Originally Posted by ultradr
Federer was never truely successful on real fast surfaces until they slowed down from 2001-2003.
Federer, after a few years after debut, was expected to win slam soon but
often overpowered by booming serve and volleyers and his serve wasn't as overpowering.
His neutral game wasn't offensive enough for highly specialized game on fast surfaces of 90's.
In 90's, his best bet is either French Open or Australian Open, just like Nadal
or other top players in this power baseline era.
till end of 2002 ,
federer on carpet = 34/50 = 68%
federer indoors = 80/114 = 70.4%
federer overall = 158/251 = 63%
his numbers on carpet and indoors in general were clearly better than overall ....
his first title was indoors in Milan in 2001 ...
his winning % on clay is 77% - even if you take out his record vs rafa (2-12), its "only" 81% ..if we put in another rival who is 7-7 vs him on clay ( i.e equal ) , it becomes 79.2%
his HC winning % is 83 ( also consider that the HC field of today is clearly superior to the CC field )
his grass winning % is 87%
his game is best suited to medium-fast to fast surfaces. But you can stay rooted to your delusions otherwise.
oh and one more thing is I call BS on the excuses for sampras' failures on clay in the 90s, talking about the differences in surfaces.
well guess what , they were quite different in the 70s and 80s as well, didn't prevent borg from making multiple finals on fast HC, mac from having a dominant run at RG 84, edberg from reaching a final in RG 89, lendl from reaching multiple wimbledon finals.
and finally agassi himself made multiple finals @ each of them, winning atleast once at all the 4 ...
it was only sampras and becker who failed the most among the greats of the open era on their weakest surfaces .... - that list encompasses of connors, borg, mac, lendl, wilander, becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, federer, nadal, djokovic