Federer is not quite as good as he looks.

[The Pusher Terminator]

Federer may be one of the greatest players of all time, but the reason he looks so dominating against the rest of the tour is simply because the rest of the tour only has a one dimensional game.

In the old days there were many varying styles but today the tour is filled with a bunch of clones.

Hank Pfister , former #9 in the world agrees. Here are some of his thoughts:

"In the past you would see players who had complete games, groundstrokes, service, approach shots, volleys, topspin and slice shots, and the ability to change strategy as needed using any or all of the aforementioned skills. But players have become more one-dimensional seemingly with no capacity to change tactics or styles.

This is mostly due to lack of developed techniques and several basic tennis skills: volleying, transition or approach shots, and the slice backhand, to name a few. Players are smashing the ball hard from deep in the court trying to out-hit their opponents. Statistically, unforced errors are up, first-serve percentages are down and winners are the same as, sometimes less than 15 to 20 years ago. How can this be? We are seeing women's pro tennis matches in which the first-serve percentages are at or below 50% and unforced errors are commonly in the range of 12 to 20%!

Last year in the U.S. Open women's semifinals, a Elena Dementiava made 24 unforced errors in the third set alone. She did not hit a single first or second serve to Jennifer Capriati's backhand and served at the slowest speeds imaginable, while still winning the set and the match! Capriati did not have the confidence or the ability to step up in the court, make a simple forehand approach off a short slow serve, go to the net and finish with a volleyer overhead. But Capriati was not the only player lacking the ability or confidence to do it; no other player did either until the final.

This is not an isolated example. This type of match is commonplace on the women's tour. The men aren't much better. Errors versus winner percentages for them and are only slightly better than the women, and the men also have an average first-serve percentage that hovers around 50%, which is 10% to 15% lower than in the 1970s and 1980s.

Even with the speed of the ball increasing, there are examples of players who still play the "whole game," and they are oddly enough, the best players in the world. Sampras, before retiring, dominated tennis with his all court style, while playing against predominantly hard-hitting backcourt players. He could alternate from all court to serve and volley as the the surface and his opponent dictated. Federer is doing the same thing with the same style and skills."

 

[johnmcc516]

Ya know, I agree with you. Everyone these days wants to pound out groundies and winners from the ground, where as if they would serve and set urself up for a volley and win the point, then the competition and tennis would be even better. But lets not take anyway from federer. He is amazing.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

crap, I am waiting for someone to disagree..lol. (yes Federer is un freaking believeable...its just that if players such as Sampras and Nastase were around , I think he would not be quite as dominant....he destroys anyone with only a one dimensional game).

 

[Haka Boy]

Are you serious? Are you really saying that Federer only has his results and records because all the other tennis players around the world possess “a one dimensional game and are a bunch of clones”?
Yeah Federer is the best of this era but I’m sure even he wouldn’t agree with your assumptions.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Are you serious? Are you really saying that Federer only has his results and records because all the other tennis players around the world possess “a one dimensional game and are a bunch of clones”?
Yeah Federer is the best of this era but I’m sure even he wouldn’t agree with your assumptions.

No you misunderstand. Federer is an awesome player, no one can argue with that fact. He would have been awesome in any era; however, in this generation he is almost completely dominant over every other player because most of todays players have a one dimensional game. If these players had developed the rest of their games as Federer, and Sampras did then I think Federer would have a much tougher time. Its a shame that the Bolleteri "factory" keeps vomiting out the same semiwestern baseline whacking players. federer will simply eat those guys for breakfast...and unfortunately that means trouble for most of the tour.

Look at Roddick for example...he has the biggest serve ever and the one of the biggest forehands ; however he is just not comfortable with the continental grip because he did not grow up training with it. He is trying to make up for lost time...but its a very difficult task and his serve and volley skills have suffered. If he had a better volley game then Fed would be in a crapload of trouble! On the other hand....Fed is quite comfortable with all grips including the continental...he is able to slice and serve and volley effectively. Its no accident that Fed and Sampras have done so well.

 

[daniel_rst]

There may be parts of your argument that I believe, but you can't state that Federer is playing a bunch of clones and then give arguments from the women's tour. As far as I can remember, Federer does not play Dementiava. I don't think there are many people who will say that playing styles are comparable across the WTA and ATP. Men's and women's tennis are significantly different sports.

That being said, I do feel like Federer is playing a more defensive style of tennis against the top players lately.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

There may be parts of your argument that I believe, but you can't state that Federer is playing a bunch of clones and then give arguments from the women's tour. As far as I can remember, Federer does not play Dementiava. I don't think there are many people who will say that playing styles are comparable across the WTA and ATP. Men's and women's tennis are significantly different sports.

That being said, I do feel like Federer is playing a more defensive style of tennis against the top players lately.

you must have missed this part of my statement:

"The men aren't much better. Errors versus winner percentages for them and are only slightly better than the women, and the men also have an average first-serve percentage that hovers around 50%, which is 10% to 15% lower than in the 1970s and 1980s."


Furthermore lets take a look at the "big four":

1. Hewitt: cannot serve and Volley very well

2. Roddick: Struggling with the serve and volley game.

3. Safin: Does not come to net very often

4. Federer: Can do it all! and coincidentally is #1 in the world.

Now lets compare them to Borg, Connors ,Mcenroe

1. Borg: baseliner who beat Mcenroe serving and volleying at Wimbledon. He could do both!

2. Mcenroe: was a serve and volleyer. But he actually started out as a baseliner and has a very strong baseline game. You dont go five sets with Ivan Lendl at the French finals without a baseline game.

3. Connors: an agressive baseliner. rarely came to net because his serve was so weak....but he did have the best two-handed bachand volley the sport has ever seen . It has yet to be duplicated even today. .

 

[Chopin]

I disagree. Sampras did not dominate the “one dimensional players” during the twilight of his career, for obvious reasons concerning his age, but also do the fact that players such as Safin and Hewitt are no pushovers. Players such as Safin and Hewitt both finished with winning records over Sampras, including in grand slam finals. I think today's player, will admittedly playing a different style of tennis than the "old school" players, give Federer a comparable amount of competition to what he would have had playing in in Sampras’s era (with the exception of Sampras of course). You certainly cannot make a valid comparison between players of the 70s and the currently players, the style of play is so drastically different-not only because of technique, but because of the rackets . Its simply too difficult to compare. Federer is not only the best player today because of the fact he can volley, he also hits with considerable weight from the baseline off both wings, and its this feature that allows him to be one of the best on clay. In turn, what makes Federer better than Sampras in my opinion, is how much better his ground strokes are than Sampras’s. And you have to be careful about generalizing all players as Bolleteri "factory" players, the increase of the number of western swingers, has more to do with tennis becoming a more global sport in places where clay court tennis is dominant. Look at all the Spanish and Argentinean players, I wouldn’t classify them as “bolleteri factory” players. So overall, I’d say you’re looking at this the wrong way, just because the players of today are playing differently, doesn't mean they are playing poorly. I think the players of the past would struggle just as much with the power of today’s game, as the current players would struggle with the variety of players of the past. It’s Federer’s ability to hit every shot in the book, and pound the crap out of the ball that allows him to be the greatest.

 

[Grimjack]

A lot of what you (and Mr. Pfister) say is true, but there's flawed logic in thinking the truth leads to any conclusion about the tour being weaker.

Yes, Federer dominates against a great many one-dimensional players. But that is NOT because today's players aren't as good...aren't taught properly...aren't as "versatile." They're one-dimensional because that dimension (power-baselining) proved to be the dominant dimension. Power baselining isn't what modern pros do simply because it's easier. Power baselining is what modern pros do because there was a time when power baselining existed simultaneously with the older "multi-faceted, versatile" pro game. And power baselining dominated, crushed, and swept away that game.

Simply put, today's power baseliners have ALL developed a game proven to annihilate that versatile game the old-timers pine for. When people were hailing Mac as the game's greatest-ever creative genius, robo-Lendl developed his one-dimensional game to the point where Mac couldn't stay on the court with him, and the game of tennis has never looked back.

The fact that Fed is having success as an all-court genius in this era isn't indicative of a weakness in the rest of the tour's games. The relative strengths and weaknesses of those styles of play have been settled by history and the evolution of the game, and power baseline play has proven itself the 1000 lb. alpha male of game styles.

What Fed's success DOES show, is exactly the opposite of the title assertion in the lead post. That he's dominating the pro tour DESPITE playing a game relegated to near-obscurity against the Howitzer attack of the modern pro baseliners suggests to me that if anything, his all-court prowess is that much more impressive than that of yesterday's heroes.

Get an all courter from 1990 or before out there today, and he's going to spend all day facing wicked western blasts that he wouldn't have faced in his nightmares during his days on the tour.

Fed's game shouldn't be called into question for facing a tour full of players playing the style of game that not-so-long-ago swept all court and S&V play under the rug to be forgotten. If anything, the fact that he's succeeding against it, playing the way he is, should be fuel for discussion of his greatness.

 

[nn]

I agree in part

 

[Ruuzo]

i totally agree with what grimjack said.

 

[AndrewD]

I disagree that Federer's dominance is due mainly to the style of players he competes against. If he wasn't as good as he is then he could be as multi dimensional as he likes but he wouldnt win. Luckily, for him, he is a class above the rest so he can successfully implement his more varied playing style.
However, I do believe that the great majority of players are limited by their style of play. Even if power baseline is the dominant style and I readily agree that it is, it isn't close to being a well rounded game. None of those guys have a plan B to fall back on which limits their effectiveness and stops them having another way in which to put pressure on their opponents.

None of that is to say the tour is weaker, I repeat, it does not suggest that the tour is weaker. What it suggests is that an exclusively baseline game is limiting the players. Sure, for some of them it is a necessity. Hewitt isn't a big guy so would struggle to serve-volley regularly. However, someone like Roddick doesn't have the same kind of excuse.

Regardless, and I know no-one is going to agree on this, I still thought it was absolutely hilarious that they got their quotes from Hank Pfister. He might have been #9 in the world at one time but if you ever wanted to see a one-dimensional player Hank's your man.

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

grimjack hit it dead on. we also forget to mention federer's mental abilities. i'm not talking about the "fighting spirit" which he has, but the way he thinks through points, the way he finds and exploits weaknesses and his anticipation.

 

[bobby]

Well said Grimjack.

 

[alan-n]

Grimjack is a true tennis observer. Well said.

 

[pound cat]

Roger on why he lost: post match inteview, MC site.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I couldn't quite understand the way he was playing. You know, in the beginning he was rather pushing the ball. In the second, he was just hitting clean winners all the time.

And to do that on a regular basis, I find it very hard, you know. But you don't get those players very much anymore, you know. You would consider Gonzalez a dangerous player, you know, but he tees off of both sides on the run. On the return, it doesn't matter.

You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me. You know, he played great in the second set, in the beginning of the third. Really played into this zone where you had the feeling there was no more you could do, you know. And that's a little bit how I felt, too.

Federer agrees 100% with Pfister's theory, and it was proven on Friday.

 

[drexeler]

Grimjack nailed it!

In an article before last year's Wimbledon final, McEnroe waxed poetic about Fed's skills - yet he said he wasn't a clear favorite to win because "power is the ultimate equalizer" and Roddick had more power than anybody else. He also referred to how he was crushed by Lendl in the 1985 USO final despite playing well. For those who think Mac was in a serious slump in 85, he won 9 tourneys that year & no 1 most of the year.

And in that Wim final, Roddick very nearly blew Fed off the court. It was a testament to Federer's greatness that he was able to withstand that barrage. I would shudder to think what would have happened to an all-court, "versatile", multi-faceted player of olden days trying to face that monster attack. This loss and the Toronto final loss to Fed, I believe, sent Roddick into a mental tail spin. Without Fed, Roddick would have the confidence (with a couple of Wimbys in the bag) and been able to dominate, and nobody would have said, he lacks "versatility", "Plan-B", blah blah and instead would be whining about how power is killing men's tennis.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

You certainly cannot make a valid comparison between players of the 70s and the currently players, the style of play is so drastically different-not only because of technique, but because of the rackets . Its simply too difficult to compare.

Chopin,

I was just waiting for the technology argument to rear its ugly head...and so was mr Pfister:

"Technology is not the culprit. We had rackets in the late 70s and 80s that make the ball go just about as fast. Several players, myself included, could routinely serve in the 125 mph range 25 years ago, while maintaining a first serve percentage ranging from the low 60s to mid 70s. Many players could take that speed up to one and 130 mph to 135 mph in fast serve contests when percentage was not important, with speed measured by guns that are widely believed to be slower than today's "hot" guns. Pete Sampras played with essentially the same racket during his entire pro career that he used coming out of the juniors, and he dominated tennis with the record of 14 grand slam tournament singles titles. Roger Federer is now dominating today's players with a racket similar to what Sampras used. Again, technology is not the problem."


Grimjack,

1. Ivan Lendl: Was not one dimensional!!! He sure as hell started out that way...but he rose to the top for a number of reasons. The first thing that Lendl changed was his serve. Early on he used to toss the ball as high as the Empire state building. He lowered his toss and changed his service motion and discovered that he had a great serve. Then , even later he discovered that he could come in behind his serve and actually hit a volley! So he started to learn how to serve and volley and actually came in behind a few points....until he bumped into a gentleman by the name of Boris Becker, who could do it all! Lendl had met his match and was no longer facing an old worn out Mcenroe. Lendl did not have much of an answer against Becker. That was simply because Becker could play the "whole game".

2. The baseline style that you refer to is NOT the dominant way to play Tennis. Just ask Federer and Sampras!

3. Pound cat is a genious and so is Federer:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger on why he lost: post match inteview, MC site.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I couldn't quite understand the way he was playing. You know, in the beginning he was rather pushing the ball. In the second, he was just hitting clean winners all the time.

And to do that on a regular basis, I find it very hard, you know. But you don't get those players very much anymore, you know. You would consider Gonzalez a dangerous player, you know, but he tees off of both sides on the run. On the return, it doesn't matter.

You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me. You know, he played great in the second set, in the beginning of the third. Really played into this zone where you had the feeling there was no more you could do, you know. And that's a little bit how I felt, too.

Federer agrees 100% with Pfister's theory, and it was proven on Friday.

 

[Chopin]

The Pusher Terminator,
I buy that argument even less than your last one! Its very amusing to me when people claim that graphite tennis rackets have not changed the way tennis is played! Sampras was just beginning to play tennis as a little kid in the 1970s! Just when graphite rackets were coming on the scene! People didn't use wooden tennis rackets by the time Sampras came on the scene as a pro...that was my point. Sampras grew up in an era of graphite tennis rackets, which drastically changed the game. The tennis players of today are bigger, stronger, faster and hit the ball harder than ever before-including Federer. You seem to make some distinction between Sampras's era and the current era, but baseline tennis has been the most prominent style of play throughout both! There’s a reason serve and volley tennis has been disappearing, for the most part-its been less successful in the modern game! Its not that baseline tennis is “wrecking” the game, its more that Federer is a master from all parts of the court, a very rare trait-in any era! All players have weaknesses, many serve and volley players don’t have great ground strokes (compared to baseline players)-Henman for example. Its Federer’s ability to combine every stroke in the book that makes him the greatest-its not easy to do! So, overall I think your argument is a little flawed and why do we care what “Hank Pfister” says? Is he some kind of tennis god? No way.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

"Federer is not quite as good as he looks."

Answer to post No 1. No, u didn't write correctly. U'd write "Federer is much better than he looks now".

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

The Pusher Terminator,
I buy that argument even less than your last one! Its very amusing to me when people claim that graphite tennis rackets have not changed the way tennis is played! Sampras was just beginning to play tennis as a little kid in the 1970s! Just when graphite rackets were coming on the scene! People didn't use wooden tennis rackets by the time Sampras came on the scene as a pro...that was my point. Sampras grew up in an era of graphite tennis rackets, which drastically changed the game. The tennis players of today are bigger, stronger, faster and hit the ball harder than ever before-including Federer. You seem to make some distinction between Sampras's era and the current era, but baseline tennis has been the most prominent style of play throughout both! There’s a reason serve and volley tennis has been disappearing, for the most part-its been less successful in the modern game! Its not that baseline tennis is “wrecking” the game, its more that Federer is a master from all parts of the court, a very rare trait-in any era! All players have weaknesses, many serve and volley players don’t have great ground strokes (compared to baseline players)-Henman for example. Its Federer’s ability to combine every stroke in the book that makes him the greatest-its not easy to do! So, overall I think your argument is a little flawed and why do we care what “Hank Pfister” says? Is he some kind of tennis god? No way.

Chopin,

I love you! you just make all the arguments that I am waiting for. read it and weep, another quote frpm Mr Pfister:

"players, on the whole, are bigger, stronger and faster than 10 to 15 years ago, but there were big players in the past. They didn't all serve big, stay back and pound groundstrokes. The size of today's players does not account for the changes I have observed.

Players are hitting the ball harder today, but that is mostly because they are just swinging harder. With players hitting nothing but groundstrokes, speed of the ball is one of the few things that separates one player from the next. But error rate increases are matching ball speed increases.

Even with the speed of the ball increasing, there are examples of players who still play the "whole game", and they are, oddly enough the best players in the world. Sampras, before retiring, dominated tennis with his all court style, while playing against predominantly hard-hitting backcourt players. He could alternate from all court to serve and volley as the surface and his opponent dictated. Federer is doing the same thing, with the same style and skills.

Among the women, Lindsay Davenport, Justine hardene henin, Kim cloisters and Amelia Morrisimo all are all good of examples of how to utilize topspin and slice, approaching the net to volley, even serving and volleying from time to time. Since there are few players who are still playing the "whole game" and they are at the top of the pro ranking, the speed of the game does not limit use or development of "whole game" skills.

There has been a lot of talk about how players spend more time on the court practicing than in the past, but there have always been players who spent many hours a day on the court. If it is true that today's players, as a whole, spend more time on the court, then they should have the time to learn how to hit a slice backhand, approach shots and volleys. Spending more time on the courts is not changing the game."



So if it is not technology, size of the athlete, speed of the game or more practice time that's turning all the players into clones, what is it?



It has to do with the pivotal role of society in general and parents and coaches specifically. Our society elevates at least a superhero status, the 20 ahead of all else, equate success to income and he notes the need first attitude, which leads parents and coaches in the wrong direction. "

 

[The tennis guy]

The pusher dominator,

You lost all your arguments when you stated Lendl was not one dimensional. Lendl tried to serve and volley almost exclusively on grass. Lendl doesn't come to the net more often than Safin, and he doens't volley better than Safin either. Style wise, Lendl is no more versatile than Safin.

It is not style of play. If you are good enough, you can dominate. If Roddick could hit ground stroke like Agassi, regardless how one dimensional he would be, he would be able to dominate.

 

[pyro2990]

u guys r stupid, if you think that the pro's cannot perform in every aspect of the game (serves/volleys/groundies) you are dead wrong. If any of you got onto the court with any top 50 player, even those that r "one dimensional" they could still dominate with the worst aspect of their games, which in most cases tends to be volleys. Just b/c they do not use every aspect of their games as frequently, it does not mean that they cannot perform at a phenomenal level

 

[joesixtoe]

federer is so good because of his over all good play,, but also he is soooo confident, that it alows him to go for his shots, and stay somewhat comfortable through the match.... i remember at the us open of 2004, one of the old time greats(dont know who) said that people dont play their game against federer, they try and over do it, and get nervous. but if they would calm down and just play their game.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

u guys r stupid, if you think that the pro's cannot perform in every aspect of the game (serves/volleys/groundies) you are dead wrong. If any of you got onto the court with any top 50 player, even those that r "one dimensional" they could still dominate with the worst aspect of their games, which in most cases tends to be volleys. Just b/c they do not use every aspect of their games as frequently, it does not mean that they cannot perform at a phenomenal level

You misunderstand. Of course the Pro's are able to play every aspect of the game against you and me. Coria could serve and volley me to oblivion. But that is not the point. What I am trying to say is that the pro's skills in the area's of slice backhands, Net play, approach shots, touch shots, the all-court game are terrible in comparison to the rest of their strokes.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

The pusher dominator,

You lost all your arguments when you stated Lendl was not one dimensional. Lendl tried to serve and volley almost exclusively on grass. Lendl doesn't come to the net more often than Safin, and he doens't volley better than Safin either. Style wise, Lendl is no more versatile than Safin.

It is not style of play. If you are good enough, you can dominate. If Roddick could hit ground stroke like Agassi, regardless how one dimensional he would be, he would be able to dominate.

Except you ignored the second half of my argument: BORIS BECKER. Lendl met his match against the all-court game of Boris Becker. Boris was not an old worn out Mcenroe. Finally, Lendl was a truly great player but he is simply was not in the same league as Borg, Mcenroe, Connors , Becker. The reason is because Lendl never won Wimbledon....the "world series" of tennis.

 

[Chopin]

Weep! You're making me laugh! I ask once again, why do I care what Hans Pfister has to say? I don't. I disagree with anyone who tries to argue the point that tennis hasn’t changed due to a variety of factors. You keep quoting him like you're quoting some kind of encyclopedia. You ignored most of my points from before, and focused on one thing that I said-which is true-many other tennis greats (much greater than Pfister) have agreed with me. Here's a little quote for you from a letter John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Martina Navratilova wrote to the ITF encouraging it to create more strict standards on rackets: "The reason for this change is clear to see," they wrote. "Over a period of years, modern racket technology has developed powerful, light, wide-bodied rackets that are easier to wield than wooden rackets were and have a much larger effective hitting area." Bud Collins also said "It's very hard to volley against all this pace and topspin," said Bud Collins, the tennis writer for the Boston Globe and the dean of American tennis journalists. "It's an easier game to play from the baseline because you aren't taking chances. That's what I don't like: No one is taking chances. It's very difficult to serve and volley."
I'll try to make my point as simple as possible for you:
The game HAS changed, regardless of what Pfister says, on the whole players will be more successful in their careers if they are good baseliners over being good serve and volleyer's-it is the ability to combine both effectively-something that is NOT easy to do, which produces champions. The "problem" cannot necessarily be "fixed" by changing styles of coaching, there aren't many players in the history of tennis that have been able to combine a great baseline game, great variety, great net game and great mental toughness. And baseline tennis is tougher than ever to beat-look at what Nadal did against Federer in their last match. So overall, Federer's achievements are every bit as impressive in this era, as they would be if he were playing in a different era with different styles of play.

 

[Chopin]

Here's another quote from Jim Courier:
FitLinxx: What role does size and strength have in the way that tennis is played today?

Courier: The average height and weight of players on the men's tour has dramatically changed since I first started playing in 1988. These days the average tour player is around 6'3", 185 lbs. Twelve years ago it was around 6', 165 lbs. The athletes are bigger, stronger and faster in tennis, like in most sports today. These days, all players work much harder because the bar has risen. In order to keep up, one must be strong and fit, as well as a great player.
(Nice try Pfister)

 

[gugafanatic]

Federer has beaten many all court players, their style just cant hurt him over the duration of matches. i.e Henman has been getting hes ass handed too him regularly by Fed and Santoro well lets not even discuss the thrashing he recieved at AO. However these soo called " 1- dimensional" players have a better chance of beating Fed if they can mix power with consitency from both wings i.e Nadal and Gasquet.

 

[The tennis guy]

Except you ignored the second half of my argument: BORIS BECKER. Lendl met his match against the all-court game of Boris Becker. Boris was not an old worn out Mcenroe. Finally, Lendl was a truly great player but he is simply was not in the same league as Borg, Mcenroe, Connors , Becker. The reason is because Lendl never won Wimbledon....the "world series" of tennis.

Unfortunately the more you say, the more you show you know little about tennis history, or you are so inclined one way or the other that you can't be objective.

Could it be because Lendl was simply older when Becker came along? As of Lendl was not in the same league as Becker, poop is all I can say. Becker even never finished the year as No. 1 player while Lendl did many times. Maybe you are talking about personality rather than on-court achievement.

 

[Rabbit]

There is an ebb and flow in tennis, probably more than any other sport. Currently, power baseliners dominate the ranks, but given the success that Federer has enjoyed, there will probably be a shift in tactics. I don't think we'll ever enjoy the diversity that was once prevalent in tennis with respect to style. But, there probably will be more of a move to net once players figure out that they can defeat the current strategy.

The other big difference in tennis is the emergenance of hard courts as the dominant surface. Clay and grass have taken a back seat to hard courts. The sport in general is seeing the ramifications of this however with increased injury and players being forced to take more time off. Hopefully, there will be a tournament or player (Federer?) that creates excitement for a return to a natural surface. The entire schedule is built around the Grand Slams. If the Open or the Aussie would move to clay or grass, then the supporting tournmanents would once again swtich surfaces to accommodate the players preparation. The Grand Slams, unfortunately are looking at bottom line dollars like everyone else and hardcourts are just plain cheaper to maintain. Only thing is, I don't know that they're better for anyone, including the sport, in the long run.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

u guys r stupid, if you think that the pro's cannot perform in every aspect of the game (serves/volleys/groundies) you are dead wrong. If any of you got onto the court with any top 50 player, even those that r "one dimensional" they could still dominate with the worst aspect of their games, which in most cases tends to be volleys. Just b/c they do not use every aspect of their games as frequently, it does not mean that they cannot perform at a phenomenal level

Yes, it does mean they cannot perform at a phenomenal level. A phenomenal level is what is needed to be successful against other pros, not amateurs. What you are overlooking is that they are competing against other pros, not us. Your example using amateur players is meaningless.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Yes, it does mean they cannot perform at a phenomenal level. A phenomenal level is what is needed to be successful against other pros, not amateurs. What you are overlooking is that they are competing against other pros, not us. Your example using amateur players is meaningless.

I guess you think fed is wrong as well?

Roger on why he lost: post match inteview, MC site.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I couldn't quite understand the way he was playing. You know, in the beginning he was rather pushing the ball. In the second, he was just hitting clean winners all the time.

And to do that on a regular basis, I find it very hard, you know. But you don't get those players very much anymore, you know. You would consider Gonzalez a dangerous player, you know, but he tees off of both sides on the run. On the return, it doesn't matter.

You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me. You know, he played great in the second set, in the beginning of the third. Really played into this zone where you had the feeling there was no more you could do, you know. And that's a little bit how I felt, too.

 

[The tennis guy]

I guess you think fed is wrong as well?

Roger on why he lost: post match inteview, MC site.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I couldn't quite understand the way he was playing. You know, in the beginning he was rather pushing the ball. In the second, he was just hitting clean winners all the time.

And to do that on a regular basis, I find it very hard, you know. But you don't get those players very much anymore, you know. You would consider Gonzalez a dangerous player, you know, but he tees off of both sides on the run. On the return, it doesn't matter.

You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me. You know, he played great in the second set, in the beginning of the third. Really played into this zone where you had the feeling there was no more you could do, you know. And that's a little bit how I felt, too.

It doesn't mean anyone is wrong. All Federer said was he was not used to that playing style. It didn't say that is good or bad. He said the same thing against Nadal that he is not used to playing against lefty because there are very few good lefty right now. Eventually he will adjust to those players.

Playing style is less of importance relative to talent and determination. If you are talented enough, you can dominate regardless of style you play. Players from different generations have proved again and again. From Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, to Sampras, Federer, they all playing different styles of tennis, and they all dominated in their era.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

It doesn't mean anyone is wrong. All Federer said was he was not used to that playing style. It didn't say that is good or bad. He said the same thing against Nadal that he is not used to playing against lefty because there are very few good lefty right now. Eventually he will adjust to those players.

Playing style is less of importance relative to talent and determination. If you are talented enough, you can dominate regardless of style you play. Players from different generations have proved again and again. From Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, to Sampras, Federer, they all playing different styles of tennis, and they all dominated in their era.

Boy you are really stretching to twist Federes words. But what he said was very simple:

"You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me."

Can you get anymore blunt?

 

[The tennis guy]

Boy you are really stretching to twist Federes words. But what he said was very simple:

"You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me."

Can you get anymore blunt?

So what that means? What type of opponent? Someone who "You know, in the beginning he was rather pushing the ball. In the second, he was just hitting clean winners all the time. "? Why does this prove your point?

It is not me who is stretching what Federer meant. It was you who is trying to stretch what Federer said to fit your theory.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

"You just don't face opponents like this these days. I guess this was a little unusual for me."Can you get anymore blunt?

Totally agree. If Rajah was facing an amateur, it would be phenomenal. Rajah facing another pro is not always phenomenal.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

So what that means? What type of opponent? Someone who "You know, in the beginning he was rather pushing the ball. In the second, he was just hitting clean winners all the time. "? Why does this prove your point?

It is not me who is stretching what Federer meant. It was you who is trying to stretch what Federer said to fit your theory.

Because that is a player who plays the "whole game". He can push or hit hard. He is not one dimensional and therefore he was able to beat Fed! Thats why Fed says:

" you don't get those players very much anymore"

The reason is that everyone else mainly has a one dimensional game.

 

[spinbalz]

The only thing that Pusher Terminator is good at, is stretching and distording what peoples (poster or players in interviews) said and meant, the king of bad faith.

 

[spinbalz]

According to Pusher Terminator :

Federer is not American, so Federer can't be that good.

 

[The tennis guy]

Because that is a player who plays the "whole game". He can push or hit hard. He is not one dimensional and therefore he was able to beat Fed! Thats why Fed says:

" you don't get those players very much anymore"

The reason is that everyone else mainly has a one dimensional game.

Whoa, someone who can push the ball or hit hard is called playing the "whole game"! That's your interpretation of what Federer meant? Give me one player currently in the top 10 who can't push the ball!

 

[drexeler]

LOL - Federer wasn't referring to the "whole game", he was talking about how "he was hitting clean winners" by going for shots all time. That's why he mentioned Gonzalez, who also has a go-for-broke style.

As someone mentioned earlier, if a player is talented enough, he can win with any style. Agassi certainly didn't need an all-court game to complete a career slam in the 90's. He completely dominated guys with "all-court" games such as Stich and Becker.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

Well... I'm not as good as I look.

 

[alan-n]

A 3 set match is an entirely different game than a 5 setter. Anyone at the pro level can beat anyone in a 3 set match since anyone can play in the zone for 20-30 minutes.... In a 5 setter 20-30 minutes isn't going to kill you, sure it will put your back against the wall but you still have many sets to go.

I still like Federer's chances at beating anyone in a 5 setter, doesn't matter how well they play.

 

[edge]

u guys r stupid, if you think that the pro's cannot perform in every aspect of the game (serves/volleys/groundies) you are dead wrong. If any of you got onto the court with any top 50 player, even those that r "one dimensional" they could still dominate with the worst aspect of their games, which in most cases tends to be volleys. Just b/c they do not use every aspect of their games as frequently, it does not mean that they cannot perform at a phenomenal level

You've got to be kidding me, right? It is an erroneous assumption that all pros have all the shots, that's simply untrue. Agassi couldn't consistently serve & volley his way out of a paper bag. If Agassi were to S&Y, he couldn't win the Easter Bowl 18's let alone an ATP match.

 

[uNIVERSE mAN]

Except you ignored the second half of my argument: BORIS BECKER. Lendl met his match against the all-court game of Boris Becker. Boris was not an old worn out Mcenroe. Finally, Lendl was a truly great player but he is simply was not in the same league as Borg, Mcenroe, Connors , Becker. The reason is because Lendl never won Wimbledon....the "world series" of tennis.

What the hell are you smoking? Their H2H is 11-10 Lendl with at least four 5-setters in there.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

What the hell are you smoking? Their H2H is 11-10 Lendl with at least four 5-setters in there.

Except that the last wins were all Becker and I am not counting clay because you can actually have a one dimensional game on clay and win! Furhtermore, at Wimbledon Lendl was simply pathetic. He was actually so miserable at Wimbledon that he would not play there anymore because he said he was allergic to grass! The truth is however, that lendl is a golf junkie who plays on grass every chance he gets. That was, I think the lamest excuse in tennis history!

In any event, Lendl is a great player but he simply was never able to win the grand slam of tennis: Wimbledon. Therefore, He will never be in the same class as Becker, Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Sampras etc etc.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Except that the last wins were all Becker and I am not counting clay because you can actually have a one dimensional game on clay and win! Furhtermore, at Wimbledon Lendl was simply pathetic. He was actually so miserable at Wimbledon that he would not play there anymore because he said he was allergic to grass! The truth is however, that lendl is a golf junkie who plays on grass every chance he gets. That was, I think the lamest excuse in tennis history!

In any event, Lendl is a great player but he simply was never able to win the grand slam of tennis: Wimbledon. Therefore, He will never be in the same class as Becker, Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Sampras etc etc.

While you're right he was miserable at Wimbledon, you're not right about their last matches, the last two were won by Lendl:

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...l,+Ivan&player2=Becker,+Boris&playernum2=B028

 

[The tennis guy]

Except that the last wins were all Becker and I am not counting clay because you can actually have a one dimensional game on clay and win! Furhtermore, at Wimbledon Lendl was simply pathetic. He was actually so miserable at Wimbledon that he would not play there anymore because he said he was allergic to grass! The truth is however, that lendl is a golf junkie who plays on grass every chance he gets. That was, I think the lamest excuse in tennis history!

In any event, Lendl is a great player but he simply was never able to win the grand slam of tennis: Wimbledon. Therefore, He will never be in the same class as Becker, Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Sampras etc etc.

I hate to say this, you are pathetic in your arguments. They are full of errors. Yeah, clay doesn't count. Then why Becker tried so hard to win at least one clay court tournament if it doesn't count? How about we only play on grass, get rid of all other surfaces?

For argument's sake, let's not count clay, Lendl vs Becker was still tied 10-10. Most of their matches were played on carpet and grass which favored Becker more, and Lendl was still even ahead in head to head. It just showed how good Lendl was. Even they have played more on clay, Lendl would be way ahead. The problem was Becker usually didn't get to later rounds on clay. Learn the fact before you speak.

 

[spinbalz]

Anyway Lendl reached the Final at Wimbledon, which is not so bad for someone who pusher qualifies as "simply pathetic" at wimbledon, and once again pusher shows his lack of knowledge related to tennis history when he claims that Lendl's allergy to grass was just a lame excuse, because actually, in the first half of his career Lendl was truely allergic to grass, during the 2nd half of his career he found a therapy to heal his allergy and then became addicted to Golf. Does Mr Pusher ignore that some medicine exist against allergies?