Has Federer reached a higher level on indoor hardcourts than on grass ?

Fed's peak on indoor hardcourts > than his peak on grass ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 30.4%
  • No

    Votes: 25 54.3%
  • Even

    Votes: 7 15.2%

  • Total voters
    46

mr tonyz

Professional
Yea.. Hes lost multiple Wimbledon finals and to Nadal/Nole in matches, he really had no business losing since hes superior to both on grass (For those saying he was "old" in 2014-2015/2019 he was good enough to get to the finals and beat Nadal en route and players don't age nearly as quickly in tennis now as they did 30 plus years ago) .. When he was the favorite indoors he generally won it. When he was (Or should have been) the favorite on grass, many times he lost it
What has that got to do with anything? Djoker was the defending champ in '15/'19 & in Wimbly '19 (Rafa) both are entirely different match-ups for Fred. If Fred played Djoker throughout the 6 previous rounds & won all of them comfortably, then lost the final your point would be valid. He beat 6 guys not-named Djoker.

& don't forget by the time the final day rolls around, those grass courts are hacked up & suite Djoker's game more-so than Freds. Honestly Fred would have a much better chance had they met in R1-R4 than in the final ...
 

mr tonyz

Professional
Federer Blake WTF 2006 was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen in my existence. I still watch the highlights a few times a year and just shake my head at the brilliance.
I'm pretty sure that was the day that James Blake became Freddy's biggest fanboy & still is to this day i believe! :p
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Federer Blake WTF 2006 was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen in my existence. I still watch the highlights a few times a year and just shake my head at the brilliance.
Not even close, you are saying you never watched Becker Sampras yec final
Or Korda Sampras grand slam cup
 

mr tonyz

Professional
The 2010 semi is the one I forgot to mention in my post, you are right about that. I wanted to say "since 2010" at that part, because that's when Djokovic really came into his own, but the tail end of 2010 was already a well-playing Djokovic. That was a great win and fantastic performance for Fed and he had played that well all tournament.

The RR loss he handed to Djoko in 2019 was a very nice and unexpected beating, so the satisfaction must have been high for Fed, but I don't agree that it mattered to him so much in terms of the tournament result. He already lost to Thiem and got straight-setted by Tsits in the semi's afterwards. The YE#1 I'd say was significant more for Nadal and Djokovic rather than himself. It did end in Djokovic losing that tournament, but that's it. It didn't win him the title and it wasn't a slam win either to compensate (see RG 2011 SF and Wimb 2019 SF).

By that notion you cannot call Fred's y.e.c's or even slams won without facing Djoker 'weak' in a manner of speaking. This goes both ways ...

Furthermore Fred losing to Thiem in the Round-Robin & in straights to Tpas in the Semis = he didn't care? Some logic that is for a pro athlete playing in the 5th biggest tournament in the calendar. He could have just, been soundly beaten by the superior opponent on the day :S
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I still don't think Fed is beating 96 Sampras final or Safin peak at Paris indoors
1. I think he could.
2. He would. It went to 5th set TB vs Scud, but fed wouldn't beat him? really?
Safin had won Madrid&Paris b2b in 2004 in dominant fashion and was in excellent form indoors in 2004. fed beat him at the YEC in 2004 semi: 6-3,7-6(20-18)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Were would you put the W 2007 final? I feel like beating Nadal in that form and being the toughest matchup for Federer has to gain some points.
Probably on same level. But obviously would pick Fed of Wim 07 final any day to play for me, given he could sustain it for long.
 

ElisRF

Hall of Fame
Probably on same level. But obviously would pick Fed of Wim 07 final any day to play for me, given he could sustain it for long.
Fair enough I wasn’t actually comparing it to 2015 SF just in general but certainly agree with the 2nd part.
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Not even close, you are saying you never watched Becker Sampras yec final
Or Korda Sampras grand slam cup
I’m not talking match pal, I’m talking single performance. Federer was a god in that match. He would wipe the floor with Becker worse than Agassi did.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
I’m not talking match pal, I’m talking single performance. Federer was a god in that match. He would wipe the floor with Becker worse than Agassi did.
Sorry there was Blake on other side, he was not playing against other good indoor player, he would have won but not like this.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Why do you think he keep on loosing Paris indoor, granted he was injured in 2004, 05
Calendar positioning, injuries, different tour structure (no byes in some masters, some masters finals being BO5, top players playing more 250 tourneys back then) etc. Fed being great at scheduling and his playing style being "effortless" are some of the biggest myths I've seen in tennis.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Calendar positioning, injuries, different tour structure (no byes in some masters, some masters finals being BO5, top players playing more 250 tourneys back then) etc. Fed being great at scheduling and his playing style being "effortless" are some of the biggest myths I've seen in tennis.
Good answer, but still winning only Paris indoor will be going to count against him.
I mean what do say is true about Madrid also but he still have three title in Madrid/ Shanghai
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Good answer, but still winning only Paris indoor will be going to count against him.
I mean what do say is true about Madrid also but he still have three title in Madrid/ Shanghai
I don't have schedules of tourneys in my head but I remember Fed skipping 2006 Paris because he won Basel for example.

Here's from google:


Roger Federer's withdrawal from the Paris Masters made tennis organizers consider greater sanctions against players who fail to honor their commitments.
Federer cited fatigue for withdrawing on Monday, a day after winning his fourth straight title of the year in his Basel hometown.
It meant the Paris Masters started on Monday without the world's top three players, and No. 6 Andy Roddick.
Rafael Nadal withdrew on Sunday because of an abdominal strain in training, and David Nalbandian had a stomach illness. Roddick decided to save himself for the Masters Cup in Shanghai starting on Nov. 12.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
I don't have schedules of tourneys in my head but I remember Fed skipping 2006 Paris because he won Basel for example.

Here's from google:


Roger Federer's withdrawal from the Paris Masters made tennis organizers consider greater sanctions against players who fail to honor their commitments.
Federer cited fatigue for withdrawing on Monday, a day after winning his fourth straight title of the year in his Basel hometown.
It meant the Paris Masters started on Monday without the world's top three players, and No. 6 Andy Roddick.
Rafael Nadal withdrew on Sunday because of an abdominal strain in training, and David Nalbandian had a stomach illness. Roddick decided to save himself for the Masters Cup in Shanghai starting on Nov. 12.
This is why I said only 04,05 not 06.
You want Basel, you got it but I will not give you any moral victory
If Fed don't belive himself that he will get injured or tired by playing Paris, I will not going to say that he has best peak for medium indoor surface.
I said the same thing this year also, when Novak decided to play Belgrade 2 before RG and same for Olympics double participation.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
This is why I said only 04,05 not 06.
You want Basel, you got it but I will not give you any moral victory
If Fed don't belive himself that he will get injured or tired by playing Paris, I will not going to say that he has best peak for medium indoor surface.
I said the same thing this year also, when Novak decided to play Belgrade 2 before RG and same for Olympics double participation.
Fed cares more about Basel and YEC than he does for Paris and he played a boatload of matches in his peak years. In 2006 he played ~100 matches, if he played Paris he would likely gone over 100. Also even setting aside Fed's injuries in 2004 (muscle strain) and 2005 (ankle), for most of Fed's peak years Paris was played on an indoor carpet, they only switched to HC in 2007.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Fed cares more about Basel and YEC than he does for Paris and he played a boatload of matches in his peak years. In 2006 he played ~100 matches, if he played Paris he would likely gone over 100. Also even setting aside Fed's injuries in 2004 (muscle strain) and 2005 (ankle), for most of Fed's peak years Paris was played on an indoor carpet, they only switched to HC in 2007.
Man you do realised he participated in many Paris master and lost all but one.
If he is best or near to best on indoor claimed by his fans then he may have ended up second Paris title without trying.
His peak was grass and always will be.
There he won title and made finals without even playing great always
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Man you do realised he participated in many Paris master and lost all but one.
Sure, 2011 when he beat Berdman and Tsonga. Participating however and giving full effort (or even close to it) are two different things.

If he is best or near to best on indoor claimed by his fans then he may have ended up second Paris title without trying.
His peak was grass and always will be.
There he won title and made finals without even playing great always
He schedules his entire season around grass almost, Paris indoors on the other hand is an afterthought tourney for him (it's sandwiched between two tourneys he actually values). Also competition is easier on grass than on HC (even indoor HC). In general, indoor season in the 2000s and after doesn't hold the same weight as it did in the 90s.

Also, we're talking about peak level here, not consistency. In-form Fed firing on all cylinders is a monster on indoor HC, in some ways his 2010 and 2011 WTF runs were more impressive to me in terms of level of play than many of his (or others') slam titles.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sure, 2011 when he beat Berdman and Tsonga. Participating however and giving full effort (or even close to it) are two different things.



He schedules his entire season around grass almost, Paris indoors on the other hand is an afterthought tourney for him (it's sandwiched between two tourneys he actually values). Also competition is easier on grass than on HC (even indoor HC). In general, indoor season in the 2000s and after doesn't hold the same weight as it did in the 90s.

Also, we're talking about peak level here, not consistency. In-form Fed firing on all cylinders is a monster on indoor HC, in some ways his 2010 and 2011 WTF runs were more impressive to me in terms of level of play than many of his (or others') slam titles.
2010 was mighty impressive and it kinda came out of nowhere.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Also, we're talking about peak level here, not consistency. In-form Fed firing on all cylinders is a monster on indoor HC, in some ways his 2010 and 2011 WTF runs were more impressive to me in terms of level of play than many of his (or others') slam titles.
2010 WTF, yes.
But 2011 WTF? Fed played great vs Nadal and maybe Ferrer to a lesser extent, but not great in the other matches, even if he was good.
Paris 11 was obviously great.
 

xFedal

Legend
He should have been because he was a better grass court player than Djokovic And he was playing good enough tennis to get to the finals. He also played better during the 2019 Match overrall than Djoker did. . But Sure enough he sees Djokovic and lays an egg.. Fed is an egg layer
Better on Grass isn't so clear 3-1 and 7th Wimbledon robbed by the pandemic.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Better on Grass isn't so clear 3-1 and 7th Wimbledon robbed by the pandemic.
Take into account the age difference. Plus, Fed was a serve inch away from making it 2-2. Don't think such thin margins should turn Fed into a loser suddenly.
 
Better on Grass isn't so clear 3-1 and 7th Wimbledon robbed by the pandemic.
was one choke away from beating Djoker at 38.. Yes hes better. Djoker can become greater but Fed is better.. But Fed chokes of course (which is a trend with his career against his main rivals) which keeps from GOAT status
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Better on Grass isn't so clear 3-1 and 7th Wimbledon robbed by the pandemic.
only a delusional fed hater like you can say that.
fed is way better than Djoko on grass.

best 5 years at Wimbledon each, federer has better serve AND return stats.

past his prime or at best prime-ish fed easily beat prime Djoko in Wim 12. Djoko ultra mega lucky with weaker competition on grass and with fed ageing.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
2010 WTF, yes.
But 2011 WTF? Fed played great vs Nadal and maybe Ferrer to a lesser extent, but not great in the other matches, even if he was good.
Paris 11 was obviously great.
Maybe, but that Nadal demolition job stuck in my mind, it was beautiful.
 
only a delusional fed hater like you can say that.
fed is way better than Djoko on grass.

best 5 years at Wimbledon each, federer has better serve AND return stats.

past his prime or at best prime-ish fed easily beat prime Djoko in Wim 12. Djoko ultra mega lucky with weaker competition on grass and with fed ageing.
I agree having lived through seeing both play on grass, but sadly in the future Djokovic will probably be seen as quite similar to Federer on grass. I am saying that as I am strongly guessing he winds up with 8 Wimbledons or more. And combine that with beating Federer in several Wimbledon finals (all their Wimbledon finals), and even it being "old Federer" won't matter much to people who can even be bothered to look things like that up, as it is an era most of the slams are won by guys from 30-40 anyway. Even if people like Zverev and Medvedev are majorly catching up to an old past his prime Djokovic finally, and hard court slams will be harder to come by. Those guys are just garbage on grass, particularly Medvedev, so I don't see them presenting much obstacle there, so even today I will be surprised if he doesn't win atleast a couple more Wimbledons. And as more time passes people mostly look at stats, and everything else fades into obscurity more. It has always been that way. That people evaluate people like Navratilova or Evert vs Graf or Serena based mainly on 18 slams vs 22 or 23, and seem oblivious to how many slams particularly Evert lost by not playing all the slams in the 70s, and only the biggest tennis geeks think on those lines, is just one example.

I do agree Djokovic has never reached that close to the levels of Federer at Wimbledon from 2003-2007. And probably is even less difficulty for him than say 2007 Nadal, given the match ups which typically favor Nadal > Federer, Djokovic > Nadal, Federer > Djokovic, in just the match up aspect of things. Over time that won't be recognized or even known much though, unless Djokovic somehow stays at 6 Wimbledons which is pretty unlikely.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I agree having lived through seeing both play on grass, but sadly in the future Djokovic will probably be seen as quite similar to Federer on grass. I am saying that as I am strongly guessing he winds up with 8 Wimbledons or more. And combine that with beating Federer in several Wimbledon finals (all their Wimbledon finals), and even it being "old Federer" won't matter much to people who can even be bothered to look things like that up, as it is an era most of the slams are won by guys from 30-40 anyway. Even if people like Zverev and Medvedev are majorly catching up to an old past his prime Djokovic finally, and hard court slams will be harder to come by. Those guys are just garbage on grass, particularly Medvedev, so I don't see them presenting much obstacle there, so even today I will be surprised if he doesn't win atleast a couple more Wimbledons. And as more time passes people mostly look at stats, and everything else fades into obscurity more. It has always been that way. That people evaluate people like Navratilova or Evert vs Graf or Serena based mainly on 18 slams vs 22 or 23, and seem oblivious to how many slams particularly Evert lost by not playing all the slams in the 70s, and only the biggest tennis geeks think on those lines, is just one example.

I do agree Djokovic has never reached that close to the levels of Federer at Wimbledon from 2003-2007. And probably is even less difficulty for him than say 2007 Nadal, given the match ups which typically favor Nadal > Federer, Djokovic > Nadal, Federer > Djokovic, in just the match up aspect of things. Over time that won't be recognized or even known much though, unless Djokovic somehow stays at 6 Wimbledons which is pretty unlikely.
nah, Djoko will be 35 by the time of next Wimbledno. He is not getting to 8 Wimbledons. 7 tops. And that itself is a massive massive travesty.
 
nah, Djoko will be 35 by the time of next Wimbledno. He is not getting to 8 Wimbledons. 7 tops. And that itself is a massive massive travesty.
Who is going to stop him? Medvedev and Zverev both suck on grass. Thiem, even if he returns to form, is laughable on grass. Tsitsipas hasn't shown anything on grass of yet either. Federer is done, and Nadal is also done atleast on a surface like grass. Berrettini and Shapapalov are his only possible competition for the moment.

We will see, but I will be surprised if he doesn't reach 8. That is 100% how incompetent the field is on grass, and nothing else, since I get his age, and that he is already past his prime, and everything else but. I agree even 7 would be a travesty. I am not convinced at all he is better on grass than say Borg who has 5, especaly considering Borg had to play on far less baseline friendly grass and literally changed his entire game, serve and volleying on 1st and often 2nd serves, just for grass. Which was quite incredible, and something no player has done to such an extent, completely changing their basic game for a vastly different surface, and succeeding at that level. Something that is rarely appreciated nearly enough when discussing him today, since as I said those things rarely are recognized or realized over time. Djokovic just plays his basic game for grass, although to be fair the current grass conditions make it so he really never had to.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
nah, Djoko will be 35 by the time of next Wimbledno. He is not getting to 8 Wimbledons. 7 tops. And that itself is a massive massive travesty.
Who will stop him on grass. This is the worst grass court field of all time.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Who is going to stop him? Medvedev and Zverev both suck on grass. Thiem, even if he returns to form, is laughable on grass. Tsitsipas hasn't shown anything on grass of yet either. Federer is done, and Nadal is also done atleast on a surface like grass. Berrettini and Shapapalov are his only possible competition for the moment.

We will see, but I will be surprised if he doesn't reach 8. That is 100% how incompetent the field is on grass, and nothing else, since I get his age, and that he is already past his prime, and everything else but. I agree even 7 would be a travesty. I am not convinced at all he is better on grass than say Borg who has 5, especaly considering Borg had to play on far less baseline friendly grass and literally changed his entire game, serve and volleying on 1st and often 2nd serves, just for grass. Which was quite incredible, and something no player has done to such an extent, completely changing their basic game for a vastly different surface, and succeeding at that level. Something that is rarely appreciated nearly enough when discussing him today, since as I said those things rarely are recognized or realized over time. Djokovic just plays his basic game for grass, although to be fair the current grass conditions make it so he really never had to.
Who will stop him on grass. This is the worst grass court field of all time.
djoko's age. might win one more, but definitely not 2 more.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
djoko's age. might win one more, but definitely not 2 more.
Fed won a title at almost 36 and should have won at almost 38.

Seeing how well Djokovic takes care of his body and that he won't have 2 younger ATGs by the time he's 38, I wouldn't put it past him.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
He should have been because he was a better grass court player than Djokovic And he was playing good enough tennis to get to the finals. He also played better during the 2019 Match overrall than Djoker did. . But Sure enough he sees Djokovic and lays an egg.. Fed is an egg layer
Being good enough to reach a final and being good enough to beat fellow all-time-great at his peak when you're in your mid-30s are different things. Nobody considered Federer the favorite in 2015, it was logical for Djokovic to win and he did. You can blame Federer for choking 2019 since he was in a clear position to win, but Djokovic was the favorite in 2015 and 2014, no doubt about it.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
Fed won a title at almost 36 and should have won at almost 38.
If you mean slams he won AO 2018 already as a 36yo, he was turning 37 later that year.





Lets remove ATG rivals from Novak's timeline of 2011-2016, lets say he never has Fedal to worry about and he directly ascends to the top in 2011 like Federer did in 2004, now is focused solely on Andy, Stan and Potro like Fed was focused on Hewitt, Safin and Roddick.

What is to stop Nole from winning 15 slams from 11-16 (6 years) ?

This is why I feel Federer's peak was brilliant and yet overrated, it was a sweet spot created by no ATGs between Sampras-Federer for 10 long years and also with the absence of another ATG in Fed's own generation.
Because Djokovic at his peak wasn't as dominant as Federer was. He lost to Nishikori and Wawrinka (several times the latter) in that period you mentioned, it wasn't only Fedal. The advantage Djokovic has over Federer is he was better at his non-peak than Federer was at his.

Peak Federer > Peak Djokovic
Non Peak Djokovic > Non Peak Federer

Nobody dominated the way Federer did in 2004-2007 regardless of the competition. From USO 2004 to Dubai 2007 it was a huge shock every time he lost unless it was Nadal on clay.

Not to mention it was a pretty deep field, aside from Hewitt, Safin and Roddick you still had Nalbandian, Ferrero, Haas, Davydenko, Berdych, etc. I can't think of a player that would have dominated that period to the same extent Federer did. Obviously, the likes of Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, etc would have been ranked #1 and the best player of that period as well, but I don't think they'd lose 9 matches between two years.
 
djoko's age. might win one more, but definitely not 2 more.
We will see. You could wind up right, but I am not confident now. This era keeps breaking age rules, that I barely think of them anymore. I don't doubt his age being well against him though, and that he is way past his prime already just watching him play compared to 5-10 years ago. The whole reason I think what I do is the field on grass is truly that pathetic now. The field everywhere is pathetic, but grass is a whole other level than say hard courts, where the best up and comers all excel most, vs grass which most them despise.

I do hope he wins no more than 1 more Wimbledon as IMO he already has won too many as it is.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
If you mean slams he won AO 2018 already as a 36yo, he was turning 37 later that year.
pretty sure mike danny meant fed was almost 36 at the time of Wim 17 and nearly 38 at the time of Wim 19 (a month and few days away from his birthday)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Fed won a title at almost 36 and should have won at almost 38.

Seeing how well Djokovic takes care of his body and that he won't have 2 younger ATGs by the time he's 38, I wouldn't put it past him.
We will see. You could wind up right, but I am not confident now. This era keeps breaking age rules, that I barely think of them anymore. I don't doubt his age being well against him though, and that he is way past his prime already just watching him play compared to 5-10 years ago. The whole reason I think what I do is the field on grass is truly that pathetic now. The field everywhere is pathetic, but grass is a whole other level than say hard courts, where the best up and comers all excel most, vs grass which most them despise.

I do hope he wins no more than 1 more Wimbledon as IMO he already has won too many as it is.
its because the field is bad and djoko is as fit as he is that I think djoko would win one Wimbledon.

fed played better at Wim 15 and Wim 17 than djoko did at Wim 19 and Wim 21 already anyways. Djoko will dip further.

As much as I hate to admit Djoko winning any further slams: I think in the next 3 years at Wimbledon, it might go something like this: djoko wins one, chokes in one/loses a tight match and has injury problems in another.
 

teotjunk

Rookie
Not to mention it was a pretty deep field, aside from Hewitt, Safin and Roddick you still had Nalbandian, Ferrero, Haas, Davydenko, Berdych, etc. I can't think of a player that would have dominated that period to the same extent Federer did. Obviously, the likes of Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, etc would have been ranked #1 and the best player of that period as well, but I don't think they'd lose 9 matches between two years.
Where can we obtain statistics of Borg dominant years ? I know he was 82-6 in 1979. I know he wasn't as dominant as Federer was but considering he was facing Jimmy Connors and John Mcenroe at that time, his record was pretty impressive. Lendl's match winning percentage in 1985-1987 was over 90%


teotjunk
 
Last edited:

Adam Copeland

Professional
Because Djokovic at his peak wasn't as dominant as Federer was. He lost to Nishikori and Wawrinka (several times the latter) in that period you mentioned, it wasn't only Fedal. The advantage Djokovic has over Federer is he was better at his non-peak than Federer was at his.

Peak Federer > Peak Djokovic
Non Peak Djokovic > Non Peak Federer

Nobody dominated the way Federer did in 2004-2007 regardless of the competition. From USO 2004 to Dubai 2007 it was a huge shock every time he lost unless it was Nadal on clay.

Not to mention it was a pretty deep field, aside from Hewitt, Safin and Roddick you still had Nalbandian, Ferrero, Haas, Davydenko, Berdych, etc. I can't think of a player that would have dominated that period to the same extent Federer did. Obviously, the likes of Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, etc would have been ranked #1 and the best player of that period as well, but I don't think they'd lose 9 matches between two years.
Absolutely wrong !

Djokovic could not be as dominant vs Nishi/Murray/Wawa as Federer was vs Roddick/Hewitt/Nalby because Djokovic had Fedal (who were 6 and 1 years older) on his trail whom he had to focus on at that time, so it affected his performance vs these other lesser players too.

If Federer had a 1 year older Sampras and 6 years older Agassi on his tail in 2003-2007 then Federer would have lose 1 or 2 odd matches to Roddick/Hewitt as well. If Federer played a 23 year old Sampras in 2003 wimbledon final instead of Scud then he would have known what it means to break through an ATG rival to win his 1st slam.

Federer is that same guy who got stretched by a 11 year older Agassi to 5 sets and needed 5 sets to take out a Sampras who over the hill, are you freaking telling me that Federer is more dominant in his peak vs ATG rivals than Novak is ? :D

Federer is that same guy who was not a great tennis player until age 22 while Novak was already making grand slam finals at 20, there is no question that in a world without Fedal to worry about, Novak would have focused entirely on Murray-Stan-Nishi and never lost even 1 match to them in slams.

Novak is superior to Federer peak to peak, thats why Novak has the NCYGS while Federer does not, Novak faced great adversity in the beginning of his career because of factors like gluten allergy, not being from USA/Spain/Switzerland but from Serbia, having 2 GOAT candidates firmly established, weak willed people like Federer might never have broken through this wall of 2 ATGs if he had faced this in the beginning of his career. Roger could very well have ended up with 10-12 slams overall if he faced same gen Sampras and 6 yr older Agassi before him and then Nadal and Novak after him.

It is quite easy to look at the stats of 03-07 and say ohh he won 12 slams in this period, he must be Superman ? No dude, he wasn't superman, he was just making merry in the absence of ATGs, if was Superman then Nadal and Novak would have struggled vs him even in his old age, because old Superman can still beat mortals, unless he wasn't, he was a fakie dressed up as Superman.
 
Last edited:
Top