Originally Posted by Feather
Djokovic was beaten in straights in Wimbledon 2010 by Berdych.
The point many miss or continue to ignore is how the surfaces also lined up against Roger. He didn't have fast surfaces like what Pete had in his 30s to enhance his attacking skills. Pete made consecutive finals at US open in 30s but Roger had to fight on slow surface and still he was on match points on either times against Novak Djokovic when he lost in 2010 and 2011.
People were complaining when just ONE surface appeared fast, well, am talking about Madrid blue clay. However no one has issues with ALL the surfaces being slowed down. They have slowed down all the surfaces and took away weapons from attacking players. Still Roger is doing good. Sadly that point is lost .
Childish taunting aside, I don't think any one doesn't seriously admire what Fed has been able to do. His longevity and his ability to fight back to get the no 1 ranking are remarkable. I am almost certain the other guys will have a much sharper decline than Fed and I can't see any scenario where Feds records are broken.
That being said , I think the surface argument is both true and false . The lack o faster surfaces may have benefitted djoko/Nadal/Murray the most but it has also benefited Fed. Simply because it has prevented the development of attacking 1st strike players who can cause upsets. And it has put an emphasis on stamina which a lot of young players don't develop until later.
I'm totally in favor of more variety and speeding up the USo etc I'm just not a huge fan of 'some fans' using the age/surface excuse all the time to discredit opponent wins.