Slower courts help Federer, not hinder him.

Goosehead · Dec 4, 2012

if federer is maybe a bit slower than in the old days..then slower courts, if the ball isnt skidding through, gives him a split second longer to reach that shot, where if the court was lightning quick as he is a bit slower..he wouldnt have as much time to get there and lose the point..

i can see that slower courts might mean longer rallies and matches, but an attacking player can 'use his tools' to try and win the points earlier,

its not as if in the old days on super fast grass and hardcourts we had many major winners in the 30s more than today..

tennis was seen as a young players game back when courts were fast, thats changed a bit now..so i agree with me :neutral:.

people say the tour is getting 'older'..so maybe slower courts are actually helping players rather than hindering them.

All-rounder · Dec 4, 2012

Funny since the majority of all his titles won in the last 3 seasons have been on the fastest courts...........

zam88 · Dec 4, 2012

I don't really think Federer is slower than he used to be

I think if anything what's missing is the explosiveness and the consistency.

His GOAT serve doesn't come every single day and you can just tell there are a few RPM's missing on that forehand.... not to mention just being a shade worse on hand/eye.

And there's only a few percentage points of skill between the top and the next 5-10 guys.

However you do make a good point as to whether slower courts might actually increase the longevity of players.

I don't know the answer to that... the tour does seem older than ever near the top... but i'm not sure if slow courts are why... if anything these slower courts are leading to longer grinds to win.. which seems like it would be a young man's game

forzamilan90 · Dec 4, 2012

slower courts help the other big 3 more than they do with Fed. put fast courts and let the 4 play and see what happens

augustobt · Dec 4, 2012

You're wrong and this thread is wrong.

Sartorius · Dec 4, 2012

I don't think this is false, Federer also said so himself. But this is sometimes overstated, especially when he's up against the other big 3. I think the slow courts primarily helps him against lower-ranked players, then again he probably wouldn't have too much problem on faster courts.

You will still hear Federer say that he plays better on faster courts, and I'd say he still doesn't play as well on slow courts as he does on faster courts. His results over the past few years seem to confirm this. Murray also made a remark about this earlier this year in Dubai (too lazy to give a link).

Povl Carstensen · Dec 4, 2012

Goosehead said:
i can see that slower courts might mean longer rallies and matches, but an attacking player can 'use his tools' to try and win the points earlier,

Selfcontradictory

WhiskeyEE · Dec 4, 2012

there are pros and cons, but the cons of slow courts clearly outweigh any benefit that they give to him.

icedevil0289 · Dec 4, 2012

..........

Bobby Jr · Dec 4, 2012

Goosehead said:
if federer is maybe a bit slower than in the old days..then slower courts, if the ball isnt skidding through, gives him a split second longer to reach that shot, where if the court was lightning quick as he is a bit slower..he wouldnt have as much time to get there and lose the point..

On many occasions I've said here that some slower courts have seemed to help Federer rather than hinder him - especially since he's able to get into position for his backhand better more often. The most noticeable example is the London WTF court which is lower bouncing than most other courts of that pace.

While I'd say Federer would prefer faster courts generally to play his best it's not because he's the only person who enjoys playing on them, rather that it denies his main opponents time to run down so many balls. The Aussie Open is a great example of the opposite of this - the ludicrously slow conditions make people overhit to try to defeat the 'getability' of so many more balls. Overhitting means more errors eventually.

As Sartorius says above, it can be situational. Depending on who he's playing it can go either way.

SwankPeRFection · Dec 4, 2012

He doesn't like playing on slower courts. Those are the ones where the ball is slower and he tends to mishit a lot of shots. He doesn't mishit them because he sucks, he does it because the racquet head speed is faster than the ball is to get there. He catches the ball usually on the bottom part of the frame because he's rushing the shot and plays like he wants to play.

Look at what happened at last year's WTF. That court was really nice and quick and he demolished the competition on it. He likes faster courts. Even the blue clay courts of 2012 were a bit faster in terms of coverage and he liked that while everyone else was crying like little babies because they're slipping around and can't get to the ball, etc.

Povl Carstensen · Dec 4, 2012

Slow courts makes it more difficult to hit through your opponent, and favours the retriever/counterpuncher.

SwankPeRFection · Dec 4, 2012

Povl Carstensen said:
Slow courts makes it more difficult to hit through your opponent, and favours the retriever/counterpuncher.

Sometimes I wish more of us would just put things in simpler terms. Bravo. Maybe I should have said that, but I like to talk. lol

Deleted member 307496 · Dec 4, 2012

Slower courts don't help Federer at all.

tennis_pro · Dec 4, 2012

Goosehead said:
if federer is maybe a bit slower than in the old days..then slower courts, if the ball isnt skidding through, gives him a split second longer to reach that shot, where if the court was lightning quick as he is a bit slower..he wouldnt have as much time to get there and lose the point..

i can see that slower courts might mean longer rallies and matches, but an attacking player can 'use his tools' to try and win the points earlier,

its not as if in the old days on super fast grass and hardcourts we had many major winners in the 30s more than today..

tennis was seen as a young players game back when courts were fast, thats changed a bit now..so i agree with me :neutral:.

people say the tour is getting 'older'..so maybe slower courts are actually helping players rather than hindering them.

It works both ways, bro. Faster courts give less time for Fed's opponents.

So to answer your question, no, slower courts don't favor Federer. At all.

Goosehead · Dec 4, 2012

tennis_pro said:
It works both ways, bro. Faster courts give less time for Fed's opponents.

So to answer your question, no, slower courts don't favor Federer. At all.

it wasnt a question, i dont agree with you..and it dosnt work both ways as his opponents are supposed to be in their prime and federer isnt.

so if he is a bit slower, then less zippy courts allow him a fraction more time to get in position.

Goosehead · Dec 4, 2012

Sartorius said:
I don't think this is false, Federer also said so himself. But this is sometimes overstated, especially when he's up against the other big 3. I think the slow courts primarily helps him against lower-ranked players, then again he probably wouldn't have too much problem on faster courts.

You will still hear Federer say that he plays better on faster courts, and I'd say he still doesn't play as well on slow courts as he does on faster courts. His results over the past few years seem to confirm this. Murray also made a remark about this earlier this year in Dubai (too lazy to give a link).

yes i mean he won wimbledon at 30yrs and its not exactly lightning fast...it would be a laugh to see one year of fast grass / hardcourts. federer won in madrid on slow clay except it was 'fast' clay really..altitude, type of clay ect....and blue

i still think quick courts would be better for younger faster reflex/reaction players..(or so-called peak federer)

papertank · Dec 4, 2012

They definitely help him, but they help Nadal, Djokovic and Murray much more.

sunof tennis · Dec 4, 2012

Goosehead said:
if federer is maybe a bit slower than in the old days..then slower courts, if the ball isnt skidding through, gives him a split second longer to reach that shot, where if the court was lightning quick as he is a bit slower..he wouldnt have as much time to get there and lose the point..

i can see that slower courts might mean longer rallies and matches, but an attacking player can 'use his tools' to try and win the points earlier,

its not as if in the old days on super fast grass and hardcourts we had many major winners in the 30s more than today..

tennis was seen as a young players game back when courts were fast, thats changed a bit now..so i agree with me :neutral:.

people say the tour is getting 'older'..so maybe slower courts are actually helping players rather than hindering them.

I think for Federer is isn't as much the speed of the court, but how high the ball bounces. A court with long bounces means it he won't get as many balls above the shoulder to his one-handed backhand and his slice backhand becomes more effective.

TheCheese · Dec 4, 2012

It makes it harder for a low ranked player to blow one of the top guys off the court, but it favors the other big 3 way more because their games rely much more on retrieving.

zagor · Dec 4, 2012

This thread is really an eye opener, I never realized how much of a nice selfless guy Fed is, here we have a TW expert saying how much he benefits from slow HC yet he complained quite often recently about the lack of fast courts.

Goosehead said:
yes i mean he won wimbledon at 30yrs and its not exactly lightning fast...

Well nothing's lightning fast these days compared to standards of past eras but at worst Wimbledon is the 2nd fastest slam.

Goosehead said:
it would be a laugh to see one year of fast grass / hardcourts.

Haha yeah, except that I don't think you'd be laughing.

Goosehead said:
federer won in madrid on slow clay except it was 'fast' clay really..altitude, type of clay ect....and blue

So what is it then? Fast clay or slow clay? You seem to contradict yourself in the same sentence.

I mean if it was "normal" slow clay than the only difference was the colour which is obviously negligible.

Do we have excuses for Fed winning (and/or Nadal losing) which goes against the premise of this thread or we don't (it was normal slow clay)?

Goosehead said:
i still think quick courts would be better for younger faster reflex/reaction players..(or so-called peak federer)

Interesting, so why is Fed's peak referred to as "so-called" peak? Any particular reason?

3fees · Dec 4, 2012

slower courts dont favor his game.

:mrgreen:

Bobby Jr · Dec 4, 2012

SwankPeRFection said:
He doesn't like playing on slower courts. Those are the ones where the ball is slower and he tends to mishit a lot of shots. ...he does it because the racquet head speed is faster than the ball is to get there. He catches the ball usually on the bottom part of the frame because he's rushing the shot and plays like he wants to play.

You make it sound as if he shanks shots because he's not used to the courts or something. He shanks shots because of his swing path/speed. He is one of the best players of all time at generating pace off slow balls - it's one of the blatantly obvious traits of his game.

His shanks are far, far more related to the bounce height of the court and the opponent he is facing than it is to the speed of the surface.

SwankPeRFection said:
...WTF. That court was really nice and quick and he demolished the competition on it. ... the blue clay courts of 2012 were a bit faster in terms of coverage...

How many times do we need to go through this detail? The court at the WTF is not fast. How can you watch tennis and not notice this? The court suits Federer because it doesn't have high bounce, not because it's faster. It makes it harder for people to get on top of his backhand and also means the players who push forward more gain an extra advantage in that their approach shots don't bounce up quite so much.

He is fantastic on fast court and would surely prefer more of them - but his game also really suits court speeds all the way through to just before the slowest clay and hard courts (Rome, Roland Garros, Aussie Open etc). A good demonstration of how small changes can make a huge difference can be seen in the 2011 French Open. Look how well he did - a big part of that was down to the unusually fast new Babolat balls. In 2012 they'd reverted to lava balls for some reason.

zagor · Dec 4, 2012

3fees said:
slower courts dont favor his game.

:mrgreen:

But they do, it's obvious given the fact that Fed won on slow, fast, altitudy, fake, real blue clay in Madrid this year.

90's Clay · Dec 4, 2012

I dont think Fed has won many titles over the last few years on slower surfaces has he?

Only reason he won wimbledon was due to the fact they put a roof on (Or else he may not even have gotten through to the finals). Won Madrid on weird fast blue clay, and won the YEC the last few years (except this year when it slowed down), when it was faster.

Slow courts obviously hinder him.. Especially against those counterpuncher/retreivers. The proof is in the results

Deleted member 307496 · Dec 4, 2012

90's Clay said:
I dont think Fed has won many titles over the last few years on slower surfaces has he?

Only reason he won wimbledon was due to the fact they put a roof on (Or else he may not even have gotten through to the finals). Won Madrid on weird fast blue clay, and won the YEC the last few years (except this year when it slowed down), when it was faster.

Slow courts obviously hinder him.. Especially against those counterpuncher/retreivers. The proof is in the results

Especially because Federer is a natural shotmaker, not a returner.

Feather · Dec 5, 2012

Bobby Jr said:
You make it sound as if he shanks shots because he's not used to the courts or something. He shanks shots because of his swing path/speed. He is one of the best players of all time at generating pace off slow balls - it's one of the blatantly obvious traits of his game.

His shanks are far, far more related to the bounce height of the court and the opponent he is facing than it is to the speed of the surface.

How many times do we need to go through this detail? The court at the WTF is not fast. How can you watch tennis and not notice this? The court suits Federer because it doesn't have high bounce, not because it's faster. It makes it harder for people to get on top of his backhand and also means the players who push forward more gain an extra advantage in that their approach shots don't bounce up quite so much.

He is fantastic on fast court and would surely prefer more of them - but his game also really suits court speeds all the way through to just before the slowest clay and hard courts (Rome, Roland Garros, Aussie Open etc). A good demonstration of how small changes can make a huge difference can be seen in the 2011 French Open. Look how well he did - a big part of that was down to the unusually fast new Babolat balls. In 2012 they'd reverted to lava balls for some reason.

This is the post of the thread..

I too felt that his shanks are not exactly due to court speed. I don't think anyone can say that WTF 2011 was a fast court. I saw that match with Rafa which he won 6-3, 6-0 and the rallies were long. The ball was not moving through the court, it will just sits up.. The bounce was lower.

I feel that high bounce and more than that the steep bounce on clay courts make him shank as its tough on his backhand when facing shots with ridiculous top spin..

Very true about fast Babolat balls. There were some shots where Djkovic and Federer didn't even try to retrieve. That normally happens on clay courts. That again proves that fast conditions help him more against big three.

I think Roger will have more problems facing Berdych, Tsonga, del Potro, Jercy Janowich on fast courts than slow courts at this point in his career where he has slowed down on both wings. However he has more chances to win against these guys on fast courts than against guys like Rafa, Djokovic, Murray on ultra slow courts like Australian Open, Miami masters etc

Feather · Dec 5, 2012

zagor said:
Interesting, so why is Fed's peak referred to as "so-called" peak? Any particular reason?

lolz @ slow called peak

Candide · Dec 5, 2012

What does Roger Federer know about Roger Federer's game? Nothin' I tells ya. Nothin'!

helloworld · Dec 5, 2012

zam88 said:
I don't really think Federer is slower than he used to be

I think if anything what's missing is the explosiveness and the consistency.

His GOAT serve doesn't come every single day and you can just tell there are a few RPM's missing on that forehand.... not to mention just being a shade worse on hand/eye.

Wait... Does Federer even have a GOAT serve to begin with?? :shock:

PhrygianDominant · Dec 5, 2012

helloworld said:
Wait... Does Federer even have a GOAT serve to begin with?? :shock:

He does. More accurate wording would be to say he has a GOAT hold game. Great placement on both 1st and 2nd serves with more than adequate pace and spin to set up easy points he can finish with his forehand. He also gets a fair amount of aces, all in all pretty GOATish. baaaa

helloworld · Dec 5, 2012

PhrygianDominant said:
He does. More accurate wording would be to say he has a GOAT hold game. Great placement on both 1st and 2nd serves with more than adequate pace and spin to set up easy points he can finish with his forehand. He also gets a fair amount of aces, all in all pretty GOATish. baaaa

Federer's serve is top 50 all-time, at best.

djokovic2008 · Dec 5, 2012

helloworld said:
Federer's serve is top 50 all-time, at best.

Oh no wait for it your gonna get a bunch of *******s claiming fed serve is the best of all time LOL. It really makes me laugh, I'd take Raonic's serve over fed's ANYDAY.

NamRanger · Dec 5, 2012

djokovic2008 said:
Oh no wait for it your gonna get a bunch of *******s claiming fed serve is the best of all time LOL. It really makes me laugh, I'd take Raonic's serve over fed's ANYDAY.

P_Agony mode

"FEDERER HAS A SUPERIOR SERVE THAN THE GUY THAT BASED HIS WHOLE ENTIRE CAREER (SAMPRAS) OFF HIS SERVE"

Too good.

djokovic2008 · Dec 5, 2012

NamRanger said:
P_Agony mode

"FEDERER HAS A SUPERIOR SERVE THAN THE GUY THAT BASED HIS WHOLE ENTIRE CAREER (SAMPRAS) OFF HIS SERVE"

Too good.

Sorry where and who did you get that riduculous quote from, I think the serve stats will back up superior servers like Raonic, isner and karlovic(93% hold average on his ENTIRE CAREER). This is one area fed cannot compare with these types of guys.

NamRanger · Dec 5, 2012

djokovic2008 said:
Sorry where and who did you get that riduculous quote from, I think the serve stats will back up superior servers like Raonic, isner and karlovic(93% hold average on his ENTIRE CAREER). This is one area fed cannot compare with these types of guys.

P_Agony = super Federer troll.

He believed Federer to have a superior serve than Roddick, Isner, Karlovic, Sampras, Goran, etc, based on the fact that Federer won more slams.

helloworld · Dec 5, 2012

djokovic2008 said:
Sorry where and who did you get that riduculous quote from, I think the serve stats will back up superior servers like Raonic, isner and karlovic(93% hold average on his ENTIRE CAREER). This is one area fed cannot compare with these types of guys.

I think he was being sarcastic, meaning he was just joking, hopefully. Anyway, I can already name 5 guys in this generation with better serve than Federer.
1.Karlovic
2.Isner
3.Raonic
4.Roddick
5.Jahansson

Let's not go into other eras because Fed will definitely look even worse.

tennis_pro · Dec 5, 2012

helloworld said:
Federer's serve is top 50 all-time, at best.

Name the other top 50 best servers of all time, please.

valiant · Dec 5, 2012

icedevil0289 said:
..........

Welcome back Ice.

Bobby Jr · Dec 5, 2012

djokovic2008 said:
...superior servers like Raonic, isner and karlovic(93% hold average on his ENTIRE CAREER). This is one area fed cannot compare with these types of guys.

I'm not making a case for Federer being better than someone like Karlovic but to even the discussion up Karlovic is only a little better in some of the career-long serving stats but there is one significant different between Federer's stats and Karlovic's stats.

Karlovic is such a mediocre player he rarely made it deep into tournaments - meaning he was playing much, much less capable players on average relative to Federer who was playing the top guys on an almost weekly basis for years on end.

Given that, it's not a stretch to say Karlovic's numbers must, to some extent, be inflated because he was serving to poorer returners.

As I said from the outset I'm not making a case for Federer being better than Karlovic per se - rather that those percentages are not an all-encompassing or definitive argument.

An example of the general difference in player quality they have each faced in their respective careers Federer has played 1076 matches, of which 243 were against top 10 players. Karlovic has played 407 matches of which 54 were vs top 10 players.

Career matches vs top 10 players
Federer: 22.5%
Karlovic: 13.2%

Federer would have to play more than 600 more, yes 600 - you didn't misread that number, matches against non top 10 players to even up his numbers up to Karlovic. That would probably entail over 200 who would be outside the top 50....

So, how much do you think all those matches could improve his serving numbers? By 2%? 4%? Because that's all he trails Karlovic in some key serving statistics.

(*yes, I realise that some serving stats are also significantly affected by what you back your serve up with - that's the point of this demonstration > serving stats are not as reliable as people think in determining who has just the better serve)

djokovic2008 · Dec 5, 2012

Bobby Jr said:
I'm not making a case for Federer being better than someone like Karlovic but to even the discussion up Karlovic is only a little better in some of the career-long serving stats but there is one significant different between Federer's stats and Karlovic's stats.

Karlovic is such a mediocre player he rarely made it deep into tournaments - meaning he was playing much, much less capable players on average relative to Federer who was playing the top guys on an almost weekly basis for years on end.

Given that, it's not a stretch to say Karlovic's numbers must, to some extent, be inflated because he was serving to poorer returners.

As I said from the outset I'm not making a case for Federer being better than Karlovic per se - rather that those percentages are not an all-encompassing or definitive argument.

Obviously there is no argument between fed and other big servers in terms of who is more talented but in the area of the serve in particular he does not match in terms of stats, spin, placement and consistency. To say 93% holds on ones entire career is inflated considering how long Karlovic has been playing is a big disservice to him that is an incrediable stat and it might be a bit higher than that.

djokovic2008 · Dec 5, 2012

helloworld said:
I think he was being sarcastic, meaning he was just joking, hopefully. Anyway, I can already name 5 guys in this generation with better serve than Federer.
1.Karlovic
2.Isner
3.Raonic
4.Roddick
5.Jahansson

Let's not go into other eras because Fed will definitely look even worse.

What areas?

zam88 · Dec 5, 2012

helloworld said:
Wait... Does Federer even have a GOAT serve to begin with?? :shock:

I should've replied with... his "A" service game

obviously he's not the GOAT server, but certainly has a very effective serve

Goosehead · Dec 5, 2012

zagor said:
This thread is really an eye opener, I never realized how much of a nice selfless guy Fed is, here we have a TW expert saying how much he benefits from slow HC yet he complained quite often recently about the lack of fast courts.

Well nothing's lightning fast these days compared to standards of past eras but at worst Wimbledon is the 2nd fastest slam.

Haha yeah, except that I don't think you'd be laughing.

So what is it then? Fast clay or slow clay? You seem to contradict yourself in the same sentence.

I mean if it was "normal" slow clay than the only difference was the colour which is obviously negligible.

Do we have excuses for Fed winning (and/or Nadal losing) which goes against the premise of this thread or we don't (it was normal slow clay)?

Interesting, so why is Fed's peak referred to as "so-called" peak? Any particular reason?

i dont mind a mix of hc speeds..so i think i would be laughing,:-|

slow clay fast clay..i was playing around with phrases and meaning..but you missed that, i forgive you,

'so-called peak'..2003/4 to 2007 i agree this is feds peak but some people this year say..ooh fed won a major and was world no1 for 4 months he must still be peak then.. hence the phrase 'so-called peak'.

single_handed_champion · Dec 5, 2012

Faster courts give opponents less time to use spin and bounce against him. His shots have a flatter trajectory than Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and he also prefers playing against player who hit with flatter trajectories, and he times his backhand much better when the ball is low AND fast (see how well he hit his backhand against Djokovic at Wimbledon vs RG or WTF). So I would say it is equal parts advantages to his style of play and disadvantages to his opponents' styles of play that make faster courts his best bet.

mattennis · Dec 5, 2012

Faster courts and balls would help Federer against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, but at the same time it would not help him at all against other players.

In general, with faster courts and balls, there would be much more surprises, casualties (top players losing early in tournaments here and there) like Federer himself has said several times.

The other thing you were talking about, why the slowness of conditions seem to help older players now on Tour?

When you get old (late 27, 28, 29, 30,...35...) you actually can have more stamina than when you were 20.

It is speed/power/explosiveness/reflexes and recovery time what you lose when you grow old (past 25 more or less).

With slower and slower conditions in tennis, it won't be rare to see more 30-something players into the top-50.

Look the year-end-top 10 of 1992:

nº1 Jim Courier: 22 y.o.
nº2 Stefan Edberg: 26 y.o.
nº3 Pete Sampras: 21 y.o.
nº4 Goran Ivanisevic: 21 y.o.
nº5 Boris Becker: 25 y.o.
nº6 Michael Chang: 20 y.o.
nº7 Petr Korda: 24 y.o.
nº8 Ivan Lendl: 32 y.o.
nº9 Andre Agassi: 22 y.o.
nº10 Richard Krajicek: 20 y.o.

So young many of them. Faster (in general, though it actually was more varied conditions) conditions seem to help young, explosive talented players.

Bobby Jr · Dec 5, 2012

mattennis said:
The other thing you were talking about, why the slowness of conditions seem to help older players now on Tour?

When you get old (late 27, 28, 29, 30,...35...) you actually can have more stamina than when you were 20.

It is speed/power/explosiveness/reflexes and recovery time what you lose when you grow old (past 25 more or less).

It's not a "can have" more stamina scenario. Physiologically males do not peak stamina-wise until closer to their 30s on average - and is often closer to the mid-30s than 30.

Endurance athletes show the time and time again - the top marathon runners world-wide, on average, tend to be at the older end of the spectrum. The London Olympics marathon was a surprise win by someone so young (especially since it was only the 4th marathon Kiprotich had run).

What this has to do with ageing of the top tennis players is likely related to court speed. Younger guys cannot rely on blowing people off the court as the likes of a 17 year old Becker did back in the 80s. The rewards for hitting big have been tempered with the increased difficulty in hitting dead winners. So, along with the increased physical workload, it's become harder for young guys to blow hot in enough matches to get to the top. The fitness just isn't there yet.

zagor · Dec 5, 2012

Goosehead said:
i dont mind a mix of hc speeds..so i think i would be laughing,:-|

Well, I doubt Nadal would have done as well as he did so yes I don't you would be.

Goosehead said:
slow clay fast clay..i was playing around with phrases and meaning..but you missed that...

I didn't really miss anything cause there wasn't anything to miss in the first place, that specific sentence of yours was an incoherent babbling mess.

Once again I ask, was blue clay Madrid this year fast or not?

Goosehead said:
i forgive you...

Oh my, aren't you a generous individual.

Goosehead said:
'so-called peak'..2003/4 to 2007 i agree this is feds peak but some people this year say..ooh fed won a major and was world no1 for 4 months he must still be peak then.. hence the phrase 'so-called peak'.

So in essence, if Fed would/does benefit from faster courts today it means he's still in his peak but if he isn't (as Fed fans claim) that means he's aided (instead of being hindered) by slower courts, quite sneaky

.

Federer20042006 · Dec 5, 2012

I think slower courts are safer for Federer as far as getting deep in tournaments. No big server/aggressive opponent is going to expose his decline in movement/defense/returning as easily and, especially over a 5 set match, he will pull through against all but a few.

On the other hand, his odds against a Djokovic, Murray, or a Nadal are better on faster courts.

cork_screw · Dec 5, 2012

As Fed gets older, YES. That's because his movement has slowed down.

If courts at my club would slow down more, the older guys would have a field day with the younger guys. Their consistency and not being bothered by as many winners would make them all the more happier.

When I get old, I'm gonna play in sand.

Slower courts help Federer, not hinder him.

Legend

Legend

Professional

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Similar threads