View Single Post
Old 11-17-2012, 03:06 PM   #4
dimeaxe
Semi-Pro
 
dimeaxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick3391 View Post
After researching this a bit I am shocked there isn't more talk about it.

Fed plays best on faster surfaces. However, in order to get longer rallies that supposedly please the crowd, they have slowed down hard courts, grass courts, then of course we have clay.

To draw an analogy from Boxing, if they changed the ring size from 20X20 to 10X10, you'd never had heard of Ali.

Likewish, if Fed played on the faster surfaces, does anyone doubt he'd have a handful more GS's? Nadal is near unbeatable on clay, but for a reason. It's like putting Foreman in a 10X10 ring, he'd be unbeatable under those circumstances. I don't see how anyone can deny this.

Fed started as a Serve & Vollyer, finishing points off quick. Then as the courts slowed and slowed he adapted to all court, now he is almost totally a baseliner. I agree there should be diverse courts, but to SLOW THEM ALL DOWN? That just is not right.

Would Nadal have beat Fed at Wimbledon on fast grass? This is a big deal, and it needs to re-evaluate GOAT, and also the big three baseliners abilities.

Borg was a great baseliner, but he did it on faster surfaces, if courts were slower like today you could say he'd probably win more GS's.

Has Fed declined, or is it that the courts have progressively gotten slower, is it a cooincidence that as courts became slower and slower Feds loses increased?
Such a dumb statement, we saw Fed on fast grass in Halle, against fresh newcomer Haas.
dimeaxe is offline   Reply With Quote