Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Feather, You are right: that's a problem in my argumentation.
Pete had one advantage. He had a fast Wimbledon and fast US Open. The slowing down of surfaces happened after his time. When he was in his late 20s he could serve his way to US Open finals. Federer didn't have that luxury. If US Open was as fast in the 90s, I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in 2010 and 2011. Both time he had double match points each. It was so closely fought despite Roger not in his prime..
I don't think Roger would have lost to Nadal in Wimbledon 2008, had it been the old grass. May be he could have lost to Roddick in Wimbledon 2009, had the grass been fast.
The slowing down of courts have hurt Federer the most and it benefitted his closest rivals Djokovic and Nadal a lot..