How many Wimbledon titles would Federer have won on fast grass?
- Thread starter Bamoos
- Start date
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
He's well known to discredit Federer without any rational reasoning at TTW
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course you discredit the BBC for their time and effort. Not a surprise respond coming from you who explicitly stated that you hate Federer and was proud of it.Agassi was not glued to the baseline like Hewitt was. Not even close.
Jim's personal blog. Yes, a very authoritative source.
Also bases his entire conclusion on the same BBC graphic
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, I have Wimbledon's official website, Steve Tignor, a respected tennis journalist, and players like Nadal and Henman backing up my argument
You... You have Jim's personal blog
Who has no rational reasoning again?
"Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game. Perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time, as well as the weather before and during the event. The ball will seem heavier and slower on a cold damp day and conversely lighter and faster on a warm dry day. There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression." - Wimbledon, 2021
"At the same time, though, these arguments are presented as if Wimbledon just slowed the grass down last weekend, and that it's busy slowing it down even more every night while you're sleeping. The truth is that the surface has been the same composition for 10 years, enough time so that you would think we could call what's played on it these days "grass-court tennis." In 2001, groundskeeper Eddie Seaward, who is retiring this year, changed the mix that was laid down, from 70 percent rye/30 percent fescue to 100 percent rye. He wanted more durability and firmness, and he got it. The all-rye was also cut a little higher, and the bounce was a little higher and slower. Henman noticed the difference right away that year, and it's been that way since. This year, in defending the current grass game, Rafael Nadal said that he first played here in 2002, and the surface hasn’t changed in that time." - Steve Tignor, 2011
Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year. - Tim Heman via TIME magazine
Last edited:
Sunny014
Legend
Top peak levels in Tennis by conditions :
Peak level tennis on Rebound Ace - Federer 2004/07
Peak level tennis on Plexicushion - Djokovic 2011
Peak level tennis on Fast deco turf with new racquets : Federer 2004
Peak level tennis on Fast deco turf with old racquets : Pistol Peter 1995
Peak level tennis on new grass - Federer 03/06
Peak level tennis on old grass - Pistol Peter 1997
Peak level tennis on red clay - Nadal 2008
Peak level tennis on blue clay - Federer 2012
Peak level tennis on carpets - Pistol Peter Hannover 1996
So peak level play :
Federer : 4
Sampras : 3
Nadal : 1
Djokovic : 1
Peak level tennis on Rebound Ace - Federer 2004/07
Peak level tennis on Plexicushion - Djokovic 2011
Peak level tennis on Fast deco turf with new racquets : Federer 2004
Peak level tennis on Fast deco turf with old racquets : Pistol Peter 1995
Peak level tennis on new grass - Federer 03/06
Peak level tennis on old grass - Pistol Peter 1997
Peak level tennis on red clay - Nadal 2008
Peak level tennis on blue clay - Federer 2012
Peak level tennis on carpets - Pistol Peter Hannover 1996
So peak level play :
Federer : 4
Sampras : 3
Nadal : 1
Djokovic : 1
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
"Worships," LOL. Don't project your own delusions and biases onto me. Unlike you lot, I can be objective when analyzing Federer's game
I'm not discrediting anybody. Simply pointing out the indisputable fact that Federer has zero credentials on pre-2001 Wimbledon grass doesn't take away his achievements on the new grass. Discrediting is when deluded Federer fanboys claim Djokovic or Nadal would have no Wimbledon titles on fast grass, while their idol would have 10+. Assertions that are impossible to prove or disprove, and serve only to inflate Federer's imaginary resume (which is already vast -- Federer wins all imaginary matches, after all)
I'm dealing with reality, you lot are delving into fantasy and conspiracy theories from Jim's Personal Blog. How many Wimbledon titles would Federer have won if we still had fast grass? Nobody knows. Could be zero. Could be ten. It doesn't matter, because "if" doesn't exist in tennis
Sunny014
Legend
Federer already won slams and matches in conditions with low bounce and quick movement of the ball as pointed out by @TMF
So your theories of old grass, new grass doesn't matter, eye test matters more, when grass was behaving fast in 03 and 04 then we can assume it is fast, that is enough. Old grass would also behave like 03 or similar.
This is common sense.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
"Common sense" LMAO
Hewitt won the 2002 edition without playing a single S&V point all tournament. Federer himself retreated to the baseline starting in 2004. It's pure conjecture how he would have done if he had played in the '90s
Even more conjecture is how many Wimbledons Djokovic and Nadal would have won in those conditions. But you lot have no issues giving them 0 to 2. How generous!
Sunny014
Legend
Nadal has no serve, he is actually on 0 because he is 0.
His fortune with depend on the top dog not being in the draw or not being at best to be eliminated by someone else, similar to how Agassi won wimbledon before sampras's peak began.
Novak has serve and works on his shortcomings and adapts, true, but his game is still not that suitable to the 90s conditions, yes he would win 1-2 wimbledons but not more. That is common sense.
Naturally serve and volleyers have the edge on fast grass, so the contenders won't be these baseline bullies with weak serves, so yes we an assume
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is no serve and volleyer either, but somehow he wins 10+ imaginary fast grass Wimbledons
PS: Saying "common sense" after a string of nonsense doesn't make it so
Last edited:
Sunny014
Legend
Federer has
- Great hands at the nets with great volleying ability
- Great Serve himself that would be double dangerous in faster conditons.
- Truly great at neutralizing fast serves, perhaps the best in history.
At these 3 attributes he is the best of the lot in 20 years, now it doesn't matter whether he is better than Sampras at this or not, he surely is ahead of everyone in last 20 years, so yes he can take 10 Wimbledons since his best rivals would be Roddick, Ancic, Tsonga, Berdych, Murray and a newly improved Djokovic in later years.
So definitely he will take 10 wimbledons and others will take 1-2 here and there, I never said Fed won't be prone to surprises in his 30s, but in his peak i.le 20s he isn't losing to anyone and then some of these new guys will take some slams, DJokovic will also win maybe 2 ? ... He is damn good at what he does...... But Nadal would be on 0 .... He doesn't have the game to take even 1 wimbledon since he isn't going past the big servers even if they eliminate Federer ...... Sorry Nadal fans
... Going past week 1 would be a challenge for Nadal.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Jimmy knows best!!LMAO "genuine serve and volleyer"
How come nobody knows how to play on grass, if the surfaces have been homogenized? Everybody should know how to play on grass if it's the same as other surfaces. That's what homogenization means.
You're arguing for two contradictory ideas: that the surfaces are the same, and that nobody knows how to play on two of those surfaces. Even though they are the same
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Imaging more slam wins if conditions were different so very sad..
Sunny014
Legend
Imagination is needed
If we had to pick GOAT by running an algorithm then I would quickly acknowledge that Djokovic is Federer's daddy and Nadal's granddaddy in stats and he is the GOAT and I can stop debating.
But then we are not robots to follow stats, maybe you are a robot, I am not, so imagination is needed
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Must of been a nice dream…Federer has
- Great hands at the nets with great volleying ability
- Great Serve himself that would be double dangerous in faster conditons.
- Truly great at neutralizing fast serves, perhaps the best in history.
At these 3 attributes he is the best of the lot in 20 years, now it doesn't matter whether he is better than Sampras at this or not, he surely is ahead of everyone in last 20 years, so yes he can take 10 Wimbledons since his best rivals would be Roddick, Ancic, Tsonga, Berdych, Murray and a newly improved Djokovic in later years.
So definitely he will take 10 wimbledons and others will take 1-2 here and there, I never said Fed won't be prone to surprises in his 30s, but in his peak i.le 20s he isn't losing to anyone and then some of these new guys will take some slams, DJokovic will also win maybe 2 ? ... He is damn good at what he does...... But Nadal would be on 0 .... He doesn't have the game to take even 1 wimbledon since he isn't going past the big servers even if they eliminate Federer ...... Sorry Nadal fans
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
time to revisit this thread:
If he stays in the same 2000's era, only with fast grass instead of slower grass, it's hard not to see Federer winning pretty much every edition of the tournament from 2003 till like 2010. He and Roddick were pretty much the only genuinely great players left in the 2000's with games that would translate well to grass. I mean, there's Henman too, but he wasn't really much of a factor after 2003 or so. Peak Henman (2001-2002 if I'm not mistaken) would probably give Federer some trouble on the fast grass. As for Roddick, he'd still be a legitimate threat and that serve would be more dangerous than ever, but Federer's other skills on grass would benefit so much more on quicker speeds that their matches might end up being even more lopsided. Roddick generally thrived on quick but not lightning-quick surfaces mostly because his forehand still needs time to set up, time that the old grass might not give him enough of.
With the faster grass, though, comes higher risks of upsets. A big server and hitter in the early rounds would definitely throw Fed off balance; he'd need to be alert. That being said, his grass court game really was just leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else in that era. And Nadal of the 2007-2008 Wimbledons certainly wouldn't be done any favors. His game would be completely neutralized on faster grass, so he'd need to really adapt his game for the surface in order to keep up. In essence, he probably wins more than the eight he has won. Maybe he caps at ten or eleven.
Now then there's the alternative interpretation of this thread: transporting Fed to the pre-2001 fast grass era. This hypothetical would be much less kind to Federer because while his serve and his volleys are well above average and are certainly effective weapons, they surely aren't Sampras-level, and they're probably not on the level of some of the other great grasscourters of the 80's and 90's, so he's gonna have a much harder time on that front.
What's left for Fed then? Well, one advantage he has over guys like Sampras, Becker, and Edberg is his attacking baseline game. That forehand is gonna be a deadly weapon in any era: it was even more potent than Sampras's. Another thing is his return game, especially the first serve return which is simply ATG material (like his own first serve). Agassi proved in 1992 that a pure baseline game could nab a title on the slick grass courts of Wimbledon, and his elite return which could neutralize the big serves of Ivanisevic and Becker was key to that victory (this is also why Djokovic would likely still snatch a couple of them). But Agassi simply didn't have a strong service game which is why he only remained a one-time champ with a few more SF and F appearances further down the road.
To wrap it up, Fed has an ATG (but not GOAT-level) serve, ATG (but, again, not GOAT-level) volleys, a GOAT-level attacking baseline game, a GOAT-level slice, and an ATG first serve return (and ATG return overall on grass if we're counting just his peak years). A guy with this kind of game is going to be a force to be reckoned with no matter which kind of grass you put him on. So he's not going to be a one-time champion or some Lendl-like player at Wimbledon, cmon now lol. But he still wouldn't be dominant because Sampras has a solid attacking baseline game himself (though not as good as Fed's) as well as his utterly brilliant serve and volleys which surpass Fed's own. You simply can't overlook those perfect weapons for grass, so I do think Sampras would get the better of Federer for at least a slight majority of the time (60-40 maybe?). Perhaps they nearly split the titles, with Sampras having an edge of one or two. Fed's superior longevity might allow him to further dominate past the 90's once Sampras leaves his own prime, and it may carry him to an eventual title lead.
Of course, all of this is assuming Fed is given a reasonable enough time to even get accustomed to the conditions of the 90's. We can't just plop him in there and expect results within a week or two.
If he stays in the same 2000's era, only with fast grass instead of slower grass, it's hard not to see Federer winning pretty much every edition of the tournament from 2003 till like 2010. He and Roddick were pretty much the only genuinely great players left in the 2000's with games that would translate well to grass. I mean, there's Henman too, but he wasn't really much of a factor after 2003 or so. Peak Henman (2001-2002 if I'm not mistaken) would probably give Federer some trouble on the fast grass. As for Roddick, he'd still be a legitimate threat and that serve would be more dangerous than ever, but Federer's other skills on grass would benefit so much more on quicker speeds that their matches might end up being even more lopsided. Roddick generally thrived on quick but not lightning-quick surfaces mostly because his forehand still needs time to set up, time that the old grass might not give him enough of.
With the faster grass, though, comes higher risks of upsets. A big server and hitter in the early rounds would definitely throw Fed off balance; he'd need to be alert. That being said, his grass court game really was just leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else in that era. And Nadal of the 2007-2008 Wimbledons certainly wouldn't be done any favors. His game would be completely neutralized on faster grass, so he'd need to really adapt his game for the surface in order to keep up. In essence, he probably wins more than the eight he has won. Maybe he caps at ten or eleven.
Now then there's the alternative interpretation of this thread: transporting Fed to the pre-2001 fast grass era. This hypothetical would be much less kind to Federer because while his serve and his volleys are well above average and are certainly effective weapons, they surely aren't Sampras-level, and they're probably not on the level of some of the other great grasscourters of the 80's and 90's, so he's gonna have a much harder time on that front.
What's left for Fed then? Well, one advantage he has over guys like Sampras, Becker, and Edberg is his attacking baseline game. That forehand is gonna be a deadly weapon in any era: it was even more potent than Sampras's. Another thing is his return game, especially the first serve return which is simply ATG material (like his own first serve). Agassi proved in 1992 that a pure baseline game could nab a title on the slick grass courts of Wimbledon, and his elite return which could neutralize the big serves of Ivanisevic and Becker was key to that victory (this is also why Djokovic would likely still snatch a couple of them). But Agassi simply didn't have a strong service game which is why he only remained a one-time champ with a few more SF and F appearances further down the road.
To wrap it up, Fed has an ATG (but not GOAT-level) serve, ATG (but, again, not GOAT-level) volleys, a GOAT-level attacking baseline game, a GOAT-level slice, and an ATG first serve return (and ATG return overall on grass if we're counting just his peak years). A guy with this kind of game is going to be a force to be reckoned with no matter which kind of grass you put him on. So he's not going to be a one-time champion or some Lendl-like player at Wimbledon, cmon now lol. But he still wouldn't be dominant because Sampras has a solid attacking baseline game himself (though not as good as Fed's) as well as his utterly brilliant serve and volleys which surpass Fed's own. You simply can't overlook those perfect weapons for grass, so I do think Sampras would get the better of Federer for at least a slight majority of the time (60-40 maybe?). Perhaps they nearly split the titles, with Sampras having an edge of one or two. Fed's superior longevity might allow him to further dominate past the 90's once Sampras leaves his own prime, and it may carry him to an eventual title lead.
Of course, all of this is assuming Fed is given a reasonable enough time to even get accustomed to the conditions of the 90's. We can't just plop him in there and expect results within a week or two.
Young Fed doesn't look like someone who would have dedicated hard to tennis and an epitome of professionalism, especially if he was born 10 years earlier. In fact, until 2002, he had more common with Stich/Phillippoussis than with Sampras.
Thing is, unlike Djokovic, Agassi, on top of his baseline/ball-striking abilities, was a big hitter himself. He was definitely one of the biggest hitters from the baseline on the tour during his days (together with Lendl and Courier).
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
You'd think that anyone who watched Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal in their near-six-hour clay-court-grinder on the Australian Open's plexipave would know that, but you still hear and read the old paradigm.Lol, I have Wimbledon's official website, Steve Tignor, a respected tennis journalist, and players like Nadal and Henman backing up my argument
You... You have Jim's personal blog
Who has no rational reasoning again?
"Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward to withstand better the increasing wear of the modern game. Perceived speed of a court is affected by a number of factors such as the general compacting of the soil over time, as well as the weather before and during the event. The ball will seem heavier and slower on a cold damp day and conversely lighter and faster on a warm dry day. There have been no changes to the specification of the ball since 1995, when there was a very minimal alteration in compression." - Wimbledon, 2021
"At the same time, though, these arguments are presented as if Wimbledon just slowed the grass down last weekend, and that it's busy slowing it down even more every night while you're sleeping. The truth is that the surface has been the same composition for 10 years, enough time so that you would think we could call what's played on it these days "grass-court tennis." In 2001, groundskeeper Eddie Seaward, who is retiring this year, changed the mix that was laid down, from 70 percent rye/30 percent fescue to 100 percent rye. He wanted more durability and firmness, and he got it. The all-rye was also cut a little higher, and the bounce was a little higher and slower. Henman noticed the difference right away that year, and it's been that way since. This year, in defending the current grass game, Rafael Nadal said that he first played here in 2002, and the surface hasn’t changed in that time." - Steve Tignor, 2011
Tim Henman, a serve-and-volley player, made four Wimbledon semifinals, but says the new grass forced him to alter his natural game midcareer. "I remember sitting at a change-over in 2002 in utter frustration and thinking 'What on earth is going on here? I'm on a grass court and it's the slowest court I've played on this year. - Tim Heman via TIME magazine
Courts overall continue to get slower, and slower, despite articles to the contrary by people like Tennis.com's Steve Tignor (who is usually quite good) claiming the trend stopped in 2001. We'll look at some BBC stats showing how WImbledon, already slowed down in 2001, was further, dramatically, slowed by 2008.
WImbledon. Is WImbledon fast, slow, low-bouncing and slick or hard? Yes. Depends on where the ball lands and when during the tournament, and whether the tournament is rain-soaked or sun-baked.
At the beginning each year, Wimbledon is covered with lush grass that slows down the ball, but helps sliced serves, backhands and approach shots stay relatively low.
By the tournament's champinoship final, grass still covers the service box, slowing down serves, but the baseline looks like cracked concrete of a playground basketball court.
If you had a tennis court in your backyard that was like Wimbledon's center court by the finals, you'd plow it up and plant tomatoes.
Ground strokes landing near the baseline often bounce high, hard and erratically. Witness the 2008 match-ending point, where the final shot hit a divot and bounced sideways. So, servers are punished and baseline grinders rewarded.
Wimbledon decided after the abysmal final between Richard Krajicek and Goran Ivanisivec, where a "long" rally was three strokes, including the serve, that it had to do something.
Unfortunately, Wimbledon over-reacted.
Wimbledon switched to thicker grass, packed the dirt harder (making the ball bounce higher), and switched to what are, apparently, larger balls that slow down as they travel through the air, and bounce higher and more slowly. The tournament is closed mouth about the balls, but the Slazengers reportedly have 6% greater cross-sectional area. Despite claims that the court was only slowed down 10%, the difference is far more dramatic.
A BBC video shows how dramatic the impact the combination of all these changes has been -- as well as showing that play has been slowed down between 2003 and 2008 (contrary to claims that the courts have not been further slowed since 2001).
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.
That's why some cynics say that Wimbledon has turned into a green, clay court tournament.
The so-called "Chunnel Slam", winning the French and Wimbledon back to back, used to be impressive because it meant winning on clay then turning around and winning dramatically different style matches, often against different players, weeks later. Now, the style of play is similar (not identical) and the feat, not nearly as significant with the same players contesting both regularly.
Example: Bjorn Borg used to be described as a baseline player that rarely came to the net. In Borg's three-set title victory over Guillermo Vilas at the French Open he came to the net nearly twice as much as Nadal did in his five-set 2008 title match. There's something wrong, in my opinion, when players volley more at the French Open than at Wimbledon.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Copying and pasting a post from Jim's Personal Blog, which has no actual authoritative sources, is not good enough, champYou'd think that anyone who watched Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal in their near-six-hour clay-court-grinder on the Australian Open's plexipave would know that, but you still hear and read the old paradigm.
Courts overall continue to get slower, and slower, despite articles to the contrary by people like Tennis.com's Steve Tignor (who is usually quite good) claiming the trend stopped in 2001. We'll look at some BBC stats showing how WImbledon, already slowed down in 2001, was further, dramatically, slowed by 2008.
WImbledon. Is WImbledon fast, slow, low-bouncing and slick or hard? Yes. Depends on where the ball lands and when during the tournament, and whether the tournament is rain-soaked or sun-baked.
At the beginning each year, Wimbledon is covered with lush grass that slows down the ball, but helps sliced serves, backhands and approach shots stay relatively low.
By the tournament's champinoship final, grass still covers the service box, slowing down serves, but the baseline looks like cracked concrete of a playground basketball court.
If you had a tennis court in your backyard that was like Wimbledon's center court by the finals, you'd plow it up and plant tomatoes.
Ground strokes landing near the baseline often bounce high, hard and erratically. Witness the 2008 match-ending point, where the final shot hit a divot and bounced sideways. So, servers are punished and baseline grinders rewarded.
Wimbledon decided after the abysmal final between Richard Krajicek and Goran Ivanisivec, where a "long" rally was three strokes, including the serve, that it had to do something.
Unfortunately, Wimbledon over-reacted.
Wimbledon switched to thicker grass, packed the dirt harder (making the ball bounce higher), and switched to what are, apparently, larger balls that slow down as they travel through the air, and bounce higher and more slowly. The tournament is closed mouth about the balls, but the Slazengers reportedly have 6% greater cross-sectional area. Despite claims that the court was only slowed down 10%, the difference is far more dramatic.
A BBC video shows how dramatic the impact the combination of all these changes has been -- as well as showing that play has been slowed down between 2003 and 2008 (contrary to claims that the courts have not been further slowed since 2001).
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.
That's why some cynics say that Wimbledon has turned into a green, clay court tournament.
The so-called "Chunnel Slam", winning the French and Wimbledon back to back, used to be impressive because it meant winning on clay then turning around and winning dramatically different style matches, often against different players, weeks later. Now, the style of play is similar (not identical) and the feat, not nearly as significant with the same players contesting both regularly.
Example: Bjorn Borg used to be described as a baseline player that rarely came to the net. In Borg's three-set title victory over Guillermo Vilas at the French Open he came to the net nearly twice as much as Nadal did in his five-set 2008 title match. There's something wrong, in my opinion, when players volley more at the French Open than at Wimbledon.
Any idiot can start a personal blog and write all kinds of stupid nonsense. They have no more credibility than your random TTW poster
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
He still doesn't get it. I don't he ever watched Wimbledon in the early 2000.
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
All courts were slowing down, let alone grass over the years. That's the consensus by players and ex-players, commentators, coaches and fans.
Hence the they came up with the term homogenization
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
That is something that happened before long before Nadal and Djokovic truly arrived. How else do you explain how all the best players in Federer's generation were baseliners? Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko... All baseliners. This was the generation where S&V died. It wasn't in Nadal and Djokovic's gen.
Also let's not forget Federer was the greatest beneficiary of homogenization before Nadal and Djokovic arrived. He himself sought to eliminate carpet as a surface, too. Homogenization hurting Federer is a myth perpetuated by Fed fans. It was quite the opposite. It allowed him to employ basically the same game on every surface and win, just like Djokodal would do after him. But now that Federer is done reaping the rewards of homogenization, his fans want to end it so his rivals can't do the same. Typical.
PS: Homogenization doesn't necessarily mean slowing down the courts, it just means making them closer to each other. It just happened that they slowed down the faster courts instead of speeding up the slower ones
Last edited:
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
Tour still had some faster court during Federer's early career. It was then the ATP and ITF start to gradually slow down everything over the years. Players who thrives on fast courts complain about the slow condition. The term homogenization was introduce in much later years.
I disagree. Federer enjoy fast, slow bounce court which suits perfect for his playing style. He has a goat forehand, great serve, big shot maker which only fast court enhance his game. Low knee high ball is in his striking zone and his bh is more effective unlike shoulder high.
Djokovic is lucky that the ATP/ITF chose surface homogenization, because he would have never achieved this much in a diverse environment. He's a grinder/pusher, and categorized as a defensive type of player.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer won everything under the sun (well, almost everything) in his heyday. He did this without having to change his game much, thanks to homogenization. Maybe he could have still won in non-homogenized conditions, but it would certainly have been more difficult.
You're also underselling his great defensive abilities in his prime. Yes, he was very good at attacking. But with faster surfaces he would have been more vulnerable to being overpowered by big hitters. The slower surfaces made him pretty much upset proof thanks to his world class defense (second only to Nadal when he was in his prime)
He's a grinder/pusher according to haters like you. Federer himself thinks differently:
But you can work on everything and the best players can play offensive and defensive. I guess Rafa [Nadal] and Andy have more the defensive DNA: they really don’t want to miss but today they’re great attacking players, some of the best in the game. And the same for me and Novak, we’re more attacking players but we’ve also gotten very good at defence.”
Roger Federer reveals the secrets behind his incredible success
Do you lot even watch Djokovic's matches against players other than Federer? Djokovic is the master of adjusting his gameplan to the opponent. Against Federer he will be more defensive. But against Nadal, for example, he is very often the aggressor.