Sampras-Federer at Wimbledon during their best years, how do you think it goes?

Who would lead the H2H in the end?

  • Total voters
    69
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
MrFlip said:
All the options point to Federer because if Fed beat Sampras with an 85sq inch, imagine what he'll do to him with a 90sq inch. Checkmate Samptards
Click to expand...
All the options point to Tsonga, because if Tsonga beat Fed from down 2 sets, imagine what he'll do to him if he shows up from the first game. Checkmate Fedsters
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Rolland Petros said:
All the options point to Tsonga, because if Tsonga beat Fed from down 2 sets, imagine what he'll do to him if he shows up from the first game. Checkmate Fedsters
Click to expand...

Tsonga beat a 30 yr old Federer who was having a slump
Not peak Federer

2003-2006 Federer would straight set that tsonga
 
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
Sunny014 said:
Tsonga beat a 30 yr old Federer who was having a slump
Not peak Federer

2003-2006 Federer would straight set that tsonga
Click to expand...
Tsonga played a slumped Federer who was 30, but Federer played a prime Pete who was the same age? Prior to modern juices and medicines? ROFLMAO!!!
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Rolland Petros said:
Tsonga played a slumped Federer who was 30, but Federer played a prime Pete who was the same age? Prior to modern juices and medicines? ROFLMAO!!!
Click to expand...

Pete was on a streak which was broken by Federer, even if I agree Pete to be off his peak then Federer was also 2 years before he hits his prime, he was a baby.
So a baby did snap your hero's streak while Federer was beaten by Tsonga when he was already in a slump (prev year too he lost t berdych, that yr prior he lost to hewitt of all people at the grass event) at 30.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Sunny014 said:
Yes there is to imagine.
Djoker never played peak federer
Nadal did
Click to expand...

Machan ... as @beard perfectly stated in another thread-

1. Fed destroyed everyone... He is at peak...
2. Fed destroyed everyone, but lost in final to Novak... He is a old, slow garbage... :giggle:
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Sunny014 said:
Pete was on a streak which was broken by Federer, even if I agree Pete to be off his peak then Federer was also 2 years before he hits his prime, he was a baby.
So a baby did snap your hero's streak while Federer was beaten by Tsonga when he was already in a slump (prev year too he lost t berdych, that yr prior he lost to hewitt of all people at the grass event) at 30.
Click to expand...

Well then, Nadal achieved something even more impressive ... he stopped Federer who was on a bigger streak than Sampras was! Can we give Nadal the credit he deserves for the Wimbledon 2008 final victory or was that result only because poor Federer was forced to play on slow grass while suffering from mono as Federer fans have been telling me for years?

:)
 
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
Sunny014 said:
Pete was on a streak which was broken by Federer, even if I agree Pete to be off his peak then Federer was also 2 years before he hits his prime, he was a baby.
So a baby did snap your hero's streak while Federer was beaten by Tsonga when he was already in a slump (prev year too he lost t berdych, that yr prior he lost to hewitt of all people at the grass event) at 30.
Click to expand...
Nice try. The baby who beat Pete would go on to win the event 8 times and become your god.
The guy who beat your god (from down 2 sets) became a zero. So Pete got beaten by a future great, Fed got taken to the cleaners by a burnout. 'nuff said
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Sunny Ali said:
Machan ... as @beard perfectly stated in another thread-

1. Fed destroyed everyone... He is at peak...
2. Fed destroyed everyone, but lost in final to Novak... He is a old, slow garbage... :giggle:
Click to expand...

Sir,

That is not true.

I clearly said Federer was 77-1 on Grass from 03 to 09, so in this period he has a win % of 98.71% on Grass and the lone loss came to Nadal.
On the other hand from 2010 onwards you can see Federer has lost a lot to others too, while you might argue that in 2014 and 2015 as well Fed didn't lose to anyone on grass except Novak in final but that Federer is 34, a lot slower than he was 10 years back and lot weaker (lacking in power in returns and forehand), so he can be stretched to the limit by Novak by engaging in rallies, but this he wouldnt be able to do to Fed of 00s who was moving like lightening and hitting forehands as hard as Roddick did...... So there lies the difference.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
A 34 year old and 24 year old are very different when stretched to the limit, please understand this @Sunny Ali sir

Usian Bolt today at age 35 can still beat the runners who run the times of 10:05 seconds because he would still come up with times of 9.9 seconds if he fully fit.
But he cannot beat a runner who is young and runs 9.75 seconds today.

Thats age,.

But at his peak 12 years back he could beat this 9.79 with his time of 9.58 seconds


So when Federer beats the rest of the field then they are like those 10.05 second guys ..... but Novak is like that peak runner who is at 9.79....... very good time for this period, top. ..... but still lower than Usain's peak.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Sephiroth said:
Sampras.

Fed's nothing special at Wimbledon. He's not 7-0 Sampras or 13-0 Nadal or 8-0 Djokovic. Those 3 owned their pet slams with clean streaks and held it down far better than what Federer was trying to do at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

77-1 from 03-09 is better than Sampras ever was in his prime (77-4)

Why is 7-0 is finals being given so much importance over 8-4 when we know Federer was 6-1 at his peak ?
Had Sampras played on then 7-0 would have been the same because he wouldnt even make the finals.

So we should not punish Federer for reaching the finals in the baseliner era and losing to some baseliners ? Federer's game is suited for both eras, Sampras's just for 1 era, that is why Federer is Special over Sampras
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Sunny014 said:
Sir,

That is not true.

I clearly said Federer was 77-1 on Grass from 03 to 09, so in this period he has a win % of 98.71% on Grass and the lone loss came to Nadal.
On the other hand from 2010 onwards you can see Federer has lost a lot to others too, while you might argue that in 2014 and 2015 as well Fed didn't lose to anyone on grass except Novak in final but that Federer is 34, a lot slower than he was 10 years back and lot weaker (lacking in power in returns and forehand), so he can be stretched to the limit by Novak by engaging in rallies, but this he wouldnt be able to do to Fed of 00s who was moving like lightening and hitting forehands as hard as Roddick did...... So there lies the difference.
Click to expand...

Machan, wonderful post (y) Same thing with Sampras of 2001. He was playing very poorly compared to his peak years.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
CYGS said:
Sampras would never lose from 40-15 match point
Click to expand...

Truer words have never been spoken. My 65 year old neighbor has a higher probability of winning Wimbledon than Sampras losing a Wimbledon final with championship points at 40-15 on his serve!
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Sunny014 said:
77-1 from 03-09 is better than Sampras ever was in his prime (77-4)

Why is 7-0 is finals being given so much importance over 8-4 when we know Federer was 6-1 at his peak ?
Had Sampras played on then 7-0 would have been the same because he wouldnt even make the finals.

So we should not punish Federer for reaching the finals in the baseliner era and losing to some baseliners ? Federer's game is suited for both eras, Sampras's just for 1 era, that is why Federer is Special over Sampras
Click to expand...

Very good question Machan ... 2 points-

1. 7-0 is more impressive than 6-1, especially considering that the lone loss came against Nadal, a clay court specialist with a 1-dimensional game *** see note below

2. The 8-4 stat doesn't look too bad until you dig deeper and find 3 of those 4 losses were to the same player. Can you imagine that happening to Sampras at Wimbledon? No you can't, because the grass King was second to none, going 7-0 in Wimbledon finals!

*** not my words, it's what the Federer fans have told me for years on this forum about Nadal. So much for the grass GOAT, losing a Wimbledon final to a 1-dimensional clay court specialist! If you ask me, I say Nadal is a phenomenal player who's more talented than Federer but I have to defer to the Federer fans opinions because some of them also told me I know nothing about tennis! LOL!
 
UnforcedTerror

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
I didn't watch the best of Sampras so I asked my father as he is a fan of both Sampras and Federer. He said Sampras without hesitation. I would assume he knows what he's talking about but for me it's Fed always and forever.
 
Last edited:
Third Serve

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
NoleIsBoat said:
Hahahahaha this is the same Federer who won 100% of his grass court titles on slow as molasses grass, and had a losing record to genuine S&V players like Rafter and Henman? :whistle:
Click to expand...
Your cluelessness is showing, pal. He had winning H2H with Henman and the very last time he played Rafter was 2001.

And I wouldn't call the 2001-2004 courts slow-as-molasses. Definitely slower than the old courts but faster than, say, 2005 and on.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Third Serve said:
Your cluelessness is showing, pal. He had winning H2H with Henman and the very last time he played Rafter was 2001.

And I wouldn't call the 2001-2004 courts slow-as-molasses. Definitely slower than the old courts but faster than, say, 2005 and on.
Click to expand...
2004 courts slow? I wanna know what that guy is smoking.

I would say the USO at least stayed fast until 2011. AO was also faster pre 2009 or so.

Wimb, yeah, in 2005 it was already slower compared to even 2003-2004.
 
Third Serve

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
mike danny said:
2004 courts slow? I wanna know what that guy is smoking.

I would say the USO at least stayed fast until 2011. AO was also faster pre 2009 or so.

Wimb, yeah, in 2005 it was already slower compared to even 2003-2004.
Click to expand...
I don't think the AO courts have been really fast for a long time. Even Rebound Ace could best be described as medium paced.
 
ForehandRF

ForehandRF

Legend
Sunny Ali said:
Very good question Machan ... 2 points-

1. 7-0 is more impressive than 6-1, especially considering that the lone loss came against Nadal, a clay court specialist with a 1-dimensional game *** see note below

2. The 8-4 stat doesn't look too bad until you dig deeper and find 3 of those 4 losses were to the same player. Can you imagine that happening to Sampras at Wimbledon? No you can't, because the grass King was second to none, going 7-0 in Wimbledon finals!

*** not my words, it's what the Federer fans have told me for years on this forum about Nadal. So much for the grass GOAT, losing a Wimbledon final to a 1-dimensional clay court specialist! If you ask me, I say Nadal is a phenomenal player who's more talented than Federer but I have to defer to the Federer fans opinions because some of them also told me I know nothing about tennis! LOL!
Click to expand...
Man, this is not 2006 anymore, so I don't understand why you keep on mentioning the comments made by some Fed fans 15 years ago 8-B
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Third Serve said:
2012 was painfully slow indeed. We still got some great matches out of it, sure, but I'd rather it be just a bit faster.
Click to expand...
2010 and 2011 were painfully slow too. It was just more visible in 2012 because of Djokovic's last 2 matches.

In 2010 it wasn't noticed as much because Federer won and didn't have to play Djokodal, but he would have had a much harder time against Djokodal on that court.
 
NoleIsBoat

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Third Serve said:
Your cluelessness is showing, pal. He had winning H2H with Henman and the very last time he played Rafter was 2001.

And I wouldn't call the 2001-2004 courts slow-as-molasses. Definitely slower than the old courts but faster than, say, 2005 and on.
Click to expand...
LOL Henman led their H2H 6-1 before he started to decline alongside homogenisation... still managing wins over prime Fed on lightning fast Paris and Rotterdam courts :whistle: the point being Fed was owned by serve&volley experts and fast court players until everything was slowed down so he could play his power baseline game.

Any data to say the courts slowed down further? All the evidence says they have used the same composition since 2001... but of course Federer fan eye test knows best:whistle::whistle::whistle:
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
ForehandRF said:
Man, this is not 2006 anymore, so I don't understand why you keep on mentioning the comments made by some Fed fans 15 years ago 8-B
Click to expand...

Machan, some wounds never heal :) And ... I never received an apology so the wounds are fresh as ever.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Sunny Ali said:
Very good question Machan ... 2 points-

1. 7-0 is more impressive than 6-1, especially considering that the lone loss came against Nadal, a clay court specialist with a 1-dimensional game *** see note below

2. The 8-4 stat doesn't look too bad until you dig deeper and find 3 of those 4 losses were to the same player. Can you imagine that happening to Sampras at Wimbledon? No you can't, because the grass King was second to none, going 7-0 in Wimbledon finals!

*** not my words, it's what the Federer fans have told me for years on this forum about Nadal. So much for the grass GOAT, losing a Wimbledon final to a 1-dimensional clay court specialist! If you ask me, I say Nadal is a phenomenal player who's more talented than Federer but I have to defer to the Federer fans opinions because some of them also told me I know nothing about tennis! LOL!
Click to expand...

Important thing to be noted here is that Nadal is not just a clay court specialist, he is Kal El from Spain (Nickname : Superman).
So when Superman plays on Grass/HCs that have high bounce then his forehand + athletic ability is good enough to challenge anyone in those conditions.

He is not an ordinary clay courter.

Let grass behave like it is supposed to behave, even a 2003 type grass would do, the bounce wasnt that high in 03, No chance of any Nadal beating Federer there.

So in this baseline era any baseliner is stronger than a guy who is from the snv era.

Andre Agassi would have won more grand slams than Pete in these conditions if both continued playing till 40 ..... FACT !
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
NoleIsBoat said:
LOL Henman led their H2H 6-1 before he started to decline alongside homogenisation... still managing wins over prime Fed on lightning fast Paris and Rotterdam courts :whistle: the point being Fed was owned by serve&volley experts and fast court players until everything was slowed down so he could play his power baseline game.

Any data to say the courts slowed down further? All the evidence says they have used the same composition since 2001... but of course Federer fan eye test knows best:whistle::whistle::whistle:
Click to expand...

Just watch the videos on how balls travel, whether they keep low or high.
Eye test is always better than any test.
 
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
Third Serve said:
Your cluelessness is showing, pal. He had winning H2H with Henman and the very last time he played Rafter was 2001.

And I wouldn't call the 2001-2004 courts slow-as-molasses. Definitely slower than the old courts but faster than, say, 2005 and on.
Click to expand...
Don't evade, you know very well he didn't have a winning record with Timmy until their literal last encounter lol. And His record against the Tiger in 03-04 after Fed won slams and before Tiger turned 30 was 2-1. Even after all the wins he picked up on toothless Tiger, he ended a measly 7-6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Third Serve

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
NoleIsBoat said:
LOL Henman led their H2H 6-1 before he started to decline alongside homogenisation... still managing wins over prime Fed on lightning fast Paris and Rotterdam courts :whistle: the point being Fed was owned by serve&volley experts and fast court players until everything was slowed down so he could play his power baseline game.

Any data to say the courts slowed down further? All the evidence says they have used the same composition since 2001... but of course Federer fan eye test knows best:whistle::whistle::whistle:
Click to expand...
Hewitt led the H2H vs. Fed 7-2 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 16-2 in his favor.
Nalbandian led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 10-3 in his favor.
Henman led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 6-1 in his favor.

Seeing the pattern here? Should be clear to everyone that 2001-2003 Fed shouldn't even be put in the same sentence as 2004-beyond Fed. It was at the Masters Cup in 2003 that Fed actually started to turn the tables on the rest of the field. Hamburg 2002 and Wimby 2003 were nice, but then he'd immediately drop his level in the following events. His consistency wasn't there till 2004. Doesn't matter if they were S/V specialists or not.

As for the courts slowing down bit... I can't see why the "eye test" gets picked on as much as it does. Sure, it's biased, but it's much more conducive to good discussion and analysis than cherrypicked stats that don't have context with them. Waspsting match analyses are "eye tests". Should we write them off as the ramblings of a madman? No. We try to see where he's coming from by providing our own eye tests. Rather than immediately dismiss what someone says they saw, why don't you take a moment or two and view the matches on your own, see if you can tell why people write such opinions on them.

Same deal with the courts. I'm sure some will disagree, but the 2001-2004 courts looked to me like they were making the ball bounce a bit lower than the very-high-bouncing Wimby grass starting from around 2005 and 2006 (and those were two of Fed's best Wimbledon wins so there wouldn't be many such external factors shaping my opinion here). Check out parts of a few matches starting with This one and compare them with some of your own favorite Wimbledon matches from the 2010s.

I probably expect too much from some troll clearly arguing in bad faith but I have a lot of time on hand anyway.
 
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
Third Serve said:
Hewitt led the H2H vs. Fed 7-2 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 16-2 in his favor.
Nalbandian led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 10-3 in his favor.
Henman led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 6-1 in his favor.

Seeing the pattern here? Should be clear to everyone that 2001-2003 Fed shouldn't even be put in the same sentence as 2004-beyond Fed. It was at the Masters Cup in 2003 that Fed actually started to turn the tables on the rest of the field. Doesn't matter if they were S/V specialists or not.

As for the courts slowing down bit... I can't see why the "eye test" gets picked on as much as it does. Sure, it's biased, but it's much more conducive to good discussion and analysis than cherrypicked stats that don't have context with them. Waspsting match analyses are "eye tests". Should we write them off as the ramblings of a madman? No. We try to see where he's coming from by providing our own eye tests. Rather than immediately dismiss what someone says they saw, why don't you take a moment or two and view the matches on your own, see if you can tell why people write such opinions on them.

Same deal with the courts. I'm sure some will disagree, but the 2001-2004 courts looked to me like they were making the ball bounce a bit lower than the very-high-bouncing Wimby grass starting from around 2005 and 2006 (and those were two of Fed's best Wimbledon wins so there wouldn't be many such external factors shaping my opinion here). Check out parts of a few matches starting with This one and compare them with some of your own favorite Wimbledon matches from the 2010s.

I probably expect too much from some troll clearly arguing in bad faith but I have a lot of time on hand anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes. The pattern is Fed turned around h2hs with superior fastcourt players once the courts slowed down, and they lost confidence because their styles were neutered. See Fedfans, Fed isn't the only person who loses matches or rivalries because of loss of confidence
 
Third Serve

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Rolland Petros said:
Yes. The pattern is Fed turned around h2hs with superior fastcourt players once the courts slowed down, and they lost confidence because their styles were neutered. See Fedfans, Fed isn't the only person who loses matches or rivalries because of loss of confidence
Click to expand...
Fast court players like Hewitt and Nalbandian? The guy who practically ended S/V by himself and a player known the world over for his ability at the baseline? LOL. While both of them could certainly play on the surface, neither of them were any better fast-court players than Federer himself.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Sunny014 said:
Let grass behave like it is supposed to behave, even a 2003 type grass would do, the bounce wasnt that high in 03, No chance of any Nadal beating Federer there.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. He is fully capable of beating Federer anywhere.

Sunny014 said:
Andre Agassi would have won more grand slams than Pete in these conditions if both continued playing till 40 ..... FACT !
Click to expand...

Agreed (y)
 
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
Third Serve said:
Fast court players like Hewitt and Nalbandian? The guy who practically ended S/V by himself and a player known the world over for his ability at the baseline? LOL. Neither of them were any better fast-court players than Federer himself.
Click to expand...
LOL! Someone's cluelessness has shown!!! Hewitt loved the faster courts, they played into his ability to absorb power and redirect pace with his great reflexes and speed against guys that came in. And Nalbandian, the guy who hit flat, clean and early...yes clearly benefited from slowed down courts!!! And of course, Tiger Tim Henman, the man who flew to the net like a moth to a lantern, that guy DEFINITELY loved slow courts! LMAO!!!
 
Third Serve

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Rolland Petros said:
LOL! Someone's cluelessness has shown!!! Hewitt loved the faster courts, they played into his ability to absorb power and redirect pace with his great reflexes and speed against guys that came in. And Safin, the guy who hit flat, hard and early...yes clearly benefited from slowed down courts!!! And of course, Tiger Tim Henman, the man who flew to the net like a moth to a lantern, that guy DEFINITELY loved slow courts! LMAO!!!
Click to expand...
Reading is crucial.

Both of them (Hewitt and Nalbandian) could certainly play on the faster surfaces (which I clarified in an edit to my comment), but better than Federer? That's the question. Fed's game (solid serve, solid volleys, great touch, aggressive rather than defensive baseline ability, and excellent footwork which is nice to have on a faster court) seems more conducive to faster courts than those guys.

Third Serve said:
Fast court players like Hewitt and Nalbandian? The guy who practically ended S/V by himself and a player known the world over for his ability at the baseline? LOL. While both of them could certainly play on the surface, neither of them were any better fast-court players than Federer himself.
Click to expand...

When did I mention Henman in the previous post? I invite you to show me where I labeled him a slow-court player. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
 
Third Serve

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Had enough with you, anyways. What's the deal with Fed haters (actually, haters of any player in general) and arguing in bad faith, anyway? Seems like a trait every one of them has.
 
D

Deleted member 778933

Guest
Third Serve said:
Reading is crucial.

Both of them (Hewitt and Nalbandian) could certainly play on the faster surfaces (which I clarified in an edit to my comment), but better than Federer? That's the question. Fed's game (solid serve, solid volleys, great touch, aggressive rather than defensive baseline ability, and excellent footwork which is nice to have on a faster court) seems more conducive to faster courts than those guys.



When did I mention Henman in the previous post? I invite you to show me where I labeled him a slow-court player. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Click to expand...
Again, the evasion.

First, the post prior, the one I responded to, was your post citing Henman as well, and that is where I said that homogenization helped Fed turn around h2h against superior fastcourt players.

Second, you know exactly what is being said: Both Nalbandian and Hewitt were more suited to fast courts where their natural strengths, absorbing and redirecting of pace, was maximized because they could return firepower against them with interest and take the aggressor by surprise (given the decreased reaction time) hence their superior records against Feddy who played right into their hands. And Feddy had less ability to use his slice for recovery time, making it much easier to attack and dismantle his backhand. All that changed after Homogenization.
 
ForehandRF

ForehandRF

Legend
Sunny Ali said:
Machan, some wounds never heal :) And ... I never received an apology so the wounds are fresh as ever.
Click to expand...
What wounds ? You are not even a Nadal fan.
Anyway, worse things have been said from every fanbase and as far as I could notice since I signed up 2 years ago, this forum has an obsession with Federer.Every other thread on GPPD is about him, mostly trolling.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
ForehandRF said:
What wounds ? You are not even a Nadal fan.
Anyway, worse things have been said from every fanbase and as far as I could notice since I signed up 2 years ago, this forum has an obsession with Federer.Every other thread on GPPD is about him, mostly trolling.
Click to expand...

Yes machan, I agree. There's too much trolling about Federer and a lot about Nadal/Djokovic as well. If you don't take it too seriously, it can be a lot of fun :)
 
NoleIsBoat

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Third Serve said:
Hewitt led the H2H vs. Fed 7-2 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 16-2 in his favor.
Nalbandian led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 10-3 in his favor.
Henman led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 6-1 in his favor.

Seeing the pattern here? Should be clear to everyone that 2001-2003 Fed shouldn't even be put in the same sentence as 2004-beyond Fed. It was at the Masters Cup in 2003 that Fed actually started to turn the tables on the rest of the field. Hamburg 2002 and Wimby 2003 were nice, but then he'd immediately drop his level in the following events. His consistency wasn't there till 2004. Doesn't matter if they were S/V specialists or not.

As for the courts slowing down bit... I can't see why the "eye test" gets picked on as much as it does. Sure, it's biased, but it's much more conducive to good discussion and analysis than cherrypicked stats that don't have context with them. Waspsting match analyses are "eye tests". Should we write them off as the ramblings of a madman? No. We try to see where he's coming from by providing our own eye tests. Rather than immediately dismiss what someone says they saw, why don't you take a moment or two and view the matches on your own, see if you can tell why people write such opinions on them.

Same deal with the courts. I'm sure some will disagree, but the 2001-2004 courts looked to me like they were making the ball bounce a bit lower than the very-high-bouncing Wimby grass starting from around 2005 and 2006 (and those were two of Fed's best Wimbledon wins so there wouldn't be many such external factors shaping my opinion here). Check out parts of a few matches starting with This one and compare them with some of your own favorite Wimbledon matches from the 2010s.

I probably expect too much from some troll clearly arguing in bad faith but I have a lot of time on hand anyway.
Click to expand...
While it is true Federer turned his H2H’s as he entered his prime, he still struggled on the fastest courts vs all court speciI
Lost to Henman on Paris carpet and lightning quick indoor Rotterdam.
Most wins came on slow HCs like Indian Wells, and slow grass like Wimbledon in 2006.

I had a quick look at the video as my first thought is the play looks slower than years like 2015 and 2019. I would love to see data on average FH/BH speeds, would be interesting read.

I use my own eye test but combined with stats, results, expert analysis to come to conclusion :whistle:
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Rolland Petros said:
Yes. The pattern is Fed turned around h2hs with superior fastcourt players once the courts slowed down, and they lost confidence because their styles were neutered. See Fedfans, Fed isn't the only person who loses matches or rivalries because of loss of confidence
Click to expand...

Masters Cup 2003 and the real Roger was here.
He bageled the reigning Aus Open champion Andre Agassi in straight sets in the final ....
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Sunny Ali said:
Disagreed. He is fully capable of beating Federer anywhere.
Click to expand...

Why didn't he win in 2012 Semis ?
Why he lose in 4 sets ?
It was after he touched his peak, he had already won wimbledon in 2011 and also had that big 2012 6 hours match .... he was at his peak

yet a 31 yr old federer spanked him ? why ?

Novak is not capable of beating peak federer on any grass - PERIOD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
2003-2006 Federer vs 2023 Alcaraz at Wimbledon, but Alcaraz serves in every game - Who would win?
Replies
10
Views
543
Razer
Razer
jl809
What is the best performance by a player aged 17, 18, 19... up to 37, on each surface? Making a comprehensive list
Replies
36
Views
922
Third Serve
Third Serve
George Turner
Assessing the quality of sampras/federer opposition
Replies
11
Views
653
George Turner
George Turner
F
Nadal would beat & bagel Sampras at Wimbledon
2
Replies
83
Views
4K
Fedfan34
F
F
  • Poll
Federer vs Djokovic, who would win at their peak?
2 3
Replies
115
Views
2K
Neptune
Neptune
Top