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
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Yeah true. He should be finished but lucked into the worst era ever lol. Wouldn’t surprise me if he won 10 AO.
There you go, a couple more AOs and he'll be at 19. At nearly 40, I doubt Federer will be much of a threat to him at Wimbledon and the rest of the field, except Nadal, is worthless on grass.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Machan ... as @weakera already said, 3 slams at the rate Djokovic is going, is not much. Besides Nadal at the FO and perhaps the USO, who can possibly stop him?
Thiem can stop him at both HC slams. Medvedev, Zverev, Tsisipas.

Grass I don’t think anyone can. He really is lucky with this era.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
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.
As you see, after more than a decade of Federer fanatics screaming majors count was the marker of a GOAT (nevermind the fact Federer was never that sans the Grand Slam), now that Nadal has matched him, they are vomiting fantasies all over this board, in a attempt to salvage Federer's records in one way or another. Real history (and Nadal and Djokovic) be damned.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
The only garbage is the 50 BS fantasy threads a day from desperate, history-challenged, crying Federer fanatics, as its the only way they can pump up his career.



They will pretend there are no quotes.
The only garbage is you coming in this thread posting irrelevant drivel. **** off.
 

tonylg

Legend
Back on topic:

Federer probably wins more.

Nadal and ******** definitely win less.

The really interesting question is who else would be in the mix?

In the past, maybe Henman, Srichaphan, Stepanek, Ljubicic, Lopez, Philippoussis, Tsonga, Llodra or Mahut. I'm going to say the dark horse today might be Humbert. Shapo could go on a run. Dimitrov and Evans might be darkies.

It would certainly be more interesting than quarters stacked with the big 3 and the likes of Goffin, RBA, Pella and Nishikori.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Back on topic:

Federer probably wins more.

Nadal and ******** definitely win less.

The really interesting question is who else would be in the mix?

In the past, maybe Henman, Srichaphan, Stepanek, Ljubicic, Lopez, Philippoussis, Tsonga, Llodra or Mahut. I'm going to say the dark horse today might be Humbert. Shapo could go on a run. Dimitrov and Evans might be darkies.

It would certainly be more interesting than quarters stacked with the big 3 and the likes of Goffin, RBA, Pella and Nishikori.
Absolutely.

Feel bad for Henman; got shafted there.
 

JasonZ

Professional
"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 >>>> any other slam
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
P

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.
There was nothing slow about the USO when Fed was winning it.

Maybe he wanted carpet abolished, which is different to wanting slow courts, but even that I don't really buy as Fed did well enough on it at the 2005 YEC desoite his ankle not being 100%.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
As you see, after more than a decade of Federer fanatics screaming majors count was the marker of a GOAT (nevermind the fact Federer was never that sans the Grand Slam), now that Nadal has matched him, they are vomiting fantasies all over this board, in a attempt to salvage Federer's records in one way or another. Real history (and Nadal and Djokovic) be damned.
Now it's all about how Wimbledon >>> the other slams, so Federer must be the GOAT. I suggest the Federer fans try stand-up comedy. They'll do rather well.
 

tonylg

Legend
Who cares. He has 8 because he’s not good enough to beat Novak on grass.

deal with it
What is being discussed here are conditions that require a world class net game and overhead, which ******** does not possess.

Whether you can deal with that or not, it's still a fact.
 

tonylg

Legend
Now it's all about how Wimbledon >>> the other slams, so Federer must be the GOAT. I suggest the Federer fans try stand-up comedy. They'll do rather well.
Machi, everyone knows that Wimbledon has always been the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Machi, everyone knows that Wimbledon has always been the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world.
Machan ... possible and I have no problem with such a premise. But players like Djokovic don't appear to care much about how prestigious an event may be and rightfully so because 'prestige' doesn't award extra points ;)
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
It’s hilarious watching these Federinas go beserk.

hard to root for the guy when his fan base is full of crybabies.
I've seen their definition of GOAT change so often I no longer understand their criteria for GOAT.

GOAT was whoever-

1. had the most weeks at No. 1
2. had the most slams
3. was appreciated more
4. had a more beautiful game

And now it appears GOAT is whoever won more prestigious events :rolleyes:
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
I've seen their definition of GOAT change so often I no longer understand their criteria for GOAT.

GOAT was whoever-

1. had the most weeks at No. 1
2. had the most slams
3. was appreciated more
4. had a more beautiful game

And now it appears GOAT is whoever won more prestigious events :rolleyes:
The GOAT is the player with the most Halle titles and the prettiest backhand.
 

tonylg

Legend
Absolutely.

Feel bad for Henman; got shafted there.
Forget the trolls, the Henman story is interesting.

2002 I think he gets past Hewitt on fast grass and definitely beats Nalbandian. Of course different players may have made it though if the conditions were faster .. but even as an Aussie I think Henman was robbed that year.

2003 and 2004, Grosjean is probably a win for Henman, as is Roddick and Ancic. I'd only put him 50:50 against what was a very in form Scud though.

On fast grass, rank who is tougher for Federer .. Philippoussis, Henman or Roddick?

(That's probably the order I'd put them in)
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
I've seen their definition of GOAT change so often I no longer understand their criteria for GOAT.

GOAT was whoever-

1. had the most weeks at No. 1
2. had the most slams
3. was appreciated more
4. had a more beautiful game

And now it appears GOAT is whoever won more prestigious events :rolleyes:
Don't forget it was also briefly about who gathered the most prize money.
 

Whisper

Rookie
I'm not disagreeing with you, but who beats him?

Henman? Llodra? Brown?
I’m talking in absolute terms. If Fed had to play with wood rackets v the likes of Laver, Hoad, McEnroe, Sampras etc then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest he’d win 1 or 2 Wimbledon’s.
 

tonylg

Legend
I’m talking in absolute terms. If Fed had to play with wood rackets v the likes of Laver, Hoad, McEnroe, Sampras etc then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest he’d win 1 or 2 Wimbledon’s.
If he had to play with a wooden racquet against Sampras, he'd not win a set .. but that wasn't the question.

Had the AEC not turned the hallowed courts into green clay, who would have beaten him?
 

Apollo17

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.
Ignore that troll, he's just in ruins after Rafa equalled Fed in the Slam count and now he's just grasping at straws to ease his pain.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not more important than the other slams anymore, but it's 100% the most prestigious tennis tournament. There's not even a debate about that.
Wimbledon is actually a social event, where British celebrities compete against each other.
The Telegraph, July 2017: "For two weeks every summer, all eyes are on Centre Court for the most gruelling battle of the year. No, not the tennis - but the fight to become champion of the Royal Box. Politicians, celebrities and actual Royalty all ruthlessly jostle to become king or queen of Wimbledon. They score points with their outfits, seating positions, and how many front pages they can hog. Competition has been particularly fierce this year...."

 
Wow, some serious Fed hating in this thread. Don't worry about them OP. I do commend you for putting up with them, but they feed off this stuff. They've had enough to eat. Time to starve them.
 

NedStark

Semi-Pro
2002 I think he gets past Hewitt on fast grass and definitely beats Nalbandian. Of course different players may have made it though if the conditions were faster .. but even as an Aussie I think Henman was robbed that year.
Thing is, if 2002 was played on fast grass, he would have faced Krajicek (who lost to Malisse in a close 5-set match in real life), or even Sampras again, in the final. He would have lost. Meanwhile, Hewitt might have went down against Escude again.

As for 2003, yeah, he would have made it through Grosjean.

2004, unlikely, since Ancic was also a serve-and-volleyer.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Wow, some serious Fed hating in this thread. Don't worry about them OP. I do commend you for putting up with them, but they feed off this stuff. They've had enough to eat. Time to starve them.
So anyone who disagrees with your views is Federer hating? Well then we might as well shut this forum down because we cannot have any discussions that disagree with the claims of Federer fans.
 
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I know you don't like me as a poster, but I'd appreciate you not straight up lying about me.

You made the same joke in a thread that was deleted. You know you did it. Of course I can't prove it now. Doesn't matter because you and I both know. Like I said, carry on. It's a shame because you're a smart guy and make a lot of good posts, but I see through it. We can agree to not respond to each other moving forward if you so wish.
 
Top