to the contrary, you once again ignore the most damning piece against your argument:

    So, if your goal is to actually create decent discourse, you are doing a very poor job. You can't even concede blatant points against you, and your 'defense' against them is to disappear altogether and act like they never come up. Sorry, turtling and stonewalling doesn't win arguments.

    Since you have established that you clearly don't even want to attempt to debate honestly, you have basically shown that you are little better than a troll. You attempt to bully people with your pseudointellectualism while talking about subjects of which you clearly demonstrate minimal understanding. At the same time, you conveniently ignore arguments to the contrary or people who poke glaring fallacies in your argument, and then try to play the victim when they don't yield to the flexing of your faux-intelligence.

    So yes, as I said, congratulations on proving that your intelligence is on par with most mosquitoes. I'm sure that's where you want to be.

    tl;dr (just for you, because I know now that you have no real desire to debate honestly): you haven't debated anything, you apparently can't debate anything without hypocritically playing the victim, and you apparently have no intention of debating anything because you ignore every valid point that comes your way. Now do you have anything legitimately worthwhile to add?
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  21. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Indeed PC1. Lendl's forehand always springs to mind, while he preferred down the line and often got outright winners, he also could pound that running forehand crosscourt just like Sampras. Usually the crosscourt forehand (for Sampras or Lendl) is not a outright winner,(down the line, produces more, it's more direct(shorter distance), and unless the guy anticipates it, he has trouble cutting it off, as he must stay towards the middle)) The other guy often gets a racquet on it, but it often turns complete defense into offense. If memory serves, youtube has Agassi/Lendl 89 USO, which feature a lot of Lendl running forehands, down the line and crosscourt, especially in the 2nd set, where Agassi found in his backhand down the line largely neutralized.

    It's almost impossible to say isn't it? There is no way Sampras can be anything but complimentary to Federer. The same fanboys who pass of unclassy remarks from Federer as "honest!!", would be IRATE if Sampras said anything remotely similar. (BITTER OLD FOOL!!!) Ironically, many already portray Pete as this, though he hasn't behaved that way at all!

    As I said, Laver was a master of this self-deprecating...and, even greats get caught up in current-hype sometimes. Sometimes they change their mind, eg. Mcenroe. On a side note, remember the painful post-final W moment where Mcenroe tried to make Borg, Laver, and Sampras say Federer was the greatest, in FRONT of the others! UGH! LOL! Maybe Sampras should have turned to Laver and said "I don't know...what do you think Rod? This beats the hell out of your two slams doesn't it??"

    In any case, the "flick" thing, could be the most inane discussion I've ever had here and that's saying something! As I said, nobody has even defined "flick"...it is based largely on something a few people have said in generally DESCRIBING some of Fed's passing shots! Of course, you've heard this for years....back in the 90's..."wow....players before couldn't produce topspin lob/pass/winner etc. just with a little FLICK of the wrist!!!" Of course, almost never are ANY of these shot literally produced with a flick of the wrist. Generally, the mechanics are very similar, with some style differences, and some players looking more wristy. Certainly with Federer's lanky build, and whippy racquet follow through, he tends to look more "wristy". Generally, in slow motion, or if you are an advanced player, you know that the technique is just a stretched out, abreviated regular stroke, the main area the wrist come into play, is occasionally to simply help improvise the racquet head angle. Federer, due to his speed, and feel for the racquet does these shots as well as any, BUT almost every great, did similar shots in emergencies. Certainly, Sampras, Laver etc. produced nearly identical shots (albeit sometimes with a different look, due to grip variations and individual style)...Fed is NOT using a NEW technique to produce those shots, Sampras DID NOT invent the running forehand. THAT is the only thing I said before the fanboys jumped in! They dont' know mechanics, they don't know history, they're new to tennis, and on top of that, they dont' even read what they're replying to! It's like arguing with a screaming hysterical women! That's what I get for jumping in the mud! :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  22. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    So why would he bother to say that "he's never seen" that before? You can be complimentary and say that Federer "has some of the best ____" that he's seen, but Sampras was being very clear. He did not see this before.

    Of course, this goes against your argument, so you conveniently duck it. Cute. Regardless of how "fanboys" feel about Federer or Sampras's comments, it does not mean that this particular comment is in one way true or false. So, cut the ad hominem and learn to debate. This is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for you, fanboy.

    I probably forgot more about tennis than you know.

    I find it funny that everyone that disagrees with you must be a "fanboy" who doesn't know mechanics, history, or read. As I already demonstrated, it seems to be you who doesn't know the latter and doesn't read very well, especially since you seem to leak more points than a sieve.

    Sorry, I've read your posts. They just suck. As I said, if your argument is that they (Federer and Sampras) didn't actually pull the shots out of their asses and were the first persons -- ever -- to actually execute the shot, it's such a pointlessly inane and basal argument that you don't even need to mention it. As I said, there's probably been someone playing sandlot tennis that has come up just about every shot in the book. Behind the back? Through the legs? Off the frame? I'm sure it's been done.

    Doesn't prove a point, other than that you can be incredibly pedantic.

    You already admitted the latter. Federer's mechanics are different and thus he can do it 'better' than most players. That's the entire point of Wilander Fan's post. It's no different than saying Nadal's forehand mechanics are different so he can generate more topspin than most. Calling it "Nadal's forehand" does not mean that Nadal invented the mechanics or that no one else can generate topspin. Don't be daft.

    As I asked, are you going anywhere with your argumentation, or are you continuing to debate dishonestly, throwing snide pseudointellectual garbage on the way? You clearly understood Wilander Fan's point (at least, I hope you did, because it would be really sad if you didn't), but you choose to come out here trying to act like you're smarter than anyone else. Unfortunately, as I said, I will call you out on such inane behavior. You obviously have to resort to third grade behavior to worm your way out of it. Congratulations.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  23. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,287
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    all three of them in a combo... i did it once... it was a outright winner!

    :)

    ps: this thread need more smiles...
     
  24. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    You, sir, according to someone like Datacipher, must be the greatest player in the world.

    And don't worry about smiles. I'm laughing at Datacipher's hilariously bad attempts to weasel out of replying to my superior points. If he wasn't so scared to actually reply to me, it would be a lot more entertaining for everyone else. I promise you that. ;)
     
  25. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,287
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    nah.. it was a one time fluke... :)

    ps: i'm just joking Chance.. just fooling... dont take me too seriously!
     
  26. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Don't worry. I don't take much seriously.

    But I can't resist having some fun at a pseudointellectual's expense, especially when he just baits me with such tempting BS.

    I've hit some pretty ridiculous mishits too. Maybe I invented a few shots. :)
     
  27. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,467
    Just to put it in perspective, as bad a player as I am, I can occasionally flick the ball back with the light rackets of today. I couldn't do that with the heavier rackets of years ago. Laver, with his powerful wrists was able to do with wood as did Vilas, Hoad and a few others.
     
  28. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Good. Glad we agree. If you go back and read the OP's you'll see I was directly responding to a post that said just the opposite, and in fact, several young posters have subsequently proposed just that.
     
  29. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Well I think you'd be suprised PC, on some of the absolute limit stretches you may well not, but after you spent some time adjusting the heavier racquets, I bet you'd find you could make many of the same shots. Sometimes though, you'd be using the weight of the racquet more, and a little less speed (Sampras vs Federer), so your shot may not look as "flicky" (oh god, is that a biomechanical term here now....sigh), but you can produce very similar shots :)

    PS. and of course, the strength aspect is much less of a factor for those pros, having had several hours a day for quite some years to build up strength in those forearms ;-)
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  30. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    This seems about right, tho' one could play w/the order a bit...I think Mac would be more of a headache for Fed than Sampras actually....Mac just very unpredictable with the shot making, and he would be S&V'ing continuously. Fed would not be used to that constant pressure. Connors, I think, pairs up much like Nadal to Fed, but with a flatter ball...would come down to persistence and the "head games"...I might slot Wilander in the #5 spot...he was awfully good on all surfaces and somewhat under-rated. Personally, I'd love to match up "prime" Borg against Fed...1 match each on clay, grass, hard court...best of 3 scenario.
     
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Its possible that mac could be more of a headache for fed than sampras would be, but mainly because of his lefty serve .......

    as far as connors is concerned, he'd get hammered by in-form fed more often than not IMO ; he doesn't match up well with him ; fed would be slicing a hell lot to his FH with success ( one of the less stated reasons as to why nadal is dominant over fed in their matchup is he handles fed's slice darn well ) and connors BH CC would of course go to the fed FH. fed would've absolutely no problems handling his serve ......
     
  32. Danstevens

    Danstevens Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    538
    Location:
    Nottingham, England
    It's really quite hard to say who'd give Federer a hard time but there are some factors I think would help.

    Hitting lots of topspin
    Nadal is the prime example of this (especially on clay). Perhaps the likes of Berasategui and Brugera would be dangerous opponents for Federer on clay? I just can't imagine them really testing Federer on any other surface though.

    Having a strong serve
    Not necessarily a really fast serve but a serve that gets a lot of free points could prove crucial against Federer because he's difficult to beat once you get in to rallies. McEnroe's left-handed serve from the ad side to Federer's backhand could be a difficult shot for Federer being as he'd have to try to attack it, knowing that Mac would be at the net to put the reply away. Becker could possibly be a danger for Federer on carpet and Sampras' serve would help him on grass.

    Serve-volleying
    Often, coming to the net against Federer is only a good idea if you want to walk back the the baseline having lost the point. I still maintain that serve-volleying could be an effective tactic against Federer because true serve and volley play is seen so rarely today. I would question whether Federer would know what to do against serve-volleyers. I'm not saying that he couldn't figure it out but at least to start with, I could see serve-volleying challenging him. Against serve-volleyers, Federer couldn't just block the return back, he'd have to attack it more and this could lead to him making errors. The two weaknesses the serve and volleyers would have are A.)Federer's service games - most are probably not good enough off the ground to break Federer's serve. I can imagine the point being over before they had chance to get in to the net. B.)Clay - despite common misconceptions, Federer is still a pretty handy clay courter and most serve-volleyers are not.

    To conclude, I feel that the following players, if not able to beat Federer could give it a good go at least:
    • McEnroe (1984, on grass, carpet, maybe hard courts)
    • Sampras (grass, maybe carpet)
    • Becker (carpet)
    • Berasategui (clay)
    • Brugera (clay)
    • Connors

    There's probably quite a few others that could but haven't sprung to mind at the moment. Most will tend to be clay-courters on clay as it's Federer's weakest surface.
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,467
    Interesting theories. It seems to me that John McEnroe seems to have a lot of votes as being the perfect player to pit against Federer. Of course a lot of people think of McEnroe in 1984 as the perfect player in general.
     
  34. Markov

    Markov Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    462
    This thread is getting serious..
     

Share This Page