Federer - The Grass Court Specialist???? Yes or No????

Federer - The Grass Court Specialist???? Yes or No????


  • Total voters
    88
I've been disgusted from reading a few of the posts on this board recently, it seems many people are starting to forget a few things due to Nadal's recent domination of tennis.

So i'd like to open up a new can of worms. Before last year, the general consensus was Federer was a player invincible on grass. Nadal edges him out in ONE MATCH, THATS RIGHT ONE MATCH and all of a sudden hes no better on grass than he is on hardcourt? :)

Am i missing something? We're talking about the guy that ended Sampras's reign, yeah, it was the end for Pete but you can't be any mug to knock out the brilliant Pete Sampras, arguably the King of grass.

I also hear this jibberish that we can't distinguish who is the best on grass .. as its not played consistently enough throughout the course of a season... Surely 5 straight Wimbledon's constitutes some evidence? Each match is best of 5 sets, right? Its not Federer's fault the ATP are obsessed with Hard Courts?

What in people's eyes is a grass court specialist now a days? Evidently the grass has slow down, although not to the extreme many mediocre fans would like to believe, (especially anti-Nadal ones) but it has definetely sped up. Why does a grass court specialist have to be someone that serves and volley's? Is there no other way in identifying a player who stands @ a greater advantage on grass in terms of the style in play of that they adopt?

Who has the best range of weapons to be a potential force on modern grass?
 
Last edited:
Wimbledon 2003

Semi Finals

5 Andy Roddick 6 3 3
4 Roger Federer 7 6 6

Final

Roger Federer 77 6 77
Mark Philippoussis 65 2 63

Roddick was no gimmie back then on grass and Philippioussis almost ousted Sampras a year or so back, but was forced to retired through injury.
 
Wimbledon 2005

Quarter Finals

1 Roger Federer 6 61 6 6
7 Lleyton Hewitt 1 77 0 4

Final

1 Roger Federer 4 7 77 6
2 Andy Roddick 6 5 63 4
 

shadows

Legend
5 straight GS titles on a surface would make you a specialist if you weren't also picking up 5 straight GS titles on another surface.

In Rogers case I don't think you'd really consider him a specialist because he's matched (and can exceed) the feat elsewhere, he was just the dominant tennis lifeform across everything that wasn't clay during those years.
 
Not really Nadal dominates clay and doesn't on hardcourts whilst prime Federer dominated grass and hardcourts bad anology by you.

To be fair, prime Federer didn't really have much talent to deal with on hardcourts either... Nadal was still adjusting to the surface back then and Djokovic and Murray were still toddlers...

There was Aggasi for a while, Roddick tried his best... can't think of much, its inconclusive to say he had that much better opposition on Hardcourts.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
The results don't lie. Federer has been really great on grass and besides nadal, I don't see anyone else touching him on that surface. Plus I really enjoy seeing him play on grass. However, I think that he has played some of his best tennis on hardcourts.
 
5 straight GS titles on a surface would make you a specialist if you weren't also picking up 5 straight GS titles on another surface.

In Rogers case I don't think you'd really consider him a specialist because he's matched (and can exceed) the feat elsewhere, he was just the dominant tennis lifeform across everything that wasn't clay during those years.

Fair enough, i see your point, although you can exceed greatly on every surface and yet still shine brilliantly on one particular.

What surface would you say compliments Federer's game more? Grass or Hardcourt?
 

theZig

Rookie
Going by that outlook, Nadal's best surface would be hardcourts, as the depth on Clay is pretty tame in comparision to hard courts.

No. It's not that Clay doesn't have depth, it's just that Nadal is THAT much better than the rest. As in, Federer might have been better than the rest on HC, but Nadal just DOMINATES everyone else on clay. Gives the appearance that there is no depth.
 
First you say that Federer is a grass specialist more than a hardcourt one. Then you say the best grass tournament after Wimbledon and Queen's is Nottingham, which Federer wins consistently (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3386699&postcount=7). Now you say grass courts have been sped up. Whatever.

Why don't you add to the debate, instead of bit*ching about petty little things, like me mistakely recognising the Nottingham Open as an ATP Event? lol
 

fps

Legend
What in people's eyes is a grass court specialist now a days? Evidently the grass has sped up, although not to the extreme many mediocre fans would like to believe, (especially anti-Nadal ones) but it has definetely sped up. Why does a grass court specialist have to be someone that serves and volley's? Is there no other way in identifying a player who stands @ a greater advantage on grass in terms of the style in play of that they adopt?

when you say sped up, do you mean slowed down? i agree there's not enough grass court tennis played to identify specialists, and, as a result of slower courts and the general lack of grass court tennis, players don't come up with a unique strategy to win on grass resulting in a similar style of play as on other surfaces.
 
when you say sped up, do you mean slowed down? i agree there's not enough grass court tennis played to identify specialists, and, as a result of slower courts and the general lack of grass court tennis, players don't come up with a unique strategy to win on grass resulting in a similar style of play as on other surfaces.

I meant slowed down, its been edited. So there is no real inseparable style of playing on grass than there is on hard court, that can help you excel on the surface?

There are warm up tournaments prior Wimbledon, lets not dismiss this.
 

fps

Legend
I meant slowed down, its been edited. So there is no real inseparable style of playing on grass than there is on hard court, that can help you excel on the surface?

There are warm up tournaments prior Wimbledon, lets not dismiss this.

i think there are strategies that can definitely be employed at wimbledon that are more effective, i think s&v has a bigger place there and chip and charge, but due to the lack of events players don't make a year round/ close season attempt to integrate these into their games, resulting in the style you see being fairly close to hard now.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
I actually like Roger at the US Open the most. I've never thought him a grass court specialist, though. Just not enough tournys to be one. He doesn't gear his game towards that particular surface. But obviously he's the greatest grass court player in this generation. He has the longest grass court win streak (like Rafa does on clay). He's obviously crazy dominant on grass, but that doesn't make you a specialist. I don't think Rafa is a clay court specialist anymore either. Maybe we understand the word specialist differently. They are both all courters IMO.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
I've been disgusted from reading a few of the posts on this board recently, it seems many people are starting to forget a few things due to Nadal's recent domination of tennis.

So i'd like to open up a new can of worms. Before last year, the general consensus was Federer was a player invincible on grass. Nadal edges him out in ONE MATCH, THATS RIGHT ONE MATCH and all of a sudden hes no better on grass than he is on hardcourt? :)

Am i missing something? We're talking about the guy that ended Sampras's reign, yeah, it was the end for Pete but you can't be any mug to knock out the brilliant Pete Sampras, arguably the King of grass.

I also hear this jibberish that we can't distinguish who is the best on grass .. as its not played consistently enough throughout the course of a season... Surely 5 straight Wimbledon's constitutes some evidence? Each match is best of 5 sets, right? Its not Federer's fault the ATP are obsessed with Hard Courts?

What in people's eyes is a grass court specialist now a days? Evidently the grass has slow down, although not to the extreme many mediocre fans would like to believe, (especially anti-Nadal ones) but it has definetely sped up. Why does a grass court specialist have to be someone that serves and volley's? Is there no other way in identifying a player who stands @ a greater advantage on grass in terms of the style in play of that they adopt?

Who has the best range of weapons to be a potential force on modern grass?

5 straight GS titles on a surface would make you a specialist if you weren't also picking up 5 straight GS titles on another surface.

In Rogers case I don't think you'd really consider him a specialist because he's matched (and can exceed) the feat elsewhere, he was just the dominant tennis lifeform across everything that wasn't clay during those years.

Fair enough, i see your point, although you can exceed greatly on every surface and yet still shine brilliantly on one particular.

What surface would you say compliments Federer's game more? Grass or Hardcourt?

The major problem with your assertion is you've yet to define what a grass court specialist is exactly.

IMO, a grass court specialist would be someone who only trains on grass to win grass court tournaments only. They'd know just grass and would be unbeatable on the surface. This does not describe Federer.

Is Federer great on grass? Sure. However, he's also great on hard courts... and he's no slouch on clay, either.

A good analogy would be the Bryan brothers and their title of Doubles Specialists.
 
Last edited:

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I actually like Roger at the US Open the most. I've never thought him a grass court specialist, though. Just not enough tournys to be one. He doesn't gear his game towards that particular surface. But obviously he's the greatest grass court player in this generation. He has the longest grass court win streak (like Rafa does on clay). He's obviously crazy dominant on grass, but that doesn't make you a specialist. I don't think Rafa is a clay court specialist anymore either. Maybe we understand the word specialist differently. They are both all courters IMO.

I agree. I do enjoy seeing roger play on grass, but I think some of his best tennis has been played on hardcourts, specifically the US open.
 

Lotto

Professional
Well, when you think about it, a 19(I dont think he was 20 yet was he?) year old Federer took down a Sampras who was after 5 straight Wimbledons.....he was past his prime but still a contender at the US and especially Wimbledon. So, an up and coming Rog beat the king of grass in his own back garden.

He then went on to win 5 straight Wimbledons and make the final 6 years in a row, narrowly losing out 9-7 in the fifth set in the sixth. He also held a 65 unbeaten run on grass and has won a total of how many grass titles? 5 Wimbledons.....atleast 2 Halle's, could be more......


I would say he's pretty decent on the surface. And how could you not call him the best on grass now?

Roger Federer is THE worlds number one player on GRASS. The stats prove it. Sorry *******s but, one Wimbledon, especially a TIGHT 5 setter doesnt make your man better then Federer on this surface. No if's, but's, oo's or ah's about it.
 
federer will have a lot to prove at this yr's wimbledon and we will see how much rust he really has... it will be interesting to see if roger still has that firepower in him we are all used to seeing
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Well, when you think about it, a 19(I dont think he was 20 yet was he?) year old Federer took down a Sampras who was after 5 straight Wimbledons.....he was past his prime but still a contender at the US and especially Wimbledon. So, an up and coming Rog beat the king of grass in his own back garden.

He then went on to win 5 straight Wimbledons and make the final 6 years in a row, narrowly losing out 9-7 in the fifth set in the sixth. He also held a 65 unbeaten run on grass and has won a total of how many grass titles? 5 Wimbledons.....atleast 2 Halle's, could be more......


I would say he's pretty decent on the surface. And how could you not call him the best on grass now?

Roger Federer is THE worlds number one player on GRASS. The stats prove it. Sorry *******s but, one Wimbledon, especially a TIGHT 5 setter doesnt make your man better then Federer on this surface. No if's, but's, oo's or ah's about it.

We're not debating this. We're debating whether he's a 'grass court specialist'.

To debate that... you need to first define what a grass court specialist is.

Appreciate the name-calling, too... it added so much to your post and this thread.
 

Lotto

Professional
We're not debating this. We're debating whether he's a 'grass court specialist'.

To debate that... you need to first define what a grass court specialist is.

Appreciate the name-calling, too... it added so much to your post and this thread.


Well it is true that alot of *******s do think Nadal is better then Federer on grass....not all but alot. I dont have anything against them, but they're the primary group that believe this.
 

GameSampras

Banned
If Fed was a grass specialist he wouldnt be losing to a defensive grinder like Nadal at Wimbeldon. Grass "specialists" are extinct which were serve-volleyers I think. The same with clay court specialists.

Now we have one style of play and its played on every surface at every tournament. BASELINE PLAY.


True Grass specialists would not lose to someone at Wimbeldon with nadal's defensive style of game
 
Last edited:

fps

Legend
Well it is true that alot of *******s do think Nadal is better then Federer on grass....not all but alot. I dont have anything against them, but they're the primary group that believe this.

Rafa's defending champion now. Out of interest, what does Nadal have to do to be considered better than Federer on grass? If he beats him again this year, does that do it? There are two different things here- Federer's legacy on grass is already awesome, but right now, Rafa is the man to beat at Wimbledon.

I think Federer's best chance for a slam this year is at the US Open, that is the slam that is most rewarding for attacking, shotmaking tennis.
 

Lotto

Professional
Rafa's defending champion now. Out of interest, what does Nadal have to do to be considered better than Federer on grass? If he beats him again this year, does that do it? There are two different things here- Federer's legacy on grass is already awesome, but right now, Rafa is the man to beat at Wimbledon.

I think Federer's best chance for a slam this year is at the US Open, that is the slam that is most rewarding for attacking, shotmaking tennis.


You can swing that argument either way......if Federer beat Nadal in the French Open final this year would Federer be the king of clay and Rafa no longer considered king of clay??
 

fps

Legend
You can swing that argument either way......if Federer beat Nadal in the French Open final this year would Federer be the king of clay and Rafa no longer considered king of clay??

to clarify my position, as things stand roger will be looked back on as the greater grass court player, it's just difficult in the maelstrom of the present to make such judgments, and we cannot tell what heights rafa will scale. one french for roger would be as momentous in his own career as 6 or 7 for nadal, but would not make him king of clay.

and i don't think it's possible to be a grass court specialist now since there's so much joy to be had on the surface from the back of the court, close to the baseline; the line between grass and hard has become blurred. the ball bounces lower at wimbledon but it's not that fast any more.
 

Safinator_1

Professional
Rafa's defending champion now. Out of interest, what does Nadal have to do to be considered better than Federer on grass? If he beats him again this year, does that do it? There are two different things here- Federer's legacy on grass is already awesome, but right now, Rafa is the man to beat at Wimbledon.

I think Federer's best chance for a slam this year is at the US Open, that is the slam that is most rewarding for attacking, shotmaking tennis.

I still think Federer is the man to beat at Wimbledon. Please don't shoot me it was an incredible final but its just hard to get 5 straight wimbledons out of your head despite the opponents he beat in the final.

I still see Rafa as a sort of underdog in comparison to Roger at wimbledon. regardless I still think Rafas has an awesome chance to take it this year but Federers legacy will go down in history as one of the best at wimbledon.

I don't think Fed is a grass court specialist he is more of a HC specialist because he has played his best tennis on hard imo, and his game is more towards hard rather than traditional grass i've seen years before
 

cucio

Legend
Why don't you add to the debate, instead of bit*ching about petty little things, like me mistakely recognising the Nottingham Open as an ATP Event? lol

Why should add to a flawed debate that clearly has its origin in your dislike of Nadal and your strange need to demean the fact that he now has more MS shields than Federer?

This is wouldashouldas at its best: "If there was 10 grass MS instead of 0... blah blah..."

If that was the case pro tennis players would have been raised differently, would train differently and today's results wouldn't tell us *anything* about that hypothetical situation. Both Federer and Nadal were raised in a world where there are 2 HC GS, 1 grass GS, 1 clay GS, 3 clay MS and 6 HC MS Throw perhaps some carpet in, in the not so recent past. And they tailored their games to their innate conditions and that reality, so they made the most out of it. And darn well they did: Fed got 13 GS, 14 MS and 4 TMC and Nadal 6 GS and 15 MS.

If I responded to some of your posts is because it rattles me that you have the gall of talking about "mediocre fans" and knowing all about grass tennis and then you back it with jewels like "it is a FACT that there are 4 clay MS", "Fed has won Nottingham several times" (I'll tip you in, keyword is "Halle", grass tennis is not exclusive to the UK, and Nottingham will be discontinued this year for failing to attract top players) and "grass courts have been sped up". Perhaps not crass errors for a mediocre fan, but ones that make one question if you really are beyond that level and have the authority to speak that categorically.

Regarding specialists... A specialist is someone who, building on his innate talent, tailors his game to a certain specific surface so he can have an edge over players with better all-surface abilities.

Given the amount of points granted by grass court tournaments, no pro in his sane mind would put the effort to become a grass specialist.

Even then, specialisation is worth little compared to a great overall game which will be effective anywhere (the one people like Federer, Nadal or Agassi had). Lendl reached Wimby finals, Edberg and McEnroe were FO runner-ups, ditto with Borg and USO.

Great champions transcend surfaces, they don't need no stinking specialisation, that's for the lowlies who want to rack up the minor tournaments' or the GS quarter-final's points while the greats dispute the real stuff.
 

muzza123

Banned
IMO Federer is no more of a grass court specialist than he is a hard court specialist. Quite simply, he was peerless on both surfaces, what with his 65 win streak on grass, and 56 win streak on hard. But that's not to say he is grass court specialist.
 

fps

Legend
I still think Federer is the man to beat at Wimbledon. Please don't shoot me it was an incredible final but its just hard to get 5 straight wimbledons out of your head despite the opponents he beat in the final.

I still see Rafa as a sort of underdog in comparison to Roger at wimbledon. regardless I still think Rafas has an awesome chance to take it this year but Federers legacy will go down in history as one of the best at wimbledon.

I don't think Fed is a grass court specialist he is more of a HC specialist because he has played his best tennis on hard imo, and his game is more towards hard rather than traditional grass i've seen years before

we're pretty much in agreement (despite the disagreement lol) i reckon, the two are neck and neck there and we've each shaved it a different way. it's just in the past 12 months i see rafa getting stronger and don't think fed will be at his 2008 level.
 

iriraz

Hall of Fame
Federer has had a lot of success on grass not because he is playing way better on this surface then on hardcourts but because most of the players are way worse on grass then the on other surfaces.For example Davydenko has an amazing bad record on grass.
Playing agressive,coming to the net from time to time and having a good serve is still the key to have success on grass in these days
 

fedtastic

Hall of Fame
Federer is an all court player not Grass or Hardcourt specialist. He is pretty good on all surfaces especially, Grass and Hardcourts.
 

theduh

Semi-Pro
Voted no. Fed is a fast court player that can adapt well on either slow or super slow surface.
 

fastdunn

Legend
Federer is an all court player not Grass or Hardcourt specialist. He is pretty good on all surfaces especially, Grass and Hardcourts.

Yes but that "all courts" are pretty much same, more or less. Look at top 4 players. They are all doing generally well on all courts.

This poll is hard to choose, mainly because Sampras' name is there. The grass Sampras played is very diffrent from the grass Federer/Nadal dominate right now.

In away, the real "grass" court specialty has died around 2001-2003 when Wimbledon hardened the ground underneath the grass layer.
 
Last edited:

ksbh

Banned
If you believe the tripe you just wrote, you know nothing about Nadal's game. Watch a few of Nadal's matches on grass before you spout out such nonsense.

If Fed was a grass specialist he wouldnt be losing to a defensive grinder like Nadal at Wimbeldon. Grass "specialists" are extinct which were serve-volleyers I think. The same with clay court specialists.

Now we have one style of play and its played on every surface at every tournament. BASELINE PLAY.


True Grass specialists would not lose to someone at Wimbeldon with nadal's defensive style of game
 

wihamilton

Hall of Fame
Federer won 5 straight Wimbledons... how is he not a grass-court specialist? If he isn't then I suppose Nadal isn't a clay-court specialist considering he's only won 4 FOs.
 

illkhiboy

Hall of Fame
You can swing that argument either way......if Federer beat Nadal in the French Open final this year would Federer be the king of clay and Rafa no longer considered king of clay??

It's not so much that Federer lost the Wimbledon final last year that makes Nadal the favorite this year. It's the fact that Federer doesn't seem to be the same player anymore. He played great in Australia until that mental collapse in the final set. And since then he's had similar letdowns in every match against top players this year. Clearly he's not the Federer of old. The old Federer believed he was the best and somehow someway found a way to win matches.

However, let's say he beats Djokovic at Madrid/French Open, and loses to Nadal at Roland Garross without suffering a beatdown or a mental breakdown, then we can safely assume he's back. In that case he would be the man to beat at Wimbledon. Of course, the results at Halle and Queen's
would also be good indicators of present grass court form/confidence.

The key factor here is confidence. Nadal at the moment has it in excess while Federer is running low on it (against the other top three). My feeling is that Federer is playing alright this year but just lacks that one big win against a Djokovic or Murray to get back in the mix. Once he gets that big win (he was sooooo close at Rome considering he had virtual match points) it would be preposterous to count him out of winning anything.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Grass court specialists were and will always be SERVE-VOLLEYERS. Not players glued to the damn baseline in grass like they are on every other surface
 

fastdunn

Legend
Yeah, post-2003 era has no real specialists compared to pre-2003 era since now all surfaces are bieng played basically same.....

So , No, there are no top players specializing on one surface.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
he has 8 hardcourt slams....while he has been amazing on grass, 8 hardcourt slams, several French open finals, and other clay court titles make him much more than just a grass court specialist. Grass Court specialist implies that is the only surface he is good on...and that is not the case.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Federer is much better on grass than hard courts. It's a question whether Federer prefers clay over hard courts. But yeah I do consider Federer a grass court specialist that branched out to the other surfaces. Nadal's also very good on grass and Fed has problems with Nadal on any surface.
 

All-rounder

Legend
Grass court specialists were and will always be SERVE-VOLLEYERS. Not players glued to the damn baseline in grass like they are on every other surface
Federer did serve and volley to win his first wimbledon title back in 2003 so that has to count as something
 

illkhiboy

Hall of Fame
Federer did serve and volley to win his first wimbledon title back in 2003 so that has to count as something

Yes but now he's a baseliner. And there is no distinguishing between baseliners. Doesn't matter whether you're James Blake, Nadal or Federer. You basically play the same game. Hence Federer or Henman in his later years (played too much from the baseline) don't play a grass court game. It doesn't matter what their success rate was. What matters is that they didn't glue themselves to the net.

Real grass courters are those that plant themselves in the service box if only to lay down on the grass and share campfire stories.
 

fastdunn

Legend
Federer did serve and volley to win his first wimbledon title back in 2003 so that has to count as something

Well the baseliner GOAT, Borg did much more serve and volley than Federer did in 2003. He won the Wimbledon by REDUCING serve and volley. He did say "I realised I rush to the net whenever I was panicked" after he won his 1st Wimbledon with more baseline game...
 

All-rounder

Legend
Yes but now he's a baseliner. And there is no distinguishing between baseliners. Doesn't matter whether you're James Blake, Nadal or Federer. You basically play the same game. Hence Federer or Henman in his later years (played too much from the baseline) don't play a grass court game. It doesn't matter what their success rate was. What matters is that they didn't glue themselves to the net.

Real grass courters are those that plant themselves in the service box if only to lay down on the grass and share campfire stories.
Then in my opinion Federer was the last as of 2003.
One of the reasons for Henman especially is because wimbledon messed him up when every year they would slow down the courts and eventually Serve and volley didn't work anymore this showed in his results over the years when it came to a point where he couldn't make it out of second round
 

fastdunn

Legend
Then in my opinion Federer was the last as of 2003.
One of the reasons for Henman especially is because wimbledon messed him up when every year they would slow down the courts and eventually Serve and volley didn't work anymore this showed in his results over the years when it came to a point where he couldn't make it out of second round

The process was executed in 2 phases. The 1st one was in 2001 and then they finalized in 2003. Coincidentally, USTA did slow down their courts in similar time frame, 2001 - 2003. Google USA Today article on this one.
 
Top