Federer USO 04 final V Nadal USO 10 final - Who wins?

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

The grass was faster back then. Federer is not Sampras either. Sampras was a very effective S/V'er, one of the best ever obviously. That Fed managed to win their only meeting in 5 sets with Sampras on the way to the old folks home means little.

Federer won Wimbledon Juniors title in Singles and Doubles. He S&V in 2003 to get his Wimbledon title. He beat Sampras with S&V. He continues to employ this tactic, whenever the chance presents itself (Madrid 2012).

And what does Federer is not Sampras means. Of course he is not. He is better than Sampras in most departments of the game.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

S/V has been effectively dead for a long time, but Tim Henman dominated Federer using S/V quite easily. If I remember correctly he had at some point a 6-1 H2H over Fed before becoming too old (their last encounters are with Henman 31 and 32 years old.) Henman also is not one of the most accomplished S/V'ers within the context of tennis history.

Henman was a very fine volleyer. Did you watch tennis back then? To say such a stupidity you must have not seen him play. In his encounter with Federer at Wimbledon 2001, he prevailed basically thanks to his experience, since Federer lost 3-1 and in both Tie-breaks that went in Hanman's favour he was closer to winning them (had 2 set points in one of them and was leading the other 5-2 in the Tie-break).

Your memory is not serving you well. Henman led the h2h with Federer 5-1, when Federer was 22. From his 28 year onwards (esentially from Federer's 21st year) Henman won just two matches against Federer and both of them were closely contested. For comparison, Federer spanked Nadal twice only in the last 8 months at the age of 30 and pretty convincingly at that.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I have no idea. I'm offering a theory with some background and some logical support. My point is that the type of play, the technology, the surfaces, etc, have a huge effect on what players come to prominence. The map would be completely different, I assure you..

The map being completely different doesn't mean, that Federer would have won less. Federer is doing pretty well on the fast surfaces and against big hitters equipped with modern technology. Throwing half-truths (that the map would have been different, with which I agree) to get a credibility for wild guesses (that Federer would have been negatively influenced, due to some miraculously good fast court specialists) doesn't work.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

That's fine. I don't care that you don't care that I'm not convinced. I'm still not convinced.

At least you live up to your username.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Fair enough. But was Sampras in his prime at 29?

No, but neither was Fed at that age.

Sampras' peak - 1993-1997
Sampras' prime - 1993-1999

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

My point is you can't extract conclusions from a single 5-set victory.

Yet you and several other people here draw conclusions from Nadal's 2009 F victory over Fed at AO regarding the topic of this thread (which has nothing to do with AO's plexicushion where Fed overall reached 1 final).

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

And Fed being back to #1 is unbelievable. Even if a lot of things had to happen for that to take place. Props to him for beating the defending champion in the semi. He deserves it.

Indeed, makes you wonder what Havoc he would have wrought if his current level was as high as it was in 2004-2007.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I already explained how surface differences polarize players. I already explained how we've gone from a field where there was a group of S/V specialists and a group of baseline specialists to a field where all you see 99% of the time is baseline play. Re-read my post.

As to being a joke, so says the guy who thinks 300% increase means 300-fold increase. You need to start watching Sesame Street for your basic math. I hope you are not a Wall Street CEO (though I wouldn't be surprised if you were, based on where the economy is).

Ok but Im not understanding how nadal would be as successful in faster conditions outside of clay, care to elaborate?

And yes you are a joke for making the argument that the guy who is a proven superior fast court player would suffer in faster conditions.

Oh right, because guys would magically crop up who would be more talented than federer, which of course you cant prove, but you have a hunch.

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by zagor

No, but neither was Fed at that age.

Sampras' peak - 1993-1997
Sampras' prime - 1993-1999



Yet you and several other people here draw conclusions from Nadal's 2009 F victory over Fed at AO regarding the topic of this thread (which has nothing to do with AO's plexicushion where Fed overall reached 1 final).



Indeed, makes you wonder what Havoc he would have wrought if his current level was as high as it was in 2004-2007.

Hopefully more than 1 slam every 2 years

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by zagor

And people here have provided ample explanations of why Fed would have adapted to different conditions and would have been great in any era.

Hypothesis can't be proven. You have yours, and I have mine. I already provided the reasons to back them up.

Originally Posted by zagor

This is an interesting part of the post, only a die hard Nadal fan would say something like this which does make me wonder...

But regardless, this is incorrect, Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals on modern grass, you only need see how often he gets into scrapes with journeyman in early rounds of Wimbledon (when grass is still somewhat fast) to realize how hard pressed would he be to accomplish so much at Wimbledon if it reverted to 90s speed.

Then there's USO which was slowed down several times not to mention rebound ace which played much faster than current plexicushion etc.

Nadal's legacy is not just his success at FO, far from it.

My point precisely is that Nadal would have only won at FO in the old era. Fed would still have been the most accomplished fast court player. But he would be far from his current tally. Because the S/V ecosystem would have been far less forgiving for Fed. We know Fed is a great all court player, very complete. The problem is pure S/V doesn't really reward that type of game as much as baseline play.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

Hopefully more than 1 slam every 2 years

well we already know thats what he would do based on the slams he won from 04 to 07.

if prime djoker still has his hands full with old fed, we all know what would happen...and as for rafa...I recall him losing to fed at wimby in o6 and 07.
ill take my chances with fed at the USO and AO. FO....Ill say he'll take one.

then again, peak fed vs current rafa? maybe 2.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Hypothesis can't be proven. You have yours, and I have mine. I already provided the reasons to back them up.


My point precisely is that Nadal would have only won at FO in the old era. Fed would still have been the most accomplished fast court player. But he would be far from his current tally. Because the S/V ecosystem would have been far less forgiving for Fed. We know Fed is a great all court player, very complete. The problem is pure S/V doesn't really reward that type of game as much as baseline play.

ok, but you are assuming fed's game would remain static, forgetting the fact that he was a pretty darn good serve volleyer at the start of his career.

so, given his career trajectory with his baseline game .......cannot one apply the same if he had chosen to stick with serve and volley?

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by SLD76

Ok but Im not understanding how nadal would be as successful in faster conditions outside of clay, care to elaborate?

He wouldn't. I already said a few times Nadal would have only won in FO.

Originally Posted by SLD76

And yes you are a joke for making the argument that the guy who is a proven superior fast court player would suffer in faster conditions.

Yes, and since the Earth looks flat it must be flat. Sorry, I don't have a satisfactory obvious explanation for you. I have a curse called brain that causes me to think and elaborate thoughts, construct explanations, and link phenomena to build complex models and hypothesis. I hope this is not to offensive for you. If it is, I sincerely apologize for rocking your world.

Originally Posted by SLD76

Oh right, because guys would magically crop up who would be more talented than federer, which of course you cant prove, but you have a hunch.

Tim Henman had a 6-1 H2H advantage against Fed at one point and he was a S/V specialist, wasn't he?

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by SLD76

ok, but you are assuming fed's game would remain static, forgetting the fact that he was a pretty darn good serve volleyer at the start of his career.

so, given his career trajectory with his baseline game .......cannot one apply the same if he had chosen to stick with serve and volley?

Maybe, maybe not. I think he would be damn good. But the point is that he wouldn't have been able to dominate the faster (in this case actually fast) surfaces as convincingly.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

Hopefully more than 1 slam every 2 years

Oh I have no doubt about that, we'll see how some of the other current top players will do at that age.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Hypothesis can't be proven. You have yours, and I have mine. I already provided the reasons to back them up.

Obviously not, otherwise experts on this forum would have provided evidence to ATP to strip Fed of half his slam titles

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

My point precisely is that Nadal would have only won at FO in the old era. Fed would still have been the most accomplished fast court player. But he would be far from his current tally. Because the S/V ecosystem would have been far less forgiving for Fed. We know Fed is a great all court player, very complete. The problem is pure S/V doesn't really reward that type of game as much as baseline play.

You have to clarify what do you mean by old era? Because previous eras had a lot more CC specialists as well so Nadal wouldn't be beating up on a bunch of hardcourters trying to play on clay.

Oh and Fed can play great on fast and slow surfaces, at his peak he was devastating on both.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

He wouldn't. I already said a few times Nadal would have only won in FO.


Yes, and since the Earth looks flat it must be flat. Sorry, I don't have a satisfactory obvious explanation for you. I have a curse called brain that causes me to think and elaborate thoughts, construct explanations, and link phenomena to build complex models and hypothesis. I hope this is not to offensive for you. If it is, I sincerely apologize for rocking your world.


Tim Henman had a 6-1 H2H advantage against Fed at one point and he was a S/V specialist, wasn't he?

yep, he did, doubtless federer would never have improved his serve volley game at all. yep.

[Raz11]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

No. The difference is that clay hasn't changed like fast surfaces have. Fast surfaces (real fast surfaces) used to require S/V when the technology didn't allow for baseliners to dominate. In that type of scenario Fed's dominace would be severely in question.

Nadal wouldn't do worse for the mere fact that all play has been shifted to "baselining" which is basically the way clay was always played. Nadal would have even less opposition back then than he has now. It's just simple logic.

The surfaces hasn't changed but there would be more clay specialist than it does right now. Sure all play has shifted to baselining but "baselining" on hard and there is a difference between "baselining" on hard and clay since clay requires different footwork. Since more clay specialists would focus on clay, Nadal would have less success than he does right now.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Maybe, maybe not. I think he would be damn good. But the point is that he wouldn't have been able to dominate the faster (in this case actually fast) surfaces as convincingly.

well results in faster tournaments beg to differ.

let me ask u this, what weakness would be exploited on a faster surface that isnt being exploited now ??

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by SLD76

well we already know thats what he would do based on the slams he won from 04 to 07.

if prime djoker still has his hands full with old fed, we all know what would happen...and as for rafa...I recall him losing to fed at wimby in o6 and 07.
ill take my chances with fed at the USO and AO. FO....Ill say he'll take one.

then again, peak fed vs current rafa? maybe 2.

One of the biggest fallacies here that because Fed played Djoker decently/better than Nadal since '11 that means prime Fed would own him. Sometimes players raise their level ...Fed played amazing those first 2 sets....and he STILL lost at USO 2011. Djoker WON that much. Get over it!

Look Djoker is up 6-2 h2h vs Fed since 2011. He also beat Fed in straights at AO 2008 and AO 2011. Can we conclude that Djoker '08 is better than Djoker '11 due to that result. Get real.


You put Djoker '11 vs Fed '06 against each other in all 4 slams and they split them on average.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

One of the biggest fallacies here that because Fed played Djoker decently/better than Nadal since '11 that means prime Fed would own him. Sometimes players raise their level ...Fed played amazing those first 2 sets....and he STILL lost at USO 2011. Djoker WON that much. Get over it!

Look Djoker is up 6-2 h2h vs Fed since 2011. He also beat Fed in straights at AO 2008 and AO 2011. Can we conclude that Djoker '08 is better than Djoker '11 due to that result. Get real.


You put Djoker '11 vs Fed '06 against each other in all 4 slams and they split them on average.

no, they wont. not even on clay.

fed beat beast mode djoker on clay, fed's worst surface and a surface that would favor djoker..and the clay wasnt even slow that year
he had match pts on djoker at USO 2011, and beat him at wimbledon. the only matches that were a blow out were AO 11 and their meetings in rome and FO

so you mean to tell me prime djoker still having tough matches with old fed is somehow proof that he wouldnt be dominated by prime roger?

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by SLD76

no, they wont. not even on clay.

AO- Djoker

RG- even

Wimby -Fed

USO- even

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by zagor

Obviously not, otherwise experts on this forum would have provided evidence to ATP to strip Fed of half his slam titles

Far from my intent. RoFed has won what he has won fair and square. Props to him, as he is the most accomplished player ever (for the moment anyway).

Originally Posted by zagor

You have to clarify what do you mean by old era? Because previous eras had a lot more CC specialists as well so Nadal wouldn't be beating up on a bunch of hardcourters trying to play on clay.

Technically, there were S/V'ers (who specialized in fast surfaces) and baseliners (who specialized in clay tournaments). Since the game has moved to all baseline play, it means Nadal has had more competition now than he would have ever had in the old era. It's simple logic. If more people perform that type of game, you will have more competition. It seems there are no clay specialist besides Nadal because he's just so dominating that all others pale in comparison. He's basically owned clay for such a long time he probably has destroyed a generation of aspiring clay court specialists (with Fed first in line probably). But notice that saying "clay court specialist" in this era is just a fallacy, and not meant literally.

Originally Posted by zagor

Oh and Fed can play great on fast and slow surfaces, at his peak he was devastating on both.

Yes, Fed is the most complete player of our era. But that wouldn't necessarily translate well to an era where radical specialization was key.

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Far from my intent. RoFed has won what he has won fair and square. Props to him, as he is the most accomplished player ever (for the moment anyway).



Technically, there were S/V'ers (who specialized in fast surfaces) and baseliners (who specialized in clay tournaments). Since the game has moved to all baseline play, it means Nadal has had more competition now than he would have ever had in the old era. It's simple logic. If more people perform that type of game, you will have more competition. It seems there are no clay specialist besides Nadal because he's just so dominating that all others pale in comparison. He's basically owned clay for such a long time he probably has destroyed a generation of aspiring clay court specialists (with Fed first in line probably). But notice that saying "clay court specialist" in this era is just a fallacy, and not meant literally.


Yes, Fed is the most complete player of our era. But that wouldn't necessarily translate well to an era where radical specialization was key.

Key point. What you're saying is Fed is sort of a jack of all trades all-court style but not particularly suited to specialized surface play? If so, I think you're right. Of course he'd still be great no matter what, but perhaps not so great with super fast and super slow courts as the norm?

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

AO- Djoker

RG- even

Wimby -Fed

USO- even

prime fed?

Wimby FEd

USO Fed

RG even

AO 2/3 fed

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by SLD76

no, they wont. not even on clay.

fed beat beast mode djoker on clay, fed's worst surface and a surface that would favor djoker..and the clay wasnt even slow that year
he had match pts on djoker at USO 2011, and beat him at wimbledon. the only matches that were a blow out were AO 11 and their meetings in rome and FO

so you mean to tell me prime djoker still having tough matches with old fed is somehow proof that he wouldnt be dominated by prime roger?

First of all Fed didn't beat Djoker at Wimby 2011, if you want to include 2012, then we have to include Djokers beatdown of Fed at RG as well