How many points could you win off of Roger Federer?

coolschreiber

Hall of Fame
I am concerned at the level of self-delusion I see represented by some responses here.

These crazy people drive cars, and vote.
hahahahaa.... I also wonder how these people dress up themselves and go out to work or shopping maybe....or does somebody else get them ready.
 

tennisdad65

Hall of Fame
1-2 is my guess.. 48-2 ain't bad.. :)

Assuming it is a 6-0, 6-0 score, Fed has to serve 24 points. If he does not double fault, then most likely you are not going to win any points on his serve. Your best chance to win a point is if he double faults.

On your serve, you have 24 points or 48 acing opportunities. Go for broke on both first and second serves. You may get 1-2 aces or service winners.

Or put on a Nadal mask and serve.. that it self should draw 5-6 return errors :)
 

SoCalJay

Semi-Pro
It's like half the people posting in this thread didn't read the thread title. This thread isn't about games, it's about POINTS. None of us would take a game off Fed so anyone arguing otherwise (on either side of the argument) is posting needlessly.

Also, anyone posting in this thread who is 5.0+ should have come up against someone, at one time or another, in a competitive match with a serve that could, potentially, get some lucky aces or even MAYBE draw some lucky service errors from Fed. The speed guns and placement don't lie. We've all seen Fed (and other top pros) get aced up the T and with a short slider out wide under 120 with good enough placement. If you're a 5.0+ and you have a good enough serve you can definitely get a some points over the course of getting double bageled by Fed.
 

Maximagq

Banned
It's like half the people posting in this thread didn't read the thread title. This thread isn't about games, it's about POINTS. None of us would take a game off Fed so anyone arguing otherwise (on either side of the argument) is posting needlessly.

Also, anyone posting in this thread who is 5.0+ should have come up against someone, at one time or another, in a competitive match with a serve that could, potentially, get some lucky aces or even MAYBE draw some lucky service errors from Fed. The speed guns and placement don't lie. We've all seen Fed (and other top pros) get aced up the T and with a short slider out wide under 120 with good enough placement. If you're a 5.0+ and you have a good enough serve you can definitely get a some points over the course of getting double bageled by Fed.
I agree. My serve is a relative weakness compared to the rest of my game, but I still average high 90s and low 100s on my first serve. Better servers than me 5.0+ stand a fair shot at getting a few points.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
What you're describing is pretty much what I experienced too. I could handle their ball, but couldn't pressure them. That even my best shots didn't do near as much damage as usual.
And you're right, 3rd round at Wimbledon is much better than high ATP rank 400. So your pro reference point is better than mine. But you really think you couldn't get points of Fed?

Here's an example. If you are 5.5 that probably means you would double bagel a 4.0 - 4.5ish player. And said player could probably do the same to 3.0 . If you played a 3.0 do you think you could prevent them from getting any points? That experience might be similar to you playing Federer.
I don't think you can analogize a 5.5 beating a 3.5 in a certain way then relate that to Federer or other top guys, they aren't ranked a 7.0, it's more like 15.0!

Yes, honestly. If I said to Federer, here's one million dollars for two sets, the conditions are that you have to play your absolute best, I am convinced that I wouldn't, aside from some lucky shot, win one point off him, I think he's that good. Now I'm not saying unforced errors, but I doubt that, the reason is that I would not be able to put him in a uncomfortable situation where he hits the net or goes long.

If he hit a monster shot and my racquet, by luck found the ball and hit it right by him, that might be another exception but a one in a million.

I have a monster, educated serve, but that wouldn't bother him, my serve is not Raonic, Sampras or Roddick, sorry I can see him dissecting me on every point, it's possible for me to get a winner but extremely unlikely.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
It's like half the people posting in this thread didn't read the thread title. This thread isn't about games, it's about POINTS. None of us would take a game off Fed so anyone arguing otherwise (on either side of the argument) is posting needlessly.

Also, anyone posting in this thread who is 5.0+ should have come up against someone, at one time or another, in a competitive match with a serve that could, potentially, get some lucky aces or even MAYBE draw some lucky service errors from Fed. The speed guns and placement don't lie. We've all seen Fed (and other top pros) get aced up the T and with a short slider out wide under 120 with good enough placement. If you're a 5.0+ and you have a good enough serve you can definitely get a some points over the course of getting double bageled by Fed.
This. (10chars)
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
I don't think you can analogize a 5.5 beating a 3.5 in a certain way then relate that to Federer or other top guys, they aren't ranked a 7.0, it's more like 15.0!

Yes, honestly. If I said to Federer, here's one million dollars for two sets, the conditions are that you have to play your absolute best, I am convinced that I wouldn't, aside from some lucky shot, win one point off him, I think he's that good. Now I'm not saying unforced errors, but I doubt that, the reason is that I would not be able to put him in a uncomfortable situation where he hits the net or goes long.

If he hit a monster shot and my racquet, by luck found the ball and hit it right by him, that might be another exception but a one in a million.

I have a monster, educated serve, but that wouldn't bother him, my serve is not Raonic, Sampras or Roddick, sorry I can see him dissecting me on every point, it's possible for me to get a winner but extremely unlikely.
I said a 3.0 not 3.5, but whatever. Maybe not a perfect analogy. And I know you're exaggerating but 15.0 lol? The higher levels you reach, the smaller the difference in skill between guys. Each little increment of skill becomes harder and harder to obtain at that point (but it makes all the difference). If you saw a player ranked ATP 200 and Federer hit without knowing who was who, they would appear a similar level.

Anyway I respect your opinion. It's a testament to how incredible Federer is that a good player can't conceive getting a point off him...
 
Last edited:

merwy

Legend
here's a video of roddick golden setting a ~3.5 player with no serving (it's the first video on that page) roddick is obviously scaling way back all his shots to make sure he doesn't make an unforced error. to all you 4.0s saying that a pro would likely miss a few shots, just take a gander. at 4.0, the pros don't have to do much to win a point against you. pros miss shots when they feel pressured. 4.0 doesn't pressure a pro

Edit: just a warning about the language in the video.. since I know some people here get all uppity about it
Wait.. is THAT what you guys call a 3.5? Are you F'in kidding me? That guy doesn't deserve a number, he looks like he's never even touched a racquet before! Is that the level you guys are on, whom are saying that they would win points of Federer? Please, please stop embarrassing yourselves and just stop posting in this thread alltogether, it's just sad.

And this discussion is pretty stupid to be perfectly honest. Maybe if you played 10 sets against Federer you could win like 2-3 points, because he gets bored as hell and has trouble staying awake. But don't say things like "he shanks a lot" and "just hit to his backhand". Yeah, he shanks when he gets Nadal's forehands played to his backhand, and unless you literally are Rafael Nadal, please don't talk about hitting to his backhand, because he will hit backhand winners off of every shot you play, anywhere in the court.
 
Last edited:

Motor city

New User
On your serve, you have 24 points or 48 acing opportunities. Go for broke on both first and second serves. You may get 1-2 aces or service winners.
I agree this is the only shot to get any points.

I played a doubles set against a Futures level guy and I don't see how I could win a game total, or a just a point off his serve in singles. However I was serving well and had two aces and a service winner against him on clay. All three skidded off the line. I think if you have a well disguised serve this is your only chance. If you telegraph where it's going I don't care how hard or where you put it, you're not getting a point on Fed. Even at that I think 2 points off 48 ace attempts would be it.

I predict a club player second serve would result in 100% winner returns from Fed.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I agree. My serve is a relative weakness compared to the rest of my game, but I still average high 90s and low 100s on my first serve. Better servers than me 5.0+ stand a fair shot at getting a few points.
I mean you seem pretty great when hitting with that pro on video. So, is the gap between you and Federer so big, that you would struggle to win single points?

I mean pace is still pace and Federer is still human. What if you went for a winner in every point trying to hit corners?

How fast are your average shots compared to top pros? Is the difference really that huge?
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
Assuming he is trying to win every single point, anyone who doesn't say 0 is delusional. He's not going to double fault against you because he's not going to need to go for that much on second serves. I think the best strategy is actually to aim for the net poles every time if a ball is still considered in play after it bounces off the net pole, because that's the only way you have a chance to hit an unreturnable shot against him. However, you have no chance of actually hitting the net pole when returning one of Federer's shots (and I doubt you could do it even 1/100 times even if someone was feeding you balls to do it), so there's that.

Unless we have some actual ATP pros on here, in which case, never mind and say hi to Roger for me.
 

aer0pr0

Rookie
semi-pros that are playing future tournaments would struggle to make federer a couple of games in a 2 set match, and people on this topic are arguing they would make a game or two if lucky?
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
semi-pros that are playing future tournaments would struggle to make federer a couple of games in a 2 set match, and people on this topic are arguing they would make a game or two if lucky?
All you have to do is hit moonballs to his backhand and it's an easy win. I'm also a lefty so I'd have an unfair advantage.
 

Maximagq

Banned
I mean you seem pretty great when hitting with that pro on video. So, is the gap between you and Federer so big, that you would struggle to win single points?

I mean pace is still pace and Federer is still human. What if you went for a winner in every point trying to hit corners?

How fast are your average shots compared to top pros? Is the difference really that huge?
The gap between Federer and me is huge. The pro I was rallying with would struggle with Federer, and I was struggling against that pro to keep up the intensity. My average forehand is probably around 55 mph and backhand maybe 45 mph? No idea. Federer's average forehand is 72 mph. If I just try to tree every shot, I can hit it up to an 85 mph average hitting as hard as possible with a top speed of 95 mph, but then it would be a low percentage play.
 

HRB

Hall of Fame
Zero...any other answer from those around these parts including me is absolute delusional crap.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
The gap between Federer and me is huge. The pro I was rallying with would struggle with Federer, and I was struggling against that pro to keep up the intensity. My average forehand is probably around 55 mph and backhand maybe 45 mph? No idea. Federer's average forehand is 72 mph. If I just try to tree every shot, I can hit it up to an 85 mph average hitting as hard as possible with a top speed of 95 mph, but then it would be a low percentage play.
I guess, the gap really is that big. But you would improve playing Federer and his skill would decrease playing lower guy.

I still have faith you taking maybe 8 points from Federer. Hitting every forehand with 85 mph in the corner. Maybe 6-8 would go in.

I guess the other problem is for you to even be in a position to hit forehands like that. Fed probably crushes your serve. And of course no chance on his serve.

I guess guys with great serve would have the most chance to win points vs Federer. I mean he never dominates those one-dimensional top servers.
 

90's Clay

Banned
No one is perfect.. EVERYONE is susceptible to poor played points and even poor played games. To think you couldn't win even a few points of a pro is ludicrous if you have played the game in any shape or form.


I suck at tennis truth be told as I never learned the game but the fact is, Ive seen a ton of well rounded great players in my day who never went pro who have more of a well rounded game than RAONIC for god sakes. (Obviously they aren't as good as Raonic but they can do more things on the court than Raonic) and if Raonic can take his share of games from Old Federer. don't sit there and tell me so former top college player couldn't.

Raonic aint' crap when it comes to all court well rounded tennis (The mug is pretty much just a serve) and he wins games. Dude is a **** poor when it comes to all court execution and Ive seen quite a few players that are superior from the baseline and at the net than him.

Bottom line.. There are guys that could AT LEAST Win points vs. Fed. (Mainly forcing him into errors by keeping the rallies going). TO say otherwise is foolish
 
Last edited:
No one is perfect.. EVERYONE is susceptible to poor played points and even poor played games. To think you couldn't win even a few points of a pro is ludicrous if you have played the game in any shape or form.


I suck at tennis truth be told as I never learned the game but the fact is, Ive seen a ton of well rounded great players in my day who never went pro who have more of a well rounded game than RAONIC for god sakes. (Obviously they aren't as good as Raonic but they can do more things on the court than Raonic) and if Raonic can take his share of games from Old Federer. don't sit there and tell me so former top college player couldn't.

Raonic aint' crap when it comes to all court well rounded tennis (The mug is pretty much just a serve) and he wins games. Dude is a **** poor when it comes to all court execution and Ive seen quite a few players that are superior from the baseline and at the net than him.

Bottom line.. There are guys that could AT LEAST Win points vs. Fed. (Mainly forcing him into errors by keeping the rallies going). TO say otherwise is foolish[/QUOTE]

Nice reasoning again, so in a nutshell:

- Raonic sucks at tennis almost as much as you do but not quite thanks to his his serve
- Because Raonic wins games and sometimes makes it close against Federer (thanks to his serve or ...?) former top college players surely could take their fair share of games by...
- serving like Raonic?¨
- No, they could actually achieve that by "FORCING HIM INTO ERRORS BY KEEPING THE RALLIES GOING"

:p
 

90's Clay

Banned
Raonic is a clown of epic proportion and probably the LEAST talented player there has ever been in the top 10 in the world.
 

Feather

Legend
No one is perfect.. EVERYONE is susceptible to poor played points and even poor played games. To think you couldn't win even a few points of a pro is ludicrous if you have played the game in any shape or form.


I suck at tennis truth be told as I never learned the game but the fact is, Ive seen a ton of well rounded great players in my day who never went pro who have more of a well rounded game than RAONIC for god sakes. (Obviously they aren't as good as Raonic but they can do more things on the court than Raonic) and if Raonic can take his share of games from Old Federer. don't sit there and tell me so former top college player couldn't.

Raonic aint' crap when it comes to all court well rounded tennis (The mug is pretty much just a serve) and he wins games. Dude is a **** poor when it comes to all court execution and Ive seen quite a few players that are superior from the baseline and at the net than him.

Bottom line.. There are guys that could AT LEAST Win points vs. Fed. (Mainly forcing him into errors by keeping the rallies going). TO say otherwise is foolish
Oh God, you are saying that keep the rally going and forcing him into errors :lol:
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
No one is perfect.. EVERYONE is susceptible to poor played points and even poor played games. To think you couldn't win even a few points of a pro is ludicrous if you have played the game in any shape or form.


I suck at tennis truth be told as I never learned the game but the fact is, Ive seen a ton of well rounded great players in my day who never went pro who have more of a well rounded game than RAONIC for god sakes. (Obviously they aren't as good as Raonic but they can do more things on the court than Raonic) and if Raonic can take his share of games from Old Federer. don't sit there and tell me so former top college player couldn't.

Raonic aint' crap when it comes to all court well rounded tennis (The mug is pretty much just a serve) and he wins games. Dude is a **** poor when it comes to all court execution and Ive seen quite a few players that are superior from the baseline and at the net than him.

Bottom line.. There are guys that could AT LEAST Win points vs. Fed. (Mainly forcing him into errors by keeping the rallies going). TO say otherwise is foolish
Maybe Raonic looks one-dimensional to you, but I guarantee you he moves better and is more consistent than just about any of those "great players" you speak of. It's like if you watch basketball, some of the bench guys seem like scrubs who can do nothing but I guarantee they would run any pickup players out of the building (watch "The Scallenge" if you don't believe me). Maybe some tennis pro should do the same thing, like Karsten Braasch with Venus/Serena except taking on amateurs rather then WTA players.

Yeah maybe a top college player will take points off Federer, but top college players are good enough to be low-ranked pros (1000s+ at least) so that's irrelevant because whoever on here isn't a pro or with equivalent skill level to a pro (which is 99.9% of this forum) WILL NOT ever win a point off Fed. A top college player is a different story, he might win a couple.
 

DrumWizOHBD

Semi-Pro
I could get one game. Bomb a flat serve down the T, AD side. Gimme a few weeks of practicing serves and only serves, and I bet I could get ONE past old Fed.

I used to train with fellow in college that had a career ATP ranking around 350 in his mid 20's. He had just decided to take a few years off from the tour and work on a degree in USA (he turned pro at 17). He grew up on Clay in South America, and literally never missed a groundstroke and had incredible touch, he also moved like a gazelle on the court. He was offered a scholarship to be a hitting partner for our team, because he was of course ineligible to play.

We mostly would play baseline games, and I would sometimes get 1 or 2 points out of 2 baseline games. There were weeks where I couldn't get a point. However, whenever we played sets, or serve and volley games, I could always sneak a few aces in. I would only hit heavy spin serves out wide both sides for a couple games. Then that 2nd point of my 3rd service game, just crack one down the T! $10, 000 in the pocket
 

SuperHead

Rookie
I could get one game. Bomb a flat serve down the T, AD side. Gimme a few weeks of practicing serves and only serves, and I bet I could get ONE past old Fed.

I used to train with fellow in college that had a career ATP ranking around 350 in his mid 20's. He had just decided to take a few years off from the tour and work on a degree in USA (he turned pro at 17). He grew up on Clay in South America, and literally never missed a groundstroke and had incredible touch, he also moved like a gazelle on the court. He was offered a scholarship to be a hitting partner for our team, because he was of course ineligible to play.

We mostly would play baseline games, and I would sometimes get 1 or 2 points out of 2 baseline games. There were weeks where I couldn't get a point. However, whenever we played sets, or serve and volley games, I could always sneak a few aces in. I would only hit heavy spin serves out wide both sides for a couple games. Then that 2nd point of my 3rd service game, just crack one down the T! $10, 000 in the pocket
If you couldn't get a point off a player who is ranked 350 in the world, or were struggling to, a player which Federer can easily beat in straight sets, if not 6-0 6-0, then just think how Federer would crush you. He has beaten a player in the Top 100 6-0 6-0 then just think what would happen to someone who is ranked 500th in the world? He would be destroyed. And a person ranked 1200th-1500th would stand no chance, at best can only sneak in a few points, so what makes you think you can get a game off one of the greatest players who have ever played the game? A player who has won 17 Grand Slams and is currently No.2 in the world and has been the No.1 player for 302 weeks and has dominated the game for the past decade. Forget about Federer you wouldn't even be able to get a game off a player who is ranked 100th in the world.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
If you couldn't get a point off a player who is ranked 350 in the world, or were struggling to, a player which Federer can easily beat in straight sets, if not 6-0 6-0, then just think how Federer would crush you. He has beaten a player in the Top 100 6-0 6-0 then just think what would happen to someone who is ranked 500th in the world? He would be destroyed. And a person ranked 1200th-1500th would stand no chance, at best can only sneak in a few points, so what makes you think you can get a game off one of the greatest players who have ever played the game? A player who has won 17 Grand Slams and is currently No.2 in the world and has been the No.1 player for 302 weeks and has dominated the game for the past decade. Forget about Federer you wouldn't even be able to get a game off a player who is ranked 100th in the world.
350 ATP could have close sets with Federer depending on the circumstances. The thing is at that level the margins are so small, anybody can play great tennis on their day.

People on here pay way to much attention to records and stats. The fact is, there are tons of amazing players out there nobody has ever heard of (ie 200 and lower ATP). They won't win the big titles or beat the big boys, but that doesn't mean they couldn't play fantastic tennis. The flip side of the coin is the elite guys are just human. They are still just playing tennis, it's not a different sport or something.

I don't think it's crazy to think that a good rec player, elite junior, or decent college player could take some points of federer over 2 sets. Not games, just points.
 

DrumWizOHBD

Semi-Pro
I don't think it's crazy to think that a good rec player, elite junior, or decent college player could take some points of federer over 2 sets. Not games, just points.
Word.

I've hit serves, no one can return, with my eyes close. Not joking on the eyes closed part. My first serve got me a college scholarship....to a junior college in Kansas :shock: But still, I was offered a full ride while I was warming up my serve, when I was only at the college to serve (pun intended) as a hitting partner for my friend who was trying out for the team. I was still a Junior in High school.

#350 on the ATP got just as good of strokes as the top 10. This guy made his living travelling the world competing in ATP tournaments for 5 or 6 years, I've seen him hit shots even Federer would clap if he saw. I recommend any disbelievers in the ability of a 350 ranked player to be a viable competitor at least for one day against top 10 players, go to the US Open during qualifying week and then come back and say those guys can't take a few points of Federer. BTW, entrance to the US Open during Qualifying week is completely free. You can watch any match. I went in 2013 for the first time, and I'm from New York, it was incredible! I sat next to Mark Woodforde as we watched this fiery Australian kid front row, Nick Kyrgios hit some amazing shots....he was ranked 840 at the start of 2013!

I could ace that Aussie, too I'm sure.:twisted:
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
No one is perfect.. EVERYONE is susceptible to poor played points and even poor played games. To think you couldn't win even a few points of a pro is ludicrous if you have played the game in any shape or form.


I suck at tennis truth be told as I never learned the game but the fact is, Ive seen a ton of well rounded great players in my day..

TO say otherwise is foolish
Quoted for Truth, Beauty and the American Dream.
 
Last edited:

SublimeTennis

Professional
When you play a pro, the ball does something weird. It goes out, or long or into the net. Only on your shots though.
HA! Someone who has played a good pro!!! Forget the speculation, just talk to us who have played pro's.

I have thought about it and altered my opinion a little. I think it is possible I could win a point on serve. Not likely but possible.
 

Maximagq

Banned
HA! Someone who has played a good pro!!! Forget the speculation, just talk to us who have played pro's.

I have thought about it and altered my opinion a little. I think it is possible I could win a point on serve. Not likely but possible.
I've hit with Novikov and Ty Trombetta. Their ball is hard to handle.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
You would be surprised. I used to be a nationally ranked junior who topped out around 314 in the country (which translates to about 5.0 NTRP) and I practiced with a few 5 star/blue chip recruits. I got to hit with Johnny Wang a few times, who now plays for USC, and lost recently to Mackenzie McDonald who beat Mahut and Steve Johnson last year. Let me tell you, these guys can do so much with the ball that it's ridiculous. I was struggling against Johnny, who has incredible touch and variety. I lost 0-6 and got a few points, but primarily on my own serve. Imagine what the most versatile player in history would do to 6.0 and under guys like us.
Thank you, another very good player who agrees there is no chance.

Everyone has to realize Federer, Djokovich, Nadal, etc. aren't a 7.0, they are a 25, they have their own level, and it can't be quantified, it's literally off the charts.

Imagine your hardest cross court shot, forehand, your opponent is on his ad side and you hit your most perfect shot to the deuce side, you think "I got him" as you hit it, the ball lands just north of the service line, as the ball is going out of the court Federer trots calmly to it and hits it straight down your ad side for a straight winner.

That is what would happen on your best shot. It's just no chance except possibly a serve or him hitting an unforced error. Rally? You are better off closing your eyes and hitting the ball as hard as you can, that is of course if you can get to it. I'm very fast, but Fed uses that against you, moves you to the right and he is hitting to the left.

Enough said from me, you got my vote:)
 
No chance winning ANY topspin rally. There's only one way I could ever win a point: A heavily SLICED shot straight into their feet.

A set? Most definitely 24-0!
 

KineticChain

Hall of Fame
No chance winning ANY topspin rally. There's only one way I could ever win a point: A heavily SLICED shot straight into their feet.

A set? Most definitely 24-0!
spot on. i was hitting with Denis Istomin at the local public courts and he simply couldn't handle my rec level slices to his feet. he could annihilate every other shot i hit his way, but not the slices to the feet. i ended up winning 7-6 6-1
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
Raonic is a clown of epic proportion and probably the LEAST talented player there has ever been in the top 10 in the world.
Perhaps you didn't understand the question. It is expressed in rather complicated language. Let me help you with some highlighting of key words.

"How many points would YOU win off of Roger Federer?"

Just a ball park figure will do. I know you're on record as having said you can't really play tennis so this would put you more or less on a par with Raonic I guess. So go on, tell us your imaginary scoreline.
 
Last edited:

Crionics

Semi-Pro
Lol @ this thread, so many deluded people :lol:

Unless some of you are some semi-pros or retired pros, there is not a single chance that any of you recreational tennis hacks win any point against Federer or for that matter any other of the top pros we see regularly on TV.

Federer (or really any other top pro) wouldn't double fault against you, because he would just have to hit kick serves as first serves which would be enough for him to win all points on his serve.

As for some of you getting a couple of points on your serve, Federer has been reading serves his whole life, he'll probably know where the ball lands before it leaves your racquet. You really think you can get an ace? :lol:
He'll just return straight winners off every single one of your serves.

Maybe if you play an indefinite amount of time against him, you might win a point. Kind of similar to the "infinite monkey theorem" which states that a monkey hitting random keys on a keyboard for an infinite amount of time will eventually type out the complete works of William Shakespeare.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
This thread is still going? :neutral: The pros consistently hit with a speed that is the maximum many (fairly good players) around here can hit themselves, with more spin and precision. Federer can read even the best serves, so a rec serve would be a breeze to read. On top of that, nobody here could outlast him in a rally or outhit him. Federer makes mistakes only because he is forced to take some risks, as his opponents can take advantage of balls most recs would consider heavy. Against a rec, Federer could play safe and he still would be easily outhitting him. Getting points would have more to do with a fluke than anything else.

One of our top men players (40 age bracket) [he plays very good tennis] played against one of Borg's hitting partners from back in the days, who had drunk 1 liter of beer and had smoked almost 1 whole pack of cigarettes before their match. Our player lost 6-0 6-0 handily in less than 30 minutes. If I remember correctly, Maximagq said that retired Roddick thrashed a top college player this summer, even off his "weak" backhand wing. To suggest that Federer would lose points that are even worth considering to a rec player is the most delusional thing I have ever heard regarding tennis.
 

Maximagq

Banned
This thread is still going? :neutral: The pros consistently hit with a speed that is the maximum many (fairly good players) around here can hit themselves, with more spin and precision. Federer can read even the best serves, so a rec serve would be a breeze to read. On top of that, nobody here could outlast him in a rally or outhit him. Federer makes mistakes only because he is forced to take some risks, as his opponents can take advantage of balls most recs would consider heavy. Against a rec, Federer could play safe and he still would be easily outhitting him. Getting points would have more to do with a fluke than anything else.

One of our top men players (40 age bracket) [he plays very good tennis] played against one of Borg's hitting partners from back in the days, who had drunk 1 liter of beer and had smoked almost 1 whole pack of cigarettes before their match. Our player lost 6-0 6-0 handily in less than 30 minutes. If I remember correctly, Maximagq said that retired Roddick thrashed a top college player this summer, even off his "weak" backhand wing. To suggest that Federer would lose points that are even worth considering to a rec player is the most delusional thing I have ever heard regarding tennis.
Roddick was outgunning Marcos Giron even off the backhand wing. Marcos lost in the 1st round to Isner at the US Open.
 

crash1929

Hall of Fame
Ive seen fed and other up close. They are unbelieveably astonishingly amazingly powerful and acurate, but they are not gods. They are human beings. To say a 5.0 would only win 1-3 points doesn't sound right to me....
 

pmerk34

Legend
Ive seen fed and other up close. They are unbelieveably astonishingly amazingly powerful and acurate, but they are not gods. They are human beings. To say a 5.0 would only win 1-3 points doesn't sound right to me....
5.0 players routinely lose challenger events by scores like 6-1, 6-1 to players who aren't on Donald Young's level. What makes you think a 5.0 would have any success getting points of Federer who may be the greatest player who ever lived?
 

Praetorian

Professional
Ive seen fed and other up close. They are unbelieveably astonishingly amazingly powerful and acurate, but they are not gods. They are human beings. To say a 5.0 would only win 1-3 points doesn't sound right to me....
Why? The difference between a pro and 5.0 is a lot bigger, than beginner to 5.0. It's not a linear progression, though a lot of self-rated people seem to think so.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Ive seen fed and other up close. They are unbelieveably astonishingly amazingly powerful and acurate, but they are not gods. They are human beings. To say a 5.0 would only win 1-3 points doesn't sound right to me....
I'm a 5.0 and I've played against players from the German Bundesliga (pros far below the level of a Roger Federer) on a few occasions. Unless they had an absolutely horrible day and I had a brilliant one, I lost with a bagel and/or a breadstick; the matches were never close.
 

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
I'm a 5.0 and I've played against players from the German Bundesliga (pros far below the level of a Roger Federer) on a few occasions. Unless they had an absolutely horrible day and I had a brilliant one, I lost with a bagel and/or a breadstick; the matches were never close.
People underestimate how much better the pros are than the amateurs.
The difference between a top pro like Federer and a typical college player is astonishing, and this board has a bunch of 3.5's and 4.0's thinking they could get a point. They won't.
 
The topspin on a pro shot makes the ball kick and bite like a mule. Just completely different to what you are used to. Probably take several hours to get used to it, by which time the pro would be long gone.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
I would like to think I would get 1 or 2 points but they would not be skill points. Maybe I shank one that comes off at a weird angle and doesn't bounce. I don't think my "good" shots would bother him but simple probability and luck should give the hack maybe 1 or 2 points over a couple of sets. Federer gets bored and loses concentration, I mishit some funky shot, or my shot hits a pebble in the court and bounces crazy are about the only way I get a point.
 

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
I would like to think I would get 1 or 2 points but they would not be skill points. Maybe I shank one that comes off at a weird angle and doesn't bounce. I don't think my "good" shots would bother him but simple probability and luck should give the hack maybe 1 or 2 points over a couple of sets. Federer gets bored and loses concentration, I mishit some funky shot, or my shot hits a pebble in the court and bounces crazy are about the only way I get a point.
Believe me, Fed has seen EVERY shot you could ever hit, no matter how flukey. He can handle every spin and angle known to man.
I know for a fact I would never get a point, and I'm a 4.5.
 

snoflewis

Hall of Fame
it's amazing that people think they can actually win a point unless it was an UE by any pro.

the level between an amateur and professional is HUGE in any sport. from skills to level of fitness. now tennis doesnt have athletic freaks that basketball and football might have, but there is still a difference in athleticism, and there's no need to even mention the skill aspect. just because we're so used to watching pros on tv and watching one of them lose, none of us would stand a chance.

the only two scenarios i could imagine are that the pro hits an UE, or i serve, the pro trips, and i get a point.
 

snoflewis

Hall of Fame
Ive seen fed and other up close. They are unbelieveably astonishingly amazingly powerful and acurate, but they are not gods. They are human beings. To say a 5.0 would only win 1-3 points doesn't sound right to me....
it's probably because you saw fed up close playing against people who are "slightly" worse than him but still considered to be in the same level. against those players, he is a human being.

against anybody 6.0 or below, he's a god.
 
Top