Originally Posted by Feather
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..
One thing to note is that while Pete the surfaces of the USO and Wimby suited his game perfectly, it probably prevented him to develop an all surfaces game, which could have helped him to have more success on clay. Pete was specialized for the fast surfaces and there were a lot of fast surfaces on which he could rack slams. But he was too specialized to have serious success on clay.
Fed was a bit less lucky because while his game was as suited for fast surfaces as Pete, he had less fast surfaces to play on. On the other hand, the work he had to do to adapt to these slower, higher bouncing surfaces helped him to develop a clay court game. Federer great merit is that he was able to have as much success as Pete on "relatively fast" surfaces, with a game which was also suitable for clay.