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

Federer fast grass Wimbledons

  • 10

    Votes: 17 24.6%
  • 11

    Votes: 6 8.7%
  • 12

    Votes: 16 23.2%
  • 13

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • 14

    Votes: 28 40.6%

  • Total voters
    69

NedStark

Semi-Pro
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.
You may have a point if the thread is about Fed playing in the 1980s-1990s. However, the thread is about 2000-2020 but on 1990s grass.
 

beard

Legend
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.
Yeah, skills against nobodies... Its funny ATP 250 and ATP 500 tournament...

Federer showed his grass skills at Wimbledon against Novak who can't run on grass without slippering...
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Yeah, skills against nobodies... Its funny ATP 250 and ATP 500 tournament...

Federer showed his grass skills at Wimbledon against Novak who can't run on grass without slippering...
Yeah post prime Fed with his old racket/FH owned peak Djokovic in 4 sets but that isn’t the question, the discussion is about fast grass. Not the medium bouncy Wimbledon grass.

Djokovic fanatic be the last to denigrate lower ATP tournaments after his last 2 “masters” wins.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
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:

- 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.
Ned ... if you decided to go ice-skating, you wouldn't expect to slip into your roller skates, would you? Likewise, if grass remained fast, players like Djokovic wouldn't be playing the way they do now. You're assuming they would and that in turn means Federer would brush them aside. That's an erroneous assumption.

As for the highlighted point in your post, Federer was the only player capable of playing S/V? First, please justify that claim. On what basis? Second, Nadal/Djokovic aren't just all-time greats. They're GOAT candidates which undoubtedly means they have the talent and capacity to adapt their games as required. They just didn't need to because of slow grass. Doesn't mean they couldn't.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Yeah, skills against nobodies... Its funny ATP 250 and ATP 500 tournament...

Federer showed his grass skills at Wimbledon against Novak who can't run on grass without slippering...
Remember, these are guys that claimed Djokovic couldn't win on grass. He now has 5 Wimbledon titles, 3 of them beating Federer in the final. Now that Djokovic has settled that argument, it's how he can't beat Federer on a different type of grass :rolleyes:
 
O

Oceans

Guest
Players with 20+% ace percentage at Wimbledon:

2019 - 5
2018 - 6

2017 - 3
2016 - 5
2015 - 5
2014 - 6

2013 - 7
2012 - 3
2011 - 7
2010 - 6
2009 - 1
2008 - 2
2007 - 3
2006 - 3
2005 - 3
2004 - 5
2003 - 2

2002 - 3
2001 - 1
2000 - 3
1999 - 0
1998 - 0
1997 - 1
1996 - 0
1995 - 0
1994 - 0
1993 - 0
1992 - 1
1991 - 0

It seems Federer thrives on slower grass while Djokovic thrives on faster grass. :oops:
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Players with 20+% ace percentage at Wimbledon:

2019 - 5
2018 - 6

2017 - 3
2016 - 5
2015 - 5
2014 - 6

2013 - 7
2012 - 3
2011 - 7
2010 - 6
2009 - 1
2008 - 2
2007 - 3
2006 - 3
2005 - 3
2004 - 5
2003 - 2

2002 - 3
2001 - 1
2000 - 3
1999 - 0
1998 - 0
1997 - 1
1996 - 0
1995 - 0
1994 - 0
1993 - 0
1992 - 1
1991 - 0

It seems Federer thrives on slower grass while Djokovic thrives on faster grass. :oops:
I'm watching the 1992 final at this moment and can't believe how high the ball is bouncing on this grass.
 

nov

Semi-Pro
Players with 20+% ace percentage at Wimbledon:

2019 - 5
2018 - 6

2017 - 3
2016 - 5
2015 - 5
2014 - 6

2013 - 7
2012 - 3
2011 - 7
2010 - 6
2009 - 1
2008 - 2
2007 - 3
2006 - 3
2005 - 3
2004 - 5
2003 - 2

2002 - 3
2001 - 1
2000 - 3
1999 - 0
1998 - 0
1997 - 1
1996 - 0
1995 - 0
1994 - 0
1993 - 0
1992 - 1
1991 - 0

It seems Federer thrives on slower grass while Djokovic thrives on faster grass. :oops:
Please, dont hurt Fed fans feelings..
 

beard

Legend
Yeah post prime Fed with his old racket/FH owned peak Djokovic in 4 sets but that isn’t the question, the discussion is about fast grass. Not the medium bouncy Wimbledon grass.

Djokovic fanatic be the last to denigrate lower ATP tournaments after his last 2 “masters” wins.
Ok, you convinced me, Fed can keep his 222 imagined Wimbledon titles....
Looool.... :-D
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Players with 20+% ace percentage at Wimbledon:

2019 - 5
2018 - 6

2017 - 3
2016 - 5
2015 - 5
2014 - 6

2013 - 7
2012 - 3
2011 - 7
2010 - 6
2009 - 1
2008 - 2
2007 - 3
2006 - 3
2005 - 3
2004 - 5
2003 - 2

2002 - 3
2001 - 1
2000 - 3
1999 - 0
1998 - 0
1997 - 1
1996 - 0
1995 - 0
1994 - 0
1993 - 0
1992 - 1
1991 - 0

It seems Federer thrives on slower grass while Djokovic thrives on faster grass. :oops:
2019 fast with RBA and Pella in the later stages? Yeah right...
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Ok, you convinced me, Fed can keep his 222 imagined Wimbledon titles....
Looool.... :-D
Why are you even posting in the topic if you say nothing but meaningless garbage?

He has the most on medium grass anyway so not sure of your point.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm glad Federer is still playing approaching his 40th birthday because had he retired at say, 28-30, there would have been endless threads claiming he would have won 30 slams by now if he hadn't retired.
 

NedStark

Semi-Pro
Ned ... if you decided to go ice-skating, you wouldn't expect to slip into your roller skates, would you? Likewise, if grass remained fast, players like Djokovic wouldn't be playing the way they do now. You're assuming they would and that in turn means Federer would brush them aside. That's an erroneous assumption.

As for the highlighted point in your post, Federer was the only player capable of playing S/V? First, please justify that claim. On what basis? Second, Nadal/Djokovic aren't just all-time greats. They're GOAT candidates which undoubtedly means they have the talent and capacity to adapt their games as required. They just didn't need to because of slow grass. Doesn't mean they couldn't.
You can look at the New Ball Generation players, who were born in early 1980s and thus grew up and spent their junior years before the courts slowed down, almost all but very few played from the baseline, and among those few Federer was the only top talent.

In addition, you don't smack the balls with Western and Semi-western forehands with full swings easily like all do these days on fast grass. Swings and grips also matter, a lot.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
You can look at the New Ball Generation players, who were born in early 1980s and thus grew up and spent their junior years before the courts slowed down, almost all but very few played from the baseline, and among those few Federer was the only top talent.

In addition, you don't smack the balls with Western and Semi-western forehands with full swings easily like all do these days on fast grass. Swings and grips also matter, a lot.
I'm not denying any of that but you perhaps need to read the first line of my previous post ... you don't wear roller skates to an ice-rink. If grass played fast, the top guys would use a grip suitable for that surface. You assume they'd still be using the grip that they do now. That's a wrong assumption.
 

NedStark

Semi-Pro
Btw, if grass remained fast, Roddick might have lost to Ancic in 2004 lol. Ancic actually outserved Roddick and faster grass would have made Roddick return (which was never good to begin with) less effective.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
And btw, grass was still fast in the early 2000 and serve and volley was still a recipe for success.

BBC overlaid two serves by Roger Federer, one in 2003, the other in 2008, both at 126 MPH on a similar line of flight. The 2008 serve goes 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.

This is a tremendous advantage for the returner: The ball is slower, arrives later and sits up.

Despite Federer had to adapt to this unfavorable grass condition in the later years, he was still capable of dominating the grass season.
There's no doubt that Federer would have dominated more had the grass continue to play like in 2003.




 

beard

Legend
And btw, grass was still fast in the early 2000 and serve and volley was still a recipe for success.

BBC overlaid two serves by Roger Federer, one in 2003, the other in 2008, both at 126 MPH on a similar line of flight. The 2008 serve goes 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.

This is a tremendous advantage for the returner: The ball is slower, arrives later and sits up.

Despite Federer had to adapt to this unfavorable grass condition in the later years, he was still capable of dominating the grass season.
There's no doubt that Federer would have dominated more had the grass continue to play like in 2003.




After the bounce speed is not that important, it's serve speed in whole that's important, so they stopped showing that useless stat... 9 mph difference won't help you when you have no time to react to the ball flying 210 kph before it touched the ground...


Again... this type of threads are useless because we can't know what would happen because all players would adjust their game to the conditions... Novak or Rafa or anyone else would change their style of play for sure, successfully or not we can't say for sure...

Maybe Dustin Brown would beat Federer in 10 consecutive Wimbledon finals... Loooool...
 

tonylg

Legend
I think fed would’ve only won a few more Wimbledon’s because djokovic would’ve beaten him eventually.
How?

Please don't tell us he'd adapt. Throwing pure baseliners with woooden hands onto a fast grass court doesn't make them adapt to become adept all court players any more than throwing elephants out of aeroplanes makes them adapt to become birds.

A select few (Laver, Borg, Federer) were truly at home on all surfaces, but virtually everyone else is compromised due to upbringing, stroke production and ingrained mindset. For them it's like learning a whole new sport.

Nadal might have gotten close to where Lendl did as a (fast) grass courter, but ******** (despite being the best hard court defender in the world) just has virtually zero natural talent inside the service box. Anyone with eyes can see that.

I'll concede that if everything went his way one year and he got a Nadal type draw, he might jag one .. but that would be unlikely.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
And btw, grass was still fast in the early 2000 and serve and volley was still a recipe for success.

BBC overlaid two serves by Roger Federer, one in 2003, the other in 2008, both at 126 MPH on a similar line of flight. The 2008 serve goes 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.

This is a tremendous advantage for the returner: The ball is slower, arrives later and sits up.

Despite Federer had to adapt to this unfavorable grass condition in the later years, he was still capable of dominating the grass season.
There's no doubt that Federer would have dominated more had the grass continue to play like in 2003.




2003 Federer on grass beats any other top 3 handily. It would take Sampras on fast grass to challenge him.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Again... this type of threads are useless because we can't know what would happen because all players would adjust their game to the conditions... Novak or Rafa or anyone else would change their style of play for sure, successfully or not we can't say for sure...
Of course, but certain people want to play "I wish it happened" to bolster the status of a player who is no longer the most dominant of his generation, and has a chance to be passed by two players.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
After the bounce speed is not that important, it's serve speed in whole that's important, so they stopped showing that useless stat... 9 mph difference won't help you when you have no time to react to the ball flying 210 kph before it touched the ground...


Again... this type of threads are useless because we can't know what would happen because all players would adjust their game to the conditions... Novak or Rafa or anyone else would change their style of play for sure, successfully or not we can't say for sure...

Maybe Dustin Brown would beat Federer in 10 consecutive Wimbledon finals... Loooool...
I disagree. It only needs a fraction of a second that takes your time away, and out of position to return. Also ball stay low is much harder to return unlike chest high.

Federer superior serve definitely helps him on fast grass while Novak and especially Nadal benefits from slow grass where every Federer's strength gets neutralize.
 

BlueB

Legend
Fed fans: All of them!
Djokodal fans: None!
Truth: Who knows? A best example of TT if/but hypothetical thread...
 

socallefty

Legend
Federer would have had less of a threat from Nadal and Djokovic on fast grass. But, it would have brought a lot of other big-serving tall players into play with a chance to beat him if they had a great serving day - Isner, Anderson, Quarrey, Karlovoc, Kyrgios, Raonic, Roddick etc.

On slow grass, he comfortably made it to at least the finals often, won 8 times and lost to Nadal/Djokovic four times. On fast grass, it is possible that he would have been upset in earlier rounds more often as it wouldn’t be a cakewalk to the finals every year. It is hard for me to imagine that he would have won it more than the 8 titles he already has.

The reason Wimbledon slowed down grass in the first place is because they thought servebots would dominate with players getting taller and poly helping with more spin which led to faster shots/serves. So, I expect several titles would have been won by servebots on fast grass which has not happened since they slowed down the grass.
 

tonylg

Legend
Fed fans: All of them!
Djokodal fans: None!
Truth: Who knows? A best example of TT if/but hypothetical thread...
I don't think Fed would have won all of them, but it would have been someone like Henman, Stepanek, Ljubicic or Llodra challenging him.
 

tonylg

Legend
Federer would have had less of a threat from Nadal and Djokovic on fast grass. But, it would have brought a lot of other big-serving tall players into play with a chance to beat him if they had a great serving day - Isner, Anderson, Quarrey, Karlovoc, Kyrgios, Raonic, Roddick etc.

On slow grass, he comfortably made it to at least the finals often, won 8 times and lost to Nadal/Djokovic four times. On fast grass, it is possible that he would have been upset in earlier rounds more often as it wouldn’t be a cakewalk to the finals every year. It is hard for me to imagine that he would have won it more than the 8 titles he already has.

The reason Wimbledon slowed down grass in the first place is because they thought servebots would dominate with players getting taller and poly helping with more spin which led to faster shots/serves. So, I expect several titles would have been won by servebots on fast grass which has not happened since they slowed down the grass.
Didn't see this when I posted. Servebots are just as successful as they always were, what poly and slow courts got rid of is net play.
 

tonylg

Legend
True. You can’t expect logic and reasoning from these trolls/haters.
However it is true that on fast grass, Federer would have done better in the 2000s and 2010s than in the 80s and 90s ... which is the point I think he was making. Deveoping Fed did squeak by washed up Sampras, but prime v prime that matchup would have been amazing, as would Fed v Becker or Krajicek or Edberg.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
However it is true that on fast grass, Federer would have done better in the 2000s and 2010s than in the 80s and 90s ... which is the point I think he was making. Deveoping Fed did squeak by washed up Sampras, but prime v prime that matchup would have been amazing, as would Fed v Becker or Krajicek or Edberg.
He completely missed the point then, and needs to brush up on his reading comprehension.
 

beard

Legend
I disagree. It only needs a fraction of a second that takes your time away, and out of position to return. Also ball stay low is much harder to return unlike chest high.

Federer superior serve definitely helps him on fast grass while Novak and especially Nadal benefits from slow grass where every Federer's strength gets neutralize.
I just pointed out real difference is not 9 mph or 20% you wrote, it's much more less of the difference... Secondly, Federer's opponents would serve quicker too, and he is not that good returner as Novak is...

About bounce... It's another story, but look at op, it's not subject...
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
What is this obsession with net game? Weird how Lendl's net game was perfectly fine on carpet, since he dominated on that surface, then somehow a liability on grass. No. He just wasn't that good on grass, and grass and carpet aren't exactly the same conditions. He couldn't even win AO when it was played on slower Keeyong grass, getting taken to the woodshed by Wilander in the 1983 final who had a worse Wimbledon record than he did. Lendl was 3-10 on grass against top 10 players, losing to Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Ivanisevic. With a record that poor, no wonder he never won Wimbledon and he wasn't even among the best grass court players. Djokovic on the other hand mastered Wimbledon in his era and is 13-8 against top 10 players so the fact you are trying to group him with Lendl is beyond a head scratcher, because Djokovic loves the grass and took to it right away at an early age and Lendl never did.

Please don't tell us he'd adapt. Throwing pure baseliners with woooden hands onto a fast grass court doesn't make them adapt to become adept all court players any more than throwing elephants out of aeroplanes makes them adapt to become birds.

I'll concede that if everything went his way one year and he got a Nadal type draw, he might jag one .. but that would be unlikely.
:laughing: That was a fun fantasy but here's reality...

 
Last edited:

tonylg

Legend
He completely missed the point then, and needs to brush up on his reading comprehension.
Perhaps, but it's a far more interesting discussion than a bunch of Chicken Littles running around shouting "Beware the Servebots" while we are completely over-run with Baseline Bots. Or worse still, thinking their baseline botting heroes would adapt and somehow morph into modern day Edbergs and Rafters.
 

Crazy Finn

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

He'd probably still be playing too.
Lol. No.
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.
Yes.
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.
Not sure about Medvedev, but otherwise, this 100%.

Faster conditions would have given a slight bump to Roddick's serve, sure, but that's not a weakness in his game. It really doesn't need more help. Adding MPH and less bounce to his serve would probably increase his aces somewhat, but frankly, you need more than a serve to succeed at Wimbledon, now on slower grass, or even back in the day on fast grass. It might have added a few percentage points to his hold-serve stat, but that was already pretty high. Adding a few points doesn't make him invincible. Last I checked, Karlovic hasn't won a single Wimbledon despite his serving prowess.

The flip side is faster conditions hurt Roddick everywhere else except his serve. His net game is mediocre at best, approaches are the same or worse. He's not a great mover and he's not a high IQ player who constructs points well. While, I think faster courts help his serve slightly, I think they also expose the deficiencies in his overall game even more than the actual conditions he played in. I wouldn't discount the possibility that he could win one or two with a bit of luck, but faster courts don't make Roddick an automatic multi-plus winner. Frankly, faster courts suit Fed just fine, I don't see the balance of that matchup tilting differently at all on faster conditions.

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.
Yup.
 
It's hard to determine like a few here have said already. Personally, I think Fed would have done as well as has has already at 8 titles atleast. Bigger chance for upsets with big servers, but we have to keep in mind that Federer is one of the best returners ever on 1st serves. 2nd serve return definitely lacking. Fed is somewhat of a servebot hinself and would hang tough with anybody. Tiebreaks most likely in his favor with his superior ground game.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
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.
Hence, he would have won all of them ...
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
??? Last I checked Federer dominated all his generation and most of them are retired.
Really? How's that majors count going? That's the standard the worst of his fans always used to claim Federer's "superiority" over his rivals. There's no way to count how many times the ">" symbol (in favor of Federer's majors) used to be posted, or any other number, littering thread after thread....until the French Open of 2020, that is.
 
Really? How's that majors count going? That's the standard the worst of his fans always used to claim Federer's "superiority" over his rivals. There's no way to count how many times the ">" symbol (in favor of Federer's majors) used to be posted, or any other number, littering thread after thread....until the French Open of 2020, that is.
You're living in the past before Federer started dominating Nadal thus killing the h2h argument.
 

tonylg

Legend
Not sure about Medvedev, but otherwise, this 100%.

Faster conditions would have given a slight bump to Roddick's serve, sure, but that's not a weakness in his game. It really doesn't need more help. Adding MPH and less bounce to his serve would probably increase his aces somewhat, but frankly, you need more than a serve to succeed at Wimbledon, now on slower grass, or even back in the day on fast grass. It might have added a few percentage points to his hold-serve stat, but that was already pretty high. Adding a few points doesn't make him invincible. Last I checked, Karlovic hasn't won a single Wimbledon despite his serving prowess.

The flip side is faster conditions hurt Roddick everywhere else except his serve. His net game is mediocre at best, approaches are the same or worse. He's not a great mover and he's not a high IQ player who constructs points well. While, I think faster courts help his serve slightly, I think they also expose the deficiencies in his overall game even more than the actual conditions he played in. I wouldn't discount the possibility that he could win one or two with a bit of luck, but faster courts don't make Roddick an automatic multi-plus winner. Frankly, faster courts suit Fed just fine, I don't see the balance of that matchup tilting differently at all on faster conditions.
The Medvedev part was sarcasm. I know, it doesn't translate well to text.

The things with Roddick is he was the prototypical Serve +1 player. That doesn't work as well on fast grass, where you really need to close and take the ball in the air.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
However it is true that on fast grass, Federer would have done better in the 2000s and 2010s than in the 80s and 90s ... which is the point I think he was making. Deveoping Fed did squeak by washed up Sampras, but prime v prime that matchup would have been amazing, as would Fed v Becker or Krajicek or Edberg.
Your common sense is missed by those with fantasy goggles on. The entire point of this exercise is to claim Federer would have won more majors on a surface he did not truly play or win on, but never let that stop people who are desperate to fantasy-pad his record, hence the reason you also see Djokovic being attacked in here, as if Federer would be the only player to adapt to different conditions.

Ridiculous.
 

tonylg

Legend
Your common sense is missed by those with fantasy goggles on. The entire point of this exercise is to claim Federer would have won more majors on a surface he did not truly play or win on, but never let that stop people who are desperate to fantasy-pad his record, hence the reason you also see Djokovic being attacked in here, as if Federer would be the only player to adapt to different conditions.

Ridiculous.
I'm far from a Fed hater, but I agree that he's almost as unproven on fast grass as Nadal and ******** are. Unlike the other two, his potential is sky high though.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Really? How's that majors count going? That's the standard the worst of his fans always used to claim Federer's "superiority" over his rivals. There's no way to count how many times the ">" symbol (in favor of Federer's majors) used to be posted, or any other number, littering thread after thread....until the French Open of 2020, that is.
Since 2003 he has 20 majors, same as Nadal. However he has 8 at the one that matters the most and is clearly superior at HC slams.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Your common sense is missed by those with fantasy goggles on. The entire point of this exercise is to claim Federer would have won more majors on a surface he did not truly play or win on, but never let that stop people who are desperate to fantasy-pad his record, hence the reason you also see Djokovic being attacked in here, as if Federer would be the only player to adapt to different conditions.

Ridiculous.
Federer won 11 titles on fast grass and has the perfect attributes to dominate on the surface in the 00s-10s era. Doesn’t take much thinking to work that one out, but obviously not for a troll like you who can’t think logically.

“as if Federer would be the only player to adapt to different conditions”

True but with his skillset, he’d clean up. Field can’t bridge the gap and he’s always destroyed Nadal/Djokovic on quicker surfaces. Medium has always been close though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF
Top