Do you think surface change of AO since 2008 could potentially affect Federer's total titles at AO?

[TennisSprout]

Djokovic won his first Grand Slam title in 2008 AO. I sometimes wonder what would have happened in 2008 AO SF if the surface was still Rebound Ace instead of Plexicushion.

In 2007, Federer beat Djokovic easily on Rebound Ace surface. So in 2008 Federer might have declined a bit as Djokovic also improved a lot, but Federer lost in 3 straight sets on Plexicushion, which really surprised me. If the surface was still Rebound Ace, could Federer win the semi final and eventually beat Tsonga in the final? Or was it just the mono that mainly caused Federer to decline so much compared to 2004-2007?

When I look at Federer's record at AO since 2008, it is kind of shocking that he lost 3 times to Djokovic, 1 times to Murray (Federer's only Grand Slam loss to Murray), 3 times to Nadal. The only 2 times he won was 2010 when he didn't face Nadal or Djokovic, and 2017 when AO court speed was significantly increased.

Any thought? After all, at the beginning of the year, all players are fresh and Federer might grasp a few more titles at AO had they not changed the surface?

 

[Gazelle]

Yes, Plexicushion hasn't done Federer many favours. Consistency wise he's great there against the field (but so was he on rebound), but it's one of his worst courts in his match-ups against the other Big 3 and Murray.

 

[tennis_pro]

Totally. Until recently I considered the AO to be the slowest HC out there next to Miami.

 

[TheAssassin]

Rebound Ace was a slow surface too and Federer has usually been a fine player on slow courts. His own decline and Djokovic's presence contributed more than the surface did.

 

[mike danny]

Plexicusion simply doesn't favor him against the much younger Nadal and Djokovic, unless it is sped up.

It's ironic that Federer has done better at the AO than USO since 2010, despite being more suited at the USO to taking out the top players.

 

[BVSlam]

Plexicusion simply doesn't favor him against the much younger Nadal and Djokovic, unless it is sped up.

It's ironic that Federer has done better at the AO than USO since 2010, despite being more suited at the USO to taking out the top players.

I think people overestimate the difference and it's more about when he met whom.

At the AO, he has faced Nadal only on Plexicushion, and three out of the four meetings came when Nadal was in a great period in his career contrary to Fed (after 2008's two crushing defeats against Nadal, after a slamless year for the first time in 8 years and after the injury-filled abomination that was 2013). Djokovic he played once on Rebound Ace, but let's be honest, that wasn't the Djokovic he played in 2008, no matter the surface. 2008 and 2011 were some of Djokovic's best AO runs and two of Fed's least consistent even before meeting Djokovic. Maybe had they met in 2009 and 2010, when Fed put in some ridiculous performances, he would have won on Plexicushion too. Nadal 2009...yeah, maybe he would have had a better chance at the US Open, but then again, they both played an incredible final that Fed could have won as well. Then people would talk differently about Fed at the AO had that actually happened.

Plus, I believe that Rebound Ace was actually higher bouncing than Plexicushion and not a very quick surface either. Who knows how those meetings would have gone. I think the fact that it looks quicker (outside of maybe years like 2011 and 2012 where it did seem really slow compared to other years) is less because of surface and more because of balls used, which I think used to be lighter. That makes a tremendous difference. The surface may not really matter greatly in this case. But I don't have direct evidence for that so I won't claim I do.

Then the US Open. He beat Djokovic three times there, yes, but again not against Djokovic's best versions. Then he lost to him three times, when Fed himself wasn't at his best or most confident. He never played Rafa there, so you never know what would have happened.

I don't really understand why people still think the US Open is so much better for Fed than the AO. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is timing based (that goes two ways in my opinion). He has 5 titles at both, has been more consistent at the AO even in his older years. I'm sure it goes the other way around too when talking about the surface: if the AO had always been on Plexicushion I wouldn't have any doubt he'd have had at least the same amount of titles there. For me it's more timing of facing opponents and balls used that is relevant than the respective surfaces. Not saying there's no difference at all, but with Rebound Ace-titles being entirely in Fed's best years and the others' youngest years and the Plexicushion courts being pretty much in opposite times makes it difficult to draw any conclusions.

 

[mike danny]

I think people overestimate the difference and it's more about when he met whom.

At the AO, he has faced Nadal only on Plexicushion, and three out of the four meetings came when Nadal was in a great period in his career contrary to Fed (after 2008's two crushing defeats against Nadal, after a slamless year for the first time in 8 years and after the injury-filled abomination that was 2013). Djokovic he played once on Rebound Ace, but let's be honest, that wasn't the Djokovic he played in 2008, no matter the surface. 2008 and 2011 were some of Djokovic's best AO runs and two of Fed's least consistent even before meeting Djokovic. Maybe had they met in 2009 and 2010, when Fed put in some ridiculous performances, he would have won on Plexicushion too. Nadal 2009...yeah, maybe he would have had a better chance at the US Open, but then again, they both played an incredible final that Fed could have won as well. Then people would talk differently about Fed at the AO had that actually happened.

Plus, I believe that Rebound Ace was actually higher bouncing than Plexicushion and not a very quick surface either. Who knows how those meetings would have gone. I think the fact that it looks quicker (outside of maybe years like 2011 and 2012 where it did seem really slow compared to other years) is less because of surface and more because of balls used, which I think used to be lighter. That makes a tremendous difference. The surface may not really matter greatly in this case. But I don't have direct evidence for that so I won't claim I do.

Then the US Open. He beat Djokovic three times there, yes, but again not against Djokovic's best versions. Then he lost to him three times, when Fed himself wasn't at his best or most confident. He never played Rafa there, so you never know what would have happened.

I don't really understand why people still think the US Open is so much better for Fed than the AO. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is timing based (that goes two ways in my opinion). He has 5 titles at both, has been more consistent at the AO even in his older years. I'm sure it goes the other way around too when talking about the surface: if the AO had always been on Plexicushion I wouldn't have any doubt he'd have had at least the same amount of titles there. For me it's more timing of facing opponents and balls used that is relevant than the respective surfaces. Not saying there's no difference at all, but with Rebound Ace-titles being entirely in Fed's best years and the others' youngest years and the Plexicushion courts being pretty much in opposite times makes it difficult to draw any conclusions.

Well, how about these 2 examples:

2008: Djokovic gets him at the AO, but Federer gets him at the USO

2011: Federer doesn't win a set against Djokovic at the AO but plays 5 sets with MP's at the USO.

 

[mike danny]

I think people overestimate the difference and it's more about when he met whom.

At the AO, he has faced Nadal only on Plexicushion, and three out of the four meetings came when Nadal was in a great period in his career contrary to Fed (after 2008's two crushing defeats against Nadal, after a slamless year for the first time in 8 years and after the injury-filled abomination that was 2013). Djokovic he played once on Rebound Ace, but let's be honest, that wasn't the Djokovic he played in 2008, no matter the surface. 2008 and 2011 were some of Djokovic's best AO runs and two of Fed's least consistent even before meeting Djokovic. Maybe had they met in 2009 and 2010, when Fed put in some ridiculous performances, he would have won on Plexicushion too. Nadal 2009...yeah, maybe he would have had a better chance at the US Open, but then again, they both played an incredible final that Fed could have won as well. Then people would talk differently about Fed at the AO had that actually happened.

Plus, I believe that Rebound Ace was actually higher bouncing than Plexicushion and not a very quick surface either. Who knows how those meetings would have gone. I think the fact that it looks quicker (outside of maybe years like 2011 and 2012 where it did seem really slow compared to other years) is less because of surface and more because of balls used, which I think used to be lighter. That makes a tremendous difference. The surface may not really matter greatly in this case. But I don't have direct evidence for that so I won't claim I do.

Then the US Open. He beat Djokovic three times there, yes, but again not against Djokovic's best versions. Then he lost to him three times, when Fed himself wasn't at his best or most confident. He never played Rafa there, so you never know what would have happened.

I don't really understand why people still think the US Open is so much better for Fed than the AO. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is timing based (that goes two ways in my opinion). He has 5 titles at both, has been more consistent at the AO even in his older years. I'm sure it goes the other way around too when talking about the surface: if the AO had always been on Plexicushion I wouldn't have any doubt he'd have had at least the same amount of titles there. For me it's more timing of facing opponents and balls used that is relevant than the respective surfaces. Not saying there's no difference at all, but with Rebound Ace-titles being entirely in Fed's best years and the others' youngest years and the Plexicushion courts being pretty much in opposite times makes it difficult to draw any conclusions.

And I agree with you the Federer-Djokovic Melbournde history doesn't tell the whole story. Djokovic not meeting Federer in 2009 and 2010 assured his perfect record on Plexicusion against Roger. Roger would have won in 2009 an 2010 IMO.

 

[KINGROGER]

Totally agree. Think he wins 08, 09, 10 on rebound ace he was so good on it.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Yes, Plexicushion hasn't done Federer many favours. Consistency wise he's great there against the field (but so was he on rebound), but it's one of his worst courts in his match-ups against the other Big 3 and Murray.

Haha. Big 3 and Murray??