Which surface has the GOAT (RF) declined most at since 2004-2007?

[mcr619619]

Grass.......

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Originally Posted by IvanisevicServe

Either way, Federer used to be virtually unbeatable on grass for the field...the courts have definitely continued to slow down since Federer won his first 3-4 Wimbledons, and his once breathtaking grass court ground game is completely non-imposing. He looks like a pusher on grass.

Sadly, it's spot on.

[FedExpress 333]

Yup, green clay is not much fun to watch.

[jukka1970]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The GOAT (Laver) hasnt played competitive tennis in decades. Thus I have no idea what you are talking about.

yeah, keep telling yourself that one, lmao

[powerangle]

Originally Posted by IvanisevicServe

Federer lost to Hewitt in the final of last year's Halle, too...so I'm not so sure.

If he's going down 2 sets to Falla (and having to break to keep from losing in 4), blowing a 2 set lead against Tsonga, losing back-to-back years in the QF at Wimbledon, and losing the final to an over-the-hill Hewitt, that's not very encouraging for his shot against strong fields in hypothetical "grass 1,000's."

The level Nadal and Djokovic played in the Wimbledon final this year, Federer would've been steamrolled going against either of them on grass. And if it were fast enough to just be a serve-and-return contest, Federer's mediocre returning and tendency to have a bad game every now and then during the match on his serve would seal his fate against guys who excel in serve/return contests.

Either way, Federer used to be virtually unbeatable on grass for the field...the courts have definitely continued to slow down since Federer won his first 3-4 Wimbledons, and his once breathtaking grass court ground game is completely non-imposing. He looks like a pusher on grass.

Good points and I agree for the most part. It's just that I don't feel Fed these days is secure on just about any surface. He could lose on any given day to decent opponents, especially on grass and slow HC, imo. I don't feel any more confident when Roger is on slow HC than when he's on grass, is my point. I can usually count on him to make things "interesting" (or even lose) on those two surfaces in particular.

[FedExpress 333]

LOL Nadal Agassi

[CanadianChic]

This poll is invalid as Federer isn't the GOAT. He did have a great run though.

[Murrayfan31]

Originally Posted by FedExpress 333

Yup, green clay is not much fun to watch.

Yeah since Tsonga and Berdych are the ultimate clay courters.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by Murrayfan31

Yeah since Tsonga and Berdych are the ultimate clay courters.

Don't be a hypocrite. You post garbage about surface speeds all the time when you assume that it favors Nadal.

[Murrayfan31]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Don't be a hypocrite. You post garbage about surface speeds all the time when you assume that it favors Nadal.

I don't even like Nadal. I just find it funny that those complaining about the speed of surface should really be hoping for the courts to slow down more like at the French Open for the sake of Federer. He just couldn't get enough returns back against Tsonga. Simple as that.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by Murrayfan31

I don't even like Nadal. I just find it funny that those complaining about the speed of surface should really be hoping for the courts to slow down more like at the French Open for the sake of Federer. He just couldn't get enough returns back against Tsonga. Simple as that.

You have, in the past, insinuated that court speeds were slowed down in order to favor Nadal over Djokovic/Murray, who apparently thrive on faster surfaces according to you. I mean how can you be wrong? Djokovic and Murray certainly possess a US Open trophy to justify your claim.

[Murrayfan31]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

You have, in the past, insinuated that court speeds were slowed down in order to favor Nadal over Djokovic/Murray, who apparently thrive on faster surfaces according to you. I mean how can you be wrong? Djokovic and Murray certainly possess a US Open trophy to justify your claim.

Djokovic just won Wimbledon. I never said I thought US Open was the fastest. And what is good for Nadal doesn't mean it isn't good for Federer as well. Federer's biggest decline is his return of serve. It is most noticeable on fast surfaces.

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Maybe because its not thaat interesting...

Could you repeat that,plz?

[MariaRafael]

Originally Posted by FedExpress 333

Yup, green clay is not much fun to watch.

Because Federer won all his Wimbledon titles on "green clay"? Yes, you are absolutely right, I don't like watching Federer either regardless of the colour of clay.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Interesting. I bet none here thought Federer had another Wimbledon in him.

To be fair, nor did I.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Interesting. I bet none here thought Federer had another Wimbledon in him.

To be fair, nor did I.

I didn't either. The big difference was that he suddenly refound a return when he needed to this wimbledon. His reflex skills on the return had greatly diminished, yet he made A LOT of them WITH INTEREST against both Murray and Djokovi

[Sabratha]

He's declined the most on grass.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

He's declined the most on grass.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

A good run at Wimbledon one year where the Earth was moved for him doesn't mean he has not declined the most on grass. On hard courts he generally always makes the semifinals (apart from the US Open this year) and on grass he's only made it to the quarters for a couple of years before his win this year.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

A good run at Wimbledon one year where the Earth was moved for him doesn't mean he has not declined the most on grass. On hard courts he generally always makes the semifinals (apart from the US Open this year) and on grass he's only made it to the quarters for a couple of years before his win this year.

The past 3 years

AO : W, SF, SF = 17 wins, 2 losses => win ratio of 89.5%
USO : SF, SF, QF = 14 wins, 3 losses => win ratio of 82.4%
W : QF, QF, W = 15 wins, 2 losses => win ratio of 88.2%

Average out his win% at the AO and the USO and it comes up to less than his win% at Wimbledon.