How many Wimbledon titles would Federer have won on fast grass?

[tennis_pro]

Hard to judge. All I know is that the odds of an upset would go up, however it would help him a lot against Nadal/Djokovic.

 

[Start da Game]

roddick was definitely hurt with the slowness of grass in all those finals he lost........on 90s grass he definitely would have eaten into some of fraud's wimbledons.........hewitt and nalby would not have stood much chance on any grass........what happened to roddick was plain bad luck, his serves stood up more on the maximized rye grass and suited fed's block return........roddick played a very clever match changing and mixing the serve when he got another chance in 2009 and choked it away big time in the second set........

@metsman that is exactly the point........he was almost the only one who could still serve and volley and that too only occasionally........that is the advantage he enjoyed........he had no clue against second string serve and volleyers henman and ancic, think about becker or edberg coming at him all the time........sure he would have won a few slams in the 90s too but not 10 or 12 like the fraud fankids believe.........people often forget how good pete's competition was on grass........he earned his wimbledon titles facing actual grass courters.........

 

[BeatlesFan]

The only thing we know for sure is that ******** and Nadal would have fewer, probably zero.

But Fed still would have lost some of the Wimbledon's he played, leaving the door open for Djokovic and Nadal. Even on fast grass, Fed would have lost in 2010 to Berdych, 2011 to Tsonga and in 2013 to just about anybody.

Djokovic can play very well on fast surfaces and he has a phenomenal ROS. He would absolutely have won 2-3 Wimbledon's even on fast grass and with Fed in the field. Roddick would have won that many too and may even have defeated Fed in 2009 on super fast grass.

Rafa is another matter. On low bouncing, slick, fast grass he probably would never have won it. But Djokovic? Absolutely guaranteed he would have still won multiple Wimbledon's.

 

[Start da Game]

But Fed still would have lost some of the Wimbledon's he played, leaving the door open for Djokovic and Nadal. Even on fast grass, Fed would have lost in 2010 to Berdych, 2011 to Tsonga and in 2013 to just about anybody. Djokovic can play very well on fast surfaces and he has a phenomenal ROS. He would absolutely have won 2-3 Wimbledon's even on fast grass and with Fed in the field. Roddick would have won that many too and may even have defeated Fed in 2009 on super fast grass.

Rafa is another matter. On low bouncing, slick, fast grass he probably would never have won it. But Djokovic? Absolutely guaranteed he would have still won multiple Wimbledon's.

i agree and for one feel the wimbledon title count would still be like fed > djoko > rafa........rafa did have the better of djoko on slick grass on queen's but i agree that he would come third on fast grass........there is no substantial evidence to claim otherwise.........

 

[RS]

Depends on how other adapt to the surface and how Fed does so hard to put a number on it.

 

[mike danny]

Depends on how other adapt to the surface and how Fed does so hard to put a number on it.

Fed has at least proven himself to an extent on fast grass with his 2001 win over Sampras and S&V-ing to win in 2003.

I know the grass wasn't fast anymore by 2003, but Fed at least proved that he could win Wimb by serving and volleying.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Tough to say. He would do better against Djokodal, but a bit worse against big hitters and big servers. Roddick could very well snatch a Wimb or 2 from Fed just because of that.

He also would have a harder time reaching Wimb finals in his 30's with his decreased reflexes, but he'd definitely win a Wimb title or 2 if he gets to the finals since he'd have an advantage over Djokovic on fast grass.

We agree! Somewhat.
I think it's a bit of a trade off. Fed's serve is better than ever, which has enabled him to be one of the top two favorites into his late thirties, but agree that the inevitable decline in reflexes/explosiveness has hurt his return game.
So his serve would be more dominant on fast grass but his return game less effective.
I'd say Fed sweeps Djokovic and Nadal on fast grass but loses to Roddick in say 2009 and maybe 2004.

 

[RS]

Fed has at least proven himself to an extent on fast grass with his 2001 win over Sampras and S&V-ing to win in 2003.

I know the grass wasn't fast anymore by 2003, but Fed at least proved that he could win Wimb by serving and volleying.

Fair enough.

 

[mike danny]

We agree! Somewhat.
I think it's a bit of a trade off. Fed's serve is better than ever, which has enabled him to be one of the top two favorites into his late thirties, but agree that the inevitable decline in reflexes/explosiveness has hurt his return game.
So his serve would be more dominant on fast grass but his return game less effective.
I'd say Fed sweeps Djokovic on fast grass but loses to Roddick in say 2009 and maybe 2004.

Yeah, it's a trade-off indeed.

 

[Sport]

Fed has at least proven himself to an extent on fast grass with his 2001 win over Sampras and S&V-ing to win in 2003.

I know the grass wasn't fast anymore by 2003, but Fed at least proved that he could win Wimb by serving and volleying.

The slower grass was implemented in 2001. Roger beat Sampras in a slower Wimbledon. And in that match Roger played from the baseline most of the time, Sampras was the one continously "serve-and-volleying". Still ultra-meritory victory for Roger though.

 

[Sport]

But Fed still would have lost some of the Wimbledon's he played, leaving the door open for Djokovic and Nadal. Even on fast grass, Fed would have lost in 2010 to Berdych, 2011 to Tsonga and in 2013 to just about anybody. Djokovic can play very well on fast surfaces and he has a phenomenal ROS. He would absolutely have won 2-3 Wimbledon's even on fast grass and with Fed in the field. Roddick would have won that many too and may even have defeated Fed in 2009 on super fast grass.

Rafa is another matter. On low bouncing, slick, fast grass he probably would never have won it. But Djokovic? Absolutely guaranteed he would have still won multiple Wimbledon's.

Even Agassi won Wimbledon on faster grass without facing Sampras. And Nadal is better on grass than Agassi. Unlike Agassi, Nadal actually won Wimbledon defeating the greatest grass court player of his time, Roger Federer. Nadal also won 2 Wimbledons, not only 1 like Agassi. In sum, I see no reason why Nadal couldn't win Wimbledon on fast grass without facing Sampras, as Agassi did.

 

[Eren]

Federer would have won two more IMO. He would not have lost the one against Nadal in 2008 (just my opinion). He still would have lost some finals and perhaps earlier upsets too.

Djokovic would have won three or so (al just guesses no?).

Nadal, at most one. He could lose against anyone tbh, especially in his 2012-2017 mode.

 

[NatF]

The slower grass was implemented in 2001. Roger beat Sampras in a slower Wimbledon. And in that match Roger played from the baseline most of the time, Sampras was the one continously "serve-and-volleying". Still ultra-meritory victory for Roger though.

Sampras approached the net 122 times, Federer 98 times in that match - ergo he approached nearly as many times as Sampras, he hung back on a lot more second serves but he pretty much came in behind every first serve.

---------------------------------------------

As far as this question goes Federer is one of the ATG first serve returners, he also has an ATG serve himself. This is a potent combo combined with his movement, shotmaking etc...I don't see him losing at Wimbledon from 2003-2009. It's not like grass was slow in those years anyway, his grass game was just better than anyone elses. There's a chance he loses out in 2012, he was struggling in the early rounds and against say Benneteau perhaps the quick conditions enable him to finish Federer off. Probably the quicker conditions help him agaisnt Djokovic, I imagine he takes at least one of the 2014, 2015, 2019 encounters. I don't think there's much chance of anyone else in the draw at those times upsetting him earlier either.

 

[Third Serve]

Sampras approached the net 122 times, Federer 98 times in that match - ergo he approached nearly as many times as Sampras, he hung back on a lot more second serves but he pretty much came in behind every first serve.

---------------------------------------------

As far as this question goes Federer is one of the ATG first serve returners, he also has an ATG serve himself. This is a potent combo combined with his movement, shotmaking etc...I don't see him losing at Wimbledon from 2003-2009. It's not like grass was slow in those years anyway, his grass game was just better than anyone elses. There's a chance he loses out in 2012, he was struggling in the early rounds and against say Benneteau perhaps the quick conditions enable him to finish Federer off. Probably the quicker conditions help him agaisnt Djokovic, I imagine he takes at least one of the 2014, 2015, 2019 encounters. I don't think there's much chance of anyone else in the draw at those times upsetting him earlier either.

Grass was quite high-bouncing in some of the latter years. 2007 was particularly egregious, I remember. But 2003 and 2004 were quite nice in terms of speed and Fed played some great grass-court tennis. I think he S&V'd on >50% of service points in 2003 (and about 15% in 2004). Certainly capable enough at the net considering how splendid his 2003 performance in particular was.

 

[mike danny]

Grass was quite high-bouncing in some of the latter years. 2007 was particularly egregious, I remember. But 2003 and 2004 were quite nice in terms of speed and Fed played some great grass-court tennis. I think he S&V'd on >50% of service points in 2003 (and about 15% in 2004). Certainly capable enough at the net considering how splendid his 2003 performance in particular was.

Grass had good speed in 2003-2004. Don't know why they needed to change it.

 

[NoleFam]

I keep hearing this dribble about servebots dominating on fast grass at Wimbledon and it's simply not true. The ONLY big server who didn't have an All Time Great net game to win Wimbledon in the Open Era was Ivanisevic. It took him 14 tries and he still had a better net game than every player who has won it since, bar one.

Sampras had an amazing serve, but he also had an exceptional net game and groundstrokes that are infinitely better than the current Wimbledon champ's net game. Same goes for Krajicek, Stich, Edberg and Becker. Actually, Edberg didn't have a booming serve, but he and Cash had even next level net games, maybe even as good as Medvedev.

What we see now at Wimbledon is one dimensional baseline botting, plus a few pure servebots (Raonic, Berrettini, Opelka, Isner, Querrey), so all that has been gotten rid of is net play. As Federer is almost the only player on tour who still has a full array of skills in that area, he'd clean up on fast grass.

Servebots did dominate Wimbledon back then. What sport were you watching exactly? Sampras himself was part servebot, part exceptional player/baseliner with great reflexes. That's why he was so good and dominated Wimbledon because he had it all including amazing athleticism. As far as Ivanisevic not having an all ATG net game, you didn't even need it on old grass if you had his serve. The surface does all the work for you since most players can barely return your serve so you're hitting easy volleys most of the time. You didn't have to be magicians like McEnroe, Edberg and Sampras to excel at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic made 4 Wimbledon finals and lost in 5 to both Agassi and Sampras, who were just better players. You think Agassi's volley won the day for him in 1992? A less than great net game had nothing to do with it. If it weren't for those superior players in his way, he would have won at least 3 of them.

Krajickek was a servebot and Stich had more dimensions. Still it was the serve that helped him Wimbledon.

Yea we see baseline botting today compared to serve botting back then. What makes one better than the other? Federer does have the most natural and best racket skills of anyone but as Nadal and Djokovic have shown, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Federer's way isn't the only way to be a great player at tennis which a lot of you guys struggle to understand.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Servebots did dominate Wimbledon back then. What sport were you watching exactly? Sampras himself was part servebot, part exceptional player/baseliner with great reflexes. That's why he was so good and dominated Wimbledon because he had it all including amazing athleticism. As far as Ivanisevic not having an all ATG net game, you didn't even need it on old grass if you had his serve. The surface does all the work for you since most players can barely return your serve so you're hitting easy volleys most of the time. You didn't have to be magicians like McEnroe, Edberg and Sampras to excel at Wimbledon. Ivanisevic made 4 Wimbledon finals and lost in 5 to both Agassi and Sampras, who were just better players. You think Agassi's volley won the day for him in 1992? A less than great net game had nothing to do with it. If it weren't for those superior players in his way, he would have won at least 3 of them.

Krajickek was a servebot and Stich had more dimensions. Still it was the serve that helped him Wimbledon.

Yea we see baseline botting today compared to serve botting back then. What makes one better than the other? Federer does have the most natural and best racket skills of anyone but as Nadal and Djokovic have shown, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Federer's way isn't the only way to be a great player at tennis which a lot of you guys struggle to understand.

Took me 2 pages of reading posts before finding someone that gets it. Top post, Sir!

 

[Gazelle]

Roddick would have won 5. Probably 5 US Opens too if those courts stayed fast.

He'd probably still be playing too.

Roddick wouldn't necessarily be better on fast grass. He can only marginally gain on serve (because it was already so potent), which would be offset by decline in return quality. As a baseliner with limited volley skills, the rest of his game would have suffered too.

Federer beats Roddick on any court, be it fast or slow. He's just too superior.

 

[alexio]

Took me 2 pages of reading posts before finding someone that gets it. Top post, Sir!

glad that you've finally found what you were looking for, machi

 

[Gazelle]

You are delusional if you think Roddick with faster SECOND SERVE than Federer's First serve and regular 90+mph FHs won't be beating Federer on faster grass.

Roddick wouldn't even touch Fed's serve on fast grass. While I think Fed might get in some timely reflex returns to get a crucial break or minibreak.

 

[alexio]

Yea we see baseline botting today compared to serve botting back then. What makes one better than the other?

maybe, people' choice?

 

[Deleted member 744633]

glad that you've finally found what you were looking for, machi

LOL machan, nearly fell of my chair

 

[NoleFam]

maybe, people' choice?

Lol. TTW choice.

 

[metsman]

Think it's highly unlikely Roddick does better against Fed on fast grass. Playing on fast grass requires feel much more than just a huge serve. Huge serves are always effective on grass, but the surer bounce of modern grass means you don't need as much feel to handle weird/bad/low bounces. Federer has some of the best feel ever, Roddick not so much. Fast grass is also not going to save the more one dimensional player in tiebreaks, the dynamics still look the same there, which obviously decided both matches.

04 Wimby Roddick did most of his damage on the return and from the baseline anyways. Turn that into an S&V contest and it's advantage Fed. 2009 was a serving contest anyways and Fed's serve was maybe even more effective than Roddick, would still be a razor thin match in faster conditions. Federer didn't break once till the very end, if hypothetically faster grass makes Roddick's serve even tougher, that will change how? LOL.

Fast grass helps net play more than anything else. Yeah returning big serves on it is hard, but if you're one of the few with the skills to do it, and Federer obviously is, other things matter more.

 

[zipplock]

There's no choice for "All of them". That would have been my vote.

 

[tonylg]

Djokovic can play very well on fast surfaces and he has a phenomenal ROS. He would absolutely have won 2-3 Wimbledon's even on fast grass and with Fed in the field.

Lendl was BY FAR the best indoor carpet player of his day, winning with his good serve, baseline play and fitness. He knew his mediocre net game was his achilles heel at Wimbledon and spent years with Tony Roche to improve that, even skipping his best slam to practice his net game on grass in preparation for Wimbledon. Despite being his weakness, his net game was 1000% better than ********'s and his overhead was rock solid.

It's very obvious that ******** would win fewer Wimbledons on fast grass than Lendl did.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Roddick wouldn't even touch Fed's serve on fast grass.

That's because Roddick's ROS was at best average. Djokovic and Murray both have outstanding ROS's and they could have touched Fed's serves. Pete's serves? Probably not, especially Murray.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

OP: Federer transported back to Wimbledon's 1980s/90s grass conditions instantly reduces his number of titles, thanks to the sheer number of astounding players at the event. It was an era overloaded with players who were naturally gifted with the talents that brought success there. I would estimate Federer would fall into the Stich zone of player there at best, or end up in a "bridesmaid" situation like Lendl, with his two finals runner-up and five semifinal finishes.

 

[Eren]

OP: Federer transported back to Wimbledon's 1980s/90s grass conditions instantly reduces his number of titles, thanks to the sheer number of astounding players at the event. It was an era overloaded with players who were naturally gifted with the talents that brought success there. I would estimate Federer would fall into the Stich zone of player there at best, or end up in a "bridesmaid" situation like Lendl, with his two finals runner-up and five semifinal finishes.

LMAO

 

[BlueB]

Where are the options for below 8?

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Looks like he's got plenty more Wimbledon appearances in him

 

[Third Serve]

LMAO

That post is worthy of a ROFLMAO, not just a LMAO.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Tough to say. He would do better against Djokodal, but a bit worse against big hitters and big servers. Roddick could very well snatch a Wimb or 2 from Fed just because of that.

He also would have a harder time reaching Wimb finals in his 30's with his decreased reflexes, but he'd definitely win a Wimb title or 2 if he gets to the finals since he'd have an advantage over Djokovic on fast grass.

Exactly this. Would not loose to Djokodal but overall more prone to upsets especially against attacking players so maybe roughly the same number.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You are delusional if you think Roddick with faster SECOND SERVE than Federer's First serve and regular 90+mph FHs won't be beating Federer on faster grass.

Roddicks volleys/net game is pretty bad, Fed is way better, as he is in returns and passing shots. Roddick has the better serve overall but Federer’s serve return combo is better than Roddicks, he even outaced him in many of their encounters. Roddick won’t beat him on fast grass, Fed is still the way better player and I fail to understand how the grass being faster would benefit Roddick to an extent that he could overcome his nemesis.

 

[beard]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda thread... Fed dominating off course...
Just look at poll options... OP can't even imagine Fed could have won less... But in reality Fed won 0 Wimbledon titles on really fast grass...

 

[SeeItHitIt]

Surely the answer is ‘more’. But 14 beats 13. So 14.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

LMAO

Yes, I'm laughing at the Fed-fanatcs who actually think he would have a chance against those who knew how to play and excel on fast grass. Federer only has as many Wimbledon titles as he does thanks to the slower courts and above all else, the majority of two generations of players being net-phobic/net-ignorant baseliners, making it rather easy to win against most.

 

[NedStark]

Yes, I'm laughing at the Fed-fanatcs who actually think he would have a chance against those who knew how to play and excel on fast grass. Federer only has as many Wimbledon titles as he does thanks to the slower courts and above all else, the majority of two generations of players being net-phobic/net-ignorant baseliners, making it rather easy to win against most.

We believe that Fed would have dominated much more because only he had the sufficient skill package (serve, slice, netgame, 1hbh...) after Sampras retired.

 

[Bamoos]

Yes, I'm laughing at the Fed-fanatcs who actually think he would have a chance against those who knew how to play and excel on fast grass. Federer only has as many Wimbledon titles as he does thanks to the slower courts and above all else, the majority of two generations of players being net-phobic/net-ignorant baseliners, making it rather easy to win against most.

The question wasn’t teleporting Federer to 80s/90s... it was if 00s-present grass remained slick and fast how many does he win?

My answer would be 10-11+. Can’t see where these upsets will come from.

Can’t use his pre 2003 losses as examples either, he lost to everyone back then.

 

[Bamoos]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda thread... Fed dominating off course...
Just look at poll options... OP can't even imagine Fed could have won less... But in reality Fed won 0 Wimbledon titles on really fast grass...

He won 10 Halle titles on fast grass, which is way more than anyone else on the modern tour.

His skillset lends itself to fast grass too. ATG serve + 1st serve return along with great feel, outstanding athleticism, GOAT fh, goat level slice?

 

[Deleted member 744633]

The question wasn’t teleporting Federer to 80s/90s... it was if 00s-present grass remained slick and fast how many does he win?

My answer would be 10-11+. Can’t see where these upsets will come from.

Can’t use his pre 2003 losses as examples either, he lost to everyone back then.

Bamoos ... recall when Sampras said Federer could win as many Wimbledon titles as he wanted? He must have been thinking just as you're saying now ... can’t see where these upsets will come from. And then Djokovic arrived and repeatedly beat Federer at Wimbledon.

We can make predictions all we want but most times, reality is very different.

 

[NedStark]

Bamoos ... recall when Sampras said Federer could win as many Wimbledon titles as he wanted? He must have been thinking just as you're saying now ... can’t see where these upsets will come from. And then Djokovic arrived and repeatedly beat Federer at Wimbledon.

We can make predictions all we want but most times, reality is very different.

The problem with this argument is that the current slow conditions allowed Djokovic to rise and challenged Federer.

If the grass remains fast, then two following developments would occur:

- Wimbledon would still reward netplay and serve-and-volley.

- Serve-and-volley tennis would still decline, as we all know that Federer was the only player born after 1980 capable of playing serve-and-volley tennis at top level. Other next generation players were already growing up playing baseline even before 2000. All good serve-and-volleyers other than Fed were aging: Sampras and Rafter were going to retire in 2001-2002, Ivanisevic/Krajicek were destroyed by injuries (with Ivanisevic's 2001 run being a real-world fairy tale), Henman/Phillippoussis were never good enough, and by 2003-2004 both were also aging as well.

Result: from 2003 onwards Fed would face a bunch of baseliners on a surface that would still fundamentally reward serve-and-volley tennis.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

OP: Federer transported back to Wimbledon's 1980s/90s grass conditions instantly reduces his number of titles, thanks to the sheer number of astounding players at the event. It was an era overloaded with players who were naturally gifted with the talents that brought success there. I would estimate Federer would fall into the Stich zone of player there at best, or end up in a "bridesmaid" situation like Lendl, with his two finals runner-up and five semifinal finishes.

90s Clay FTW!!

 

[TMF]

We believe that Fed would have dominated much more because only he had the sufficient skill package (serve, slice, netgame, 1hbh...) after Sampras retired.

The poster you quoted has no idea what he's talking about.

Anyone who follows Federer knows that he excel on fast, low bounce grass due to his complete package along with his great serve. Federer managed to adapt on slow grass, and just because was able to dominate on slow grass doesn't mean it's an ideal condition for him.

 

[beard]

He won 10 Halle titles on fast grass, which is way more than anyone else on the modern tour.

His skillset lends itself to fast grass too. ATG serve + 1st serve return along with great feel, outstanding athleticism, GOAT fh, goat level slice?

Halle titles.... Loooool.....

 

[Bamoos]

Halle titles.... Loooool.....

Yes, a fast grass tournament. Anyone who has a basic understanding of tennis can see his skills on display there.

What other relevant data or analysis can you bring to argue otherwise? I suspect 0.

 

[NedStark]

Yes, a fast grass tournament. Anyone who has a basic understanding of tennis can see his skills on display there.

What other relevant data or analysis can you bring to argue otherwise? I suspect 0.

To be fair, Halle/Queens grass was no 1990s Wimbledon grass (back then, especially before 1999, Wimbledon grass was even faster than small tourneys).

 

[Bamoos]

To be fair, Halle/Queens grass was no 1990s Wimbledon grass (back then, especially before 1999, Wimbledon grass was even faster than small tourneys).

I’ve watched Halle and Wimbledon for years, the ball flies through the court at Halle and stays quite low. Compared to Wimbledon which is more like a medium High bouncing HC these days.

Says it all when Fed can obliterate the competition at Halle playing all court tennis, then get beat at Wimbledon by purely baseline play.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

We believe that Fed would have dominated much more because only he had the sufficient skill package (serve, slice, netgame, 1hbh...) after Sampras retired.

after Sampras retired.

That's the key--after Sampras retired, so that's proving the point: Federer against the kind of players who were successful at Wimbledon in the 80s/90s would have prevented him from winning much, and he certainly would not have dominated as he did against two generations made up of--more than anything else--net-phobic baseliners.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda thread... Fed dominating off course...
Just look at poll options... OP can't even imagine Fed could have won less... But in reality Fed won 0 Wimbledon titles on really fast grass...

Yep--the poll was yet another designed to give Federer credits--even imaginary (and quite impossible) credits. This must me a reaction the belief that with Nadal matching Federer's majors count and will win more, the twilight of Federer's career is more of a reality than they dare to admit.

The poster you quoted has no idea what he's talking about.

There's no need to describe yourself, since everyone here knows your tennis "knowledge" began around 2004, and your typical, Fed-kissing posts prove you never watched the sport in earlier decades. Sucks to be you.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Halle titles.... Loooool.....

Yes, defending him has come down to listing Halle.