Fed with the neo backhand since 2004, more slams?

Fed with the neo backhand since 2004, more slams?


  • Total voters
    11

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
If he had the 2017 neo backhand in his arsenal since 2004, would that change anything in his slam performances? How would he fare against the Nadal at RG?
 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
But he loses the potency of his GOAT forehand during that time.
This is an hypothetical, he has the GOAT forehand and the neo backhand since 2004, doesn't need to make sense since it is an "if" situation.

I just don't think a better backhand would have helped him that much. Nadal would still beat him on clay.
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Without a shadow of a doubt, hypothetical peak neo-backhand Federer would have won the Wimbledon 2008 final with a beatiful neo-backhand winner. Then Nadal would have cried in the locker-room.

Federer would have led the H2H over Nadal 24-16 and would have won RG 2005, RG 2006 and RG 2011.

Nadal would have retired with 0 Slams outside clay.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Without a shadow of a doubt, hypothetical peak neo-backhand Federer would have won the Wimbledon 2008 final with a beatiful neo-backhand winner. Then Nadal would have cried in the locker-room.

Federer would have led the H2H over Nadal 24-16 and would have won RG 2005, RG 2006 and RG 2011.

Nadal would have retired with 0 Slams outside clay.
I agree he could’ve won Wimbledon 08 and AO 09. Maybe even one of RG 05-07 to a 5th set and a win.
 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
Without a shadow of a doubt, hypothetical peak neo-backhand Federer would have won the Wimbledon 2008 final with a beatiful neo-backhand winner. Then Nadal would have cried in the locker-room.

Federer would have led the H2H over Nadal 24-16 and would have won RG 2005, RG 2006 and RG 2011.

Nadal would have retired with 0 Slams outside clay.
That's cruel.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
If you just give him his modern backhand, then of course. But that's a different argument from if we're realistically swapping out his 90 for a 97,which would affect all aspects of his game, and not all positively.
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
Yes, very very clearly. Especially in '04-'05 where his backhand alternated between pitiful and sub-mediocre
 
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
This is an hypothetical, he has the GOAT forehand and the neo backhand since 2004, doesn't need to make sense since it is an "if" situation.

I just don't think a better backhand would have helped him that much. Nadal would still beat him on clay.
But he wouldn't lose to Rafa in Dubai, the matches at Wimbledon would be settled in a tough 4 set battle just like he would give Rafa at RG so he wouldn't feel like he was losing ground while Rafa was gaining it. He'd have won W '08, AO '09 for starters as well.
 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
But he wouldn't lose to Rafa in Dubai, the matches at Wimbledon would be settled in a tough 4 set battle just like he would give Rafa at RG so he wouldn't feel like he was losing ground while Rafa was gaining it. He'd have won W '08, AO '09 for starters as well.
Yeah, outside clay he would beat Nadal at least.
 
This is an hypothetical, he has the GOAT forehand and the neo backhand since 2004, doesn't need to make sense since it is an "if" situation.

I just don't think a better backhand would have helped him that much. Nadal would still beat him on clay.
Whenever I watch his old matches I get it why no one except Nadal exploited that weakness.

The old BH is actually fits exceptionally well with his game, and is much more versatile and capable of creating short angles.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I was being ironic. Seems like people didn't get it, as now they are now claiming, unironically, that Federer would have won WB 2008 and the AO 2009.

Federer needed 5 sets to defeat a non-fresh 30 years old Nadal that had played a 5 hours SF against Dimitrov and had one day less to rest before the final. Federer wasn't facing Nadal at the peak of his velocity and defensive skills.

So, while it is true that Federer's backhand improvements would be more than welcome, it is untestable and invalid to claim that "he would have won WB 2008 and the AO 2009" based on his 2017 victory over Nadal at the AO. He was facing an slower and tired version of Nadal. Nadal in 2017 was a completely different player. 2008-2009 Nadal was a nightmare matchup for Federer because he was the perfect anthitesis to his game with his A+ defense. 2017 Nadal did not possess an A+ defense, he was a more offensive player. And Federer matches up better against 2017 Nadal, because no one attacks better than Federer.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 781040

Guest
I was being ironic. Seems like people didn't get it, as now they are now claiming, unironically, that Federer would have won WB 2008 and the AO 2009.

Federer needed 5 sets to defeat a non-fresh 30 years old Nadal that had played a 5 hours SF against Dimitrov and had one day less to rest before the final. Federer wasn't facing Nadal at the peak of his velocity and defensive skills.

So, while it is true that Federer's backhand improvements would be more than welcome, it is untestable and unvalid to claim that "he would have won WB 2008 and the AO 2009" based on his 2017 victory over Nadal at the AO. He was facing an slower and tired version of Nadal. Nadal in 2017 was a completely different player. 2008-2009 Nadal was a nightmare matchup for Federer because he was the perfect anthitesis to his game with his A+ defense. 2017 Nadal did not posses and A+ defense, he was a more offensive player. And Federer matches up better against 2017 Nadal, because no one attacks better than Federer.
It is a hypothetical. Of course its untestable. Your claim that he would not win those matches is equally so.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
without a doubt. probably picks up a couple of his tough prime losses at a minimum. I don't think he suddenly dominates nadal completely but he definitely defends his non-clay events
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
If you just give him his modern backhand, then of course. But that's a different argument from if we're realistically swapping out his 90 for a 97,which would affect all aspects of his game, and not all positively.
this as well. i'm assuming we're talking the backhand in isolation here
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
without a doubt. probably picks up a couple of his tough prime losses at a minimum. I don't think he suddenly dominates nadal completely but he definitely defends his non-clay events
Untestable claim, therefore invalid. That's equally untestable as saying "Nadal with his USO 2010 serve definetely beats Federer at Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007".
 

Turing

Rookie
Nope, neo backhand means the slice and variety go out the window. A more stable topspin drive is nice, but that slice and variety was more crucial to his game.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Untestable claim, therefore invalid. That's equally untestable as saying "Nadal with his USO 2010 serve definetely beats Federer at Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007".
yeah okay not definitely but i still, untestably, reckon he does it
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
No, and he’d still lose to RAFA at RG. The biggest change in the Fedal rivalry is that RAFA can’t play anywhere near the same level of defense that drove Ol’ Rog bat sheet crazy.
Plus, he hits a bit flatter nowadays (not flat, just flatter) compared to the insane topspin he’d put on the ball in his younger years. There’s a bit less work Fed has to do on that wing now.
 
Top