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

Crazy Finn

Professional
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.
Oh I pretty much got the Medvedev part. Again, I had equal difficulty winking at it.

As far as Serve +1, that's pretty much exactly it. That's more concise than my paragraph.

Young ("peak") Fed, while largely unproven on faster grass (or anything) because of conditions in his era, at least has the full array of skills that basically no one else in his or subsequent generations have had - the complete all-court player. He's not exactly Sampras and Agassi put together, but he's probably the closest thing that we'll ever see to that. It's not unreasonable to think he'd do well on faster grass. I'm not putting a number on it, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he wins a few more than he did IRL.

It's hard to know how Nadal and Djokovic would fare, as their games are fairly ideal for the modern slower conditions - esp Djokovic (Clay is Clay for Rafa). This is speculation, but one thing that we've observed from them over their long careers, is that they have continued to evolve, tweak, and improve aspects of their game as they go - something that we don't usually see from many other players, frankly. It's contributed to their longevity and success. Being ATG's that they are, I'd imagine they'd do that when confronted with faster courts and faster grass at Wimbledon - at least over time. I'm skeptical that Novak would be quite as successful, but I wouldn't be surprised if they each got at least 1-2 Wimbledons, regardless of fast courts. I think the 2007-10 Rafa form plays pretty well, regardless - maybe he only wins 1, but still, it's hard to imagine that Rafa getting shut out.
 
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.
And like I said earlier, Federer has one of the best neutralizing 1st serve return ever on grass. The big dudes would spend a good bit of the time rallying with Federer when they weren't hitting aces. Just enough time probably for Federer to edge them unless they are having an incredible day on serve.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
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.
??? He’s won 11 titles on fast grass (Halle + Stuttgart) so he has that.

If you analyse him as a player then you can deduce that he has the skillset to dominate today’s baseline bots.

trolls can’t analyse or think properly though, they just throw out their slogans...
Djokovic would do well against the field because of his serve and returns, but Fed would destroy him, as we saw 90% of the time they ever played on faster courts.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
And like I said earlier, Federer has one of the best neutralizing 1st serve return ever on grass. The big dudes would spend a good bit of the time rallying with Federer when they weren't hitting aces. Just enough time probably for Federer to edge them unless they are having an incredible day on serve.
I feel kinda bad for Federer. Blessed with the best game ever but choked away many matches on slow af courts where players can run down winners.

had terrible luck in his career too. Injuries in 2016 and 2017 USO cost him 3 slams and about 50 more weeks at number 1. Not to mention mono mid peak.

Will always have argument as BOAT
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
Not really. Fed at least has the Sampras win and won 2003 Wimb by S&V-ing extensively. He has proven himself more than Djokodal.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Federer was one of the biggest advocates of slowing the tour down during the 2000s. He knew it gave him an advantage over the rest of the field.

He may be better than Nadal and Djokovic on fast surfaces, but that's not saying much. If the tour was faster, all of the Big 3 would have won fewer titles.
 

NedStark

Rookie
Lol. No.

Yes.

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.


Yup.
On fast grass, Roddick might have actually lost to Ancic in 2004.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Federer was one of the biggest advocates of slowing the tour down during the 2000s. He knew it gave him an advantage over the rest of the field.

He may be better than Nadal and Djokovic on fast surfaces, but that's not saying much. If the tour was faster, all of the Big 3 would have won fewer titles.
Great post, agreed (y) :)
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Not really. Fed at least has the Sampras win and won 2003 Wimb by S&V-ing extensively. He has proven himself more than Djokodal.
One only need to go as far as comparing their respective strengths. Federer has by a considerable margin the best serve out of the three which would become even more of an advantage on fast grass. He also has way better volleys and overall net game than Djokovic and is at least on par in passing shots as well as having the better slice. Djokovic has the better returns but Federer is not bad here either, so overall this would not be enough for Novak to overcome Fed. With Nadal it is even more obvious, his game is not suited at all for fast grass or fast courts in general as proven countless times by his performances indoor, in Halle or in the first weeks of Wimbledon. Some people here always claim, that if Agassi as a pure baseline could win Wimbledon in the 90s than Rafa who is an even superior baseliner should also be able to do so. The problem here is that other than with Agassi, Nadals great baseline game on slower courts would not translate to fast courts due to his wide swing compared to Agassi taking the ball early and on the rise. By the same logic Muster, who could very well hold his own against Agassi from the baseline on clay and HC should have also done better at Wimbledon. Well, Nadal is of course ten times the player Muster was so he would do better than never winning a match, but given his style is similar to Musters he would face similar problems with the fast grass. In conclusion, on old fast grass Nadal would never beat Federer if he would even reach him. Djokovic would maybe have a chance to catch an old Fed once on a bad day (assuming they play the matches they played but grass remained fast, I can see him winning in 2015 but loosing the other three matches).
 

BGod

Legend
Dominoe effect. If he wins 08 and 10 he likely retires after 2012. So 9.

But if we look past then 2014 & 2015 as well making 11.

Question becomes retirement. If not then he wins 2016-19.

That means 15. I voted 10 though.
 

BGod

Legend
To offer some restrained support for Roddick.

In 04, 06, 07 & 09 he has a decent chance. Problem with serve heavy guys on fast grass was inconsistencies with volleys and if they DFd.

We all saw how Roddick's volleyball cost him in 09.

But 04, 06-07 are intriguing scenarios.

Nadal wins 0, no chance.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Federer was one of the biggest advocates of slowing the tour down during the 2000s. He knew it gave him an advantage over the rest of the field.

He may be better than Nadal and Djokovic on fast surfaces, but that's not saying much. If the tour was faster, all of the Big 3 would have won fewer titles.
Any quotes? I only ever remember Federer not being happy with the slow courts.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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...
Fast slick grass helps the server, but more so the big server. This is where Federer has an edge over 99% of the players on the tour.

High bounce has a negative advantage for Federer but vice-versa for defensive grinders. Federer's strike zone is at knee high as appose to shoulder high.


You can read and learn more more about the state of the court speed and understand what's the pros and cons for certain type of player.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Any quotes? I only ever remember Federer not being happy with the slow courts.
Federer has complaint about all the slow courts years ago. He suggested that the speed of the court should be balance across the tour because tennis needs more varieties. It's too 1 dimensional today and it would be nice to see all-court players(or all-rounders) display their skill set.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Federer has complaint about all the slow courts years ago. He suggested that the speed of the court should be balance across the tour because tennis needs more varieties. It's too 1 dimensional today and it would be nice to see all-court players(or all-rounders) display their skill set.
I remember that too. I certainly don’t remember him ever asking for things to be slowed down. Why would he harm his own game?
 

SeeingDusk

Hall of Fame
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.
djokovic always plays his best against fedal. just figured, he would step it up and find a solution to beat fed as he normally does. this is coming from a fed fan by the way. i just even admit djoker is the bigger and better player for the last decade.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
The tournament director of Bercy has given several interviews detailing the pressure Federer put on them to slow down their courts and get rid of carpet.
He could say anything doesn’t make it true. The ATP line is they got rid of carpet due to injuries. Federer didn’t play 04-05 Paris due to injury and 06 prioritised basel. Appears nothing to do with carpet.

And not liking carpet doesn’t mean you prefer slower courts, you can have fast HC too, see the 2010 Paris masters. Yeah Fed lost when he should’ve won with the match points, but we saw plenty of fantastic all court attacking tennis that week.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Same applies to your posts

Between the director of a Masters 1000 and some rando on the internet, I know who I believe
There’s no proof to back up his claims.

However everything I’ve said in this thread is based on history and logic.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
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.
"the one that matters most"

BS. All majors are of equal value, hence the reason the sport's greatest achievement--the Grand Slam--requires all four, and no one is saying, "well, it is the Grand Slam, but three of the four don't mean as much." Logically, the Grand Slam is represented by all four majors of equal standing.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Federer was one of the biggest advocates of slowing the tour down during the 2000s. He knew it gave him an advantage over the rest of the field.

He may be better than Nadal and Djokovic on fast surfaces, but that's not saying much. If the tour was faster, all of the Big 3 would have won fewer titles.
Exactly. Federer's era is one of slower conditions; he never played at Wimbeldon on the surfaces that the 80s/90s players excelled on.

The tournament director of Bercy has given several interviews detailing the pressure Federer put on them to slow down their courts and get rid of carpet.
But this will be ignored, as it does not suit the teary-eyed myth that Federer either played on 90s kind of grass, or did not want the courts slowed down. This is especially true of the worst of the Federer fanatics with three lettters in his screen name.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
"the one that matters most"

BS. All majors are of equal value, hence the reason the sport's greatest achievement--the Grand Slam--requires all four, and no one is saying, "well, it is the Grand Slam, but three of the four don't mean as much." Logically, the Grand Slam is represented by all four majors of equal standing.
Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis. I don’t care about anything else you said.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis. I don’t care about anything else you said.
Machan ... what kind of c*rap is this statement? Not something anyone would want to say on a tennis forum because it suggests you're simply a fanatic of one player who cannot tolerate the fact that other players have passed his own favorite.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Machan ... what kind of c*rap is this statement? Not something anyone would want to say on a tennis forum because it suggests you're simply a fanatic of one player who cannot tolerate the fact that other players have passed his own favorite.
Why are you attacking him? Even if you don't agree, Wimbledon is widely regarded as the most prestigious tennis tournament.

The crap part is when I keep hearing the fanatical comment saying the Grand Slam is the be-all and end-all in GOAT debate. Absurd to judge one year of tennis accomplishment triumph over an entire career accomplishment.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Why are you attacking him? Even if you don't agree, Wimbledon is widely regarded as the most prestigious tennis tournament.

The crap part is when I keep hearing the fanatical comment saying the Grand Slam is the be-all and end-all in GOAT debate. Absurd to judge one year of tennis accomplishment triumph over an entire career accomplishment.
Machi ... do you suffer from Amneisa? It was the Federer fans that claimed the one with most slams was GOAT. Now that Nadal has caught Federer, the grand slam count doesn't matter anymore? Otha!

What about weeks at No. 1? Is that important or now that Djokovic is about to smash that Federer record, is it another record that doesn't matter anymore? OMALA
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Machi ... do you suffer from Amneisa? It was the Federer fans that claimed the one with most slams was GOAT. Now that Nadal has caught Federer, the grand slam count doesn't matter anymore? Otha!

What about weeks at No. 1? Is that important or now that Djokovic is about to smash that Federer record, is it another record that doesn't matter anymore? OMALA
You're the one who's suffering from reading comprehension. I'm talking about the Grand Slam - 4 slams in year. It beats EVERYTHING. Even 20 slams is no good. Grand Slam = Goat. That's what I'm referring to one of the Fed hater.

I never said total grand slam titles is the only criteria in evaluating the player's placement in ATG. You need to address to the actual posters who claim this.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Why are you attacking him? Even if you don't agree, Wimbledon is widely regarded as the most prestigious tennis tournament.

The crap part is when I keep hearing the fanatical comment saying the Grand Slam is the be-all and end-all in GOAT debate. Absurd to judge one year of tennis accomplishment triumph over an entire career accomplishment.
Just my opinion. I don’t think a GOAT of tennis can only have 2 titles there.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
You're the one who's suffering from reading comprehension. I'm talking about the Grand Slam - 4 slams in year. It beats EVERYTHING. Even 20 slams is no good. Grand Slam = Goat. That's what I'm referring to one of the Fed hater.

I never said total grand slam titles is the only criteria in evaluating the player's placement in ATG. You need to address to the actual posters who claim this.
Agreed (y):)
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Exactly. Federer's era is one of slower conditions; he never played at Wimbeldon on the surfaces that the 80s/90s players excelled on.

But this will be ignored, as it does not suit the teary-eyed myth that Federer either played on 90s kind of grass, or did not want the courts slowed down. This is especially true of the worst of the Federer fanatics with three lettters in his screen name.
Machan ... the Federer fans are in complete denial. I suspect the fact that Nadal & Djokovic are on the verge of breaking Federer's 2 most important records has driven them over the edge.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Federer was one of the biggest advocates of slowing the tour down during the 2000s.
Source? Because I can find 20 quotes from him which contradict this entirely.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-fears-slower-courts-will-harm-game-2346390.html

https://www.perfect-tennis.com/roger-federer-wants-faster-courts-and-so-do-i/

Fed said in 2005, "Slow courts favor point construction, but make it impossible to hit through an opponent and hit winners." There's no way Fed wanted the tour slowed down in his peak 2003-2007 years. Nadal benefitted from slower courts, not Fed.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Source? Because I can find 20 quotes from him which contradict this entirely.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-fears-slower-courts-will-harm-game-2346390.html

https://www.perfect-tennis.com/roger-federer-wants-faster-courts-and-so-do-i/

Fed said in 2005, "Slow courts favor point construction, but make it impossible to hit through an opponent and hit winners." There's no way Fed wanted the tour slowed down in his peak 2003-2007 years. Nadal benefitted from slower courts, not Fed.
See the comments from Jean-Francis Caujolle about how Bercy altered the courts to Federer’s specifications around 2007.

Federer has admitted many times that slower courts give him an advantage over the majority of the field. In the 2000s they prevented players like Gonzalez and Blake hitting him off the court.

Once Nadal and Djokovic were fully ascendant, and the boot was on the other foot, he changed his tune. But in general top players love slow courts, because slow courts reduce the chance of upsets.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
See the comments from Jean-Francis Caujolle about how Bercy altered the courts to Federer’s specifications around 2007.

Federer has admitted many times that slower courts give him an advantage over the majority of the field. In the 2000s they prevented players like Gonzalez and Blake hitting him off the court.

Once Nadal and Djokovic were fully ascendant, and the boot was on the other foot, he changed his tune. But in general top players love slow courts, because slow courts reduce the chance of upsets.
99% of the available quotes out there are Federer being disappointed with the slow courts. Have you got any quotes stating otherwise?
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
99% of the available quotes out there are Federer being disappointed with the slow courts. Have you got any quotes stating otherwise?

Federer has been very vocal about wanting faster courts since ~2010, but you will struggle to find any complaints before then.

Funny how slow courts only became a problem when he stopped winning on them.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
See the comments from Jean-Francis Caujolle about how Bercy altered the courts to Federer’s specifications around 2007.

Federer has admitted many times that slower courts give him an advantage over the majority of the field. In the 2000s they prevented players like Gonzalez and Blake hitting him off the court.

Once Nadal and Djokovic were fully ascendant, and the boot was on the other foot, he changed his tune. But in general top players love slow courts, because slow courts reduce the chance of upsets.
Wonderful post (y) :)
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro

Federer has been very vocal about wanting faster courts since ~2010, but you will struggle to find any complaints before then.

Funny how slow courts only became a problem when he stopped winning on them.
Just hearsay then. Thanks.

That coincided with the courts slowing down btw.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Your opinion is nonsense. The Grand Slam is the zenith of tennis achievement, but we all know you are saying that because...

Exactly. Not only do we see others matching or passing Federer's records, but Federer failed to win the Grand Slam, so his fanatics have to inflate Wimbledon's value over the other majors, when it is on equal standing to history. If Federer had Nadal's French Open record, they would be yelling that the French Open is the "holy grail" instead of Wimbledon. They are utterly transparent, and attempt (and fail) to rewrite history in order to pump up Federer.

Quite true; as Federer will be passed in a number of records, the worst of his fans will lie, flame other members, and move goalposts in order to salvage anything to give Federer credits.
Fully agreed. Truth be told though, I myself am rather surprised at the developments over the last few years. When Federer added a few more slams to his resume in his mid 30s, I thought he had truly put his records out of reach and that they were going to stand a very long time. However just 3 years later, we're now wondering if he'll have any major record to cling on to! Quite unbelievable :oops:

If you're a Federer fan, it's like getting run over by a truck. It's very tough to swallow a change in status like that in such a short period of time and that explains the completely irrational posts a lot of his fans have been making of late.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Fully agreed. Truth be told though, I myself am rather surprised at the developments over the last few years. When Federer added a few more slams to his resume in his mid 30s, I thought he had truly put his records out of reach and that they were going to stand a very long time. However just 3 years later, we're now wondering if he'll have any major record to cling on to! Quite unbelievable :oops:

If you're a Federer fan, it's like getting run over by a truck. It's very tough to swallow a change in status like that in such a short period of time and that explains the completely irrational posts a lot of his fans have been making of late.
Nothing to swallow, I value Fed’s slams higher because he did it at his peak. Other two have inflated their records in the geriatric era. Doesn’t make them better players lucking into a weak era.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Nothing to swallow, I value Fed’s slams higher because he did it at his peak. Other two have inflated their records in the geriatric era. Doesn’t make them better players lucking into a weak era.
You guys are crazy. How much you value a player or his slams has no bearing on the record books. History does not care for our opinions. When the dust settles, the books will show 2 players ahead of Federer.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
You guys are crazy. How much you value a player or his slams has no bearing on the record books. History does not care for our opinions. When the dust settles, the books will show 2 players ahead of Federer.
Djokovic 3 slams behind bud. Long way to go.
 
Top