[Hypothetical match] Would you beat Federer in a best-of-3 match if...

[FiReFTW]

I still think in two full sets I ha e a good chance of getting one point on a momentary lack of focus/interest, or some shank/net cord winner, and ace or such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends how you play, if you can serve fairly big and have good swing mechanics and technique, ud probably have a chance to win a few points but your strategy should be redlining and crushing the ball.

He would destroy your normal balls and serves, and then you would be relying on pure luck or some odd misshit.

Your best bet is to redline and hit very hard, your consistency would drop but that wouldnt matter, the balls that would go in could at least trouble him if struck and aimed extremely well.

Imagine hitting ur serve at 80-90%, very consistent and placed well, ud get 70-80% in, but he would absolutely hammer those easy balls for him and kill you with his returns.

Now imagine hitting 90-100% and even aiming very close to the sidelines and very aggressive targets, u might hit only 4-5 good serves in a set like this, but they are fast and aimed at aggressive spots and if struck really well could win you the point by an ace or UE

 

[Deleted member 23235]

6+ easily...
it's even hard for me to anticipate where my shanks will go.

 

[Gyswandir]

There was a thread long time ago, where a 4.0 or 4.5 played a Davis cup player from Thailand, I believe. He got 3 points if I remember correctly. One was an error and 2 were on serve aces.
Unless you have a really good serve (we are talking above 110, with placement), against Federer, it would be no points for you and even then, less than 5 is assured. He would adopt a very high margin play on strokes and returns and hit 2 second serves to your bh.

 

[TennisCJC]

i love these scenarios...I don't doubt a 4.5 could win a few points here and there from Federer...Fed makes errors.....It's hard to be perfect on every point ..
guys like Nadal, Djkovic Murray could pull it off for a set as they are much more calculated and consistent than Roger

huh? if Nadal, Djoko and Murray are "much more calculated and consistent than Roger"; how come Roger has 20 slams and they don't? Honestly, this makes no sense.

Federer elects to play these guys in an aggressive manner that includes some risk so he makes errors but he can also hit more winners.

I assure you if Federer was playing some 4.5 hack, he could play for hours without making a mistake. Federer once played 105 points against Isner at the USOpen without a single unforced error. Federer has the best hand eye and coordination of all the big 4.

 

[FiReFTW]

There was a thread long time ago, where a 4.0 or 4.5 played a Davis cup player from Thailand, I believe. He got 3 points if I remember correctly. One was an error and 2 were on serve aces.
Unless you have a really good serve (we are talking above 110, with placement), against Federer, it would be no points for you and even then, less than 5 is assured. He would adopt a very high margin play on strokes and returns and hit 2 second serves to your bh.

Thats exactly what I was thinking.

Federer hitting groundstrokes at 70-80% swing speed would produce a heavier ball than most rec players ever faced and he would be hitting spots accurately and not missing.
You would be making tons of errors or he would come to net and finish easy points.

And also agree for 2nd serve, I think people here cant even phantom how much kick it has, you would have huge problems getting it in play with ur fh, let alone backhand lol.

Its just a whole different dimension.

A good WTA player would hardly win any points against Federer, lets be serious.

 

[GuyClinch]

I don't think tennis is like say hoops. There is a non-zero chance they could screw up a pair of serves or botch a return. Have no idea how consistent a pro is when facing amateur balls. Very consistent sure..but likely not zero.
Facing someone like Lebron OTOH in one on one hoops would be just impossible. So this would be a fun challenge.,

 

[dgold44]

I still think in two full sets I ha e a good chance of getting one point on a momentary lack of focus/interest, or some shank/net cord winner, and ace or such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think winning a single pt against Nadal or Djoker is impossible but Federer will just shank a few

 

[ChaelAZ]

I think winning a single pt against Nadal or Djoker is impossible but Federer will just shank a few

Just keep lobbing Djo and he is absolutely gonna blow a few overheads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BetaServe]

Related to this old thread, I WOULD LOVE to see a match between a 3.5 and a 5.0 where a 5.0 cannot afford to lose more than 7 points per match or maybe the 3.5 starts off every game at 40-0 or 40-( negative 15) (ie. the 5.0 has to win at least 5 points to win the game). If anyone can arrange such match please do, it'd be hella fun to watch.

 

[user92626]

Related to this old thread, I WOULD LOVE to see a match between a 3.5 and a 5.0 where a 5.0 cannot afford to lose more than 7 points per match or maybe the 3.5 starts off every game at 40-0 or 40-( negative 15) (ie. the 5.0 has to win at least 5 points to win the game). If anyone can arrange such match please do, it'd be hella fun to watch.

Hmm.. you should come to our courts in Southern CA. I guess I'm about 4.0. I played with this one woman my age who's probably 3.25. I know plenty of 3.5 women!

We played a stake match where I gave her "1 point means one game for her". Essentially, I had to win in normal fashion (15-, 30-, 40-, game) whereas whenever she won a point, it's game over. So, I couldn't afford to lose 6 points or the set is over. It was a lot of tension and we tied on two occasions.

In your hypothetical match btw a 3.5 and a 5.0, my money is on the 5.0. Against a player who is several level above you, he can easily run up 10, 15 points in a row. I play TBs often. It's not unusual to have 7-1, 7-0 scores.

 

[MaxTennis]

Related to this old thread, I WOULD LOVE to see a match between a 3.5 and a 5.0 where a 5.0 cannot afford to lose more than 7 points per match or maybe the 3.5 starts off every game at 40-0 or 40-( negative 15) (ie. the 5.0 has to win at least 5 points to win the game). If anyone can arrange such match please do, it'd be hella fun to watch.

Here’s an example of me versus my friend Adam, who was rated at 3.5 at the time of the video.

 

[blablavla]

i love these scenarios...I don't doubt a 4.5 could win a few points here and there from Federer...Fed makes errors.....It's hard to be perfect on every point ..
guys like Nadal, Djkovic Murray could pull it off for a set as they are much more calculated and consistent than Roger

For Fed it's hard to be perfect when his opposition is someone from top pro players.
The higher the player, the harder is to be perfect.

Now imagine that on the other side you have a ball machine set to random, but some acceptable pace and spin level.
It doesn't take to be Fed to be perfect.
So, not every 4.5 can draw mistakes of Fed.

 

[blablavla]

Pros could double fault and miss serve return given that your serve is somewhat good.

they double fault when they need to take more risk.
they take more risk only when the opposition forces to.
if your opponent can run-around and smack a FH winner straight from return, you have to find his backhand to have a chance to win that second serve.
if you opponent isn't able to cope with that much kick neither from FH nor from BH, why would you take risk? just give them "safe" serves, which will be mostly unreturned, or easy sitters

 

[FiReFTW]

they double fault when they need to take more risk.
they take more risk only when the opposition forces to.
if your opponent can run-around and smack a FH winner straight from return, you have to find his backhand to have a chance to win that second serve.
if you opponent isn't able to cope with that much kick neither from FH nor from BH, why would you take risk? just give them "safe" serves, which will be mostly unreturned, or easy sitters

Yes he could easily serve at 80% and get lots of errors and aces from u and short sitters, and he could also hit at 80% and move u around till u make a mistake.

He could very well beat you in 2 sets without you winning a single point allth o i suspect it's more likely he would make an error at least once in the full 2 sets it's hard to keep ur concentration so sharp even the pros miss routine balls or make some odd mistakes.

Tho I think Roger raga and Novak would have a good chance to do it because their focus is insane, but some other player from the top 30 is say it would be more likely they would make a mistake or two, but they could go 2 sets without it too at times.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I would try to frame my first serve so that it bounces twice before the baseline and hope he is so surprised I win on the first point. If he gets a racquet on any of my shots it's game over.
I'm only winning a point on an unforced error by him or a fluky net cord winner or frame shot.

 

[NLBwell]

Well, everyone, even Fed, will miss a shot or double fault once in a while even if it is due to a gust of wind or a bad bounce. Other than that I don't see myself winning any points due to what I do these days.
40 years ago when I could dominate high level college and even challenger level pros with my serve on my serve games when I was on a good streak, so I could certainly get some points. Fed, however, is a different level returner than even the challenger guys, so maybe only a point or two in a serve game instead of winning the game. I've returned serve against top level pro serves. The chances of me winning a point on his serve, even at my best as an open-level player, would be probably pretty much zero.