Is Federer the first ever GS finalist to solely face players on their worst surface?

[unclenimrod]

I rarely insult people here, but OP, this the weirdest thread. It reeks of "I hate Federer." Do you know that we no longer talk about who Sampras beat in his runs to his finals? Or Laver during his calendar year slams? For sure there were times when those guys faced weaker opponents than some others. Do you really think that a few years from now someone (besides perhaps you) is going to say "Fed's 18th slam was sooooo lucky, so we should just count 17 of them." He is by no means the de facto winner yet, but if he does win it is because he won his matches, and whomever you were rooting for did not. Get over it. He has had to focus on his strengths to get to this point, and not his failing movement (which is still better than all of last year), his weaker groundstrokes, or his loss of poise in pressure situations. I know this is just a forum and you can pretty much be as dumb as you want here, but good lord nobody cares.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Muller is a grass player but also great on Hardcourt (reached the QF at the US open beating Haas and Davydenko I think)

All the rest I agree with OP.

Raonic: Hardcourt
Djokovic: Hardcourt
Robredo: Clay
Giraldo: Hardcourt/Clay
Wawrinka: Hardcourt/Clay
Lorenzi: ... LOL who cares!

But to be fair, not many player's favourite surface is grass nowadays...

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Arrogant or not, it's the truth. Pretty much the entire tour sucks on grass because it's harder to play on. It's simply easier to play on clay.

I disagree, grass takes different talent to be good on the surface, different qualities, different weapons.

By your logic, Roddick was more talented than Safin ?

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Rios was incredibly talented, yet he sucked on grass.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Ivanisevic more talented than Rios

 

[Chace]

Lorenzi, Muller, Giraldo, Robredo, Wawrinka, Raonic and Djokovic all have grass as their worst surface, I can't imagine that has ever happened before? I'd love to be shown wrong though, any examples of other tournaments where this happened?

I wouldn't say Raonic's worse surface is grass.
I also don't think novaks too shabby on grass, after all he's won Wimbledon.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Djokovic's pretty much an all surface player, but I don't think him winning Wimbledon and not winning the FO means he's better on grass than clay: things are not that simple.

 

[Chace]

I agree. However I don't think that the OP's statement about grass being the worse surface for all of Feds opponents holds much weight. Grass may very well be their worse surface but in today's game there aren't many players where grass is going to be their best surface. There's only a few tournaments played on grass now a days.

 

[junior74]

Federer has beaten the weak grass players that have beaten all the strong grass players in the tournament, m'kay...

 

[Gustavo Kuerten]

Also... Novak's win % at RG is 81% vs 83% for Wimbledon.

Career GS win % at FO - 81%, on Wimbledon 83%. So much for that argument.

Maybe, just maybe, that's because he lost to Nadal six times at Roland Garros. Strong lack of actual insight and tennis analysis.

I see the "Rookie" by your name is correct. Big servers always do better on grass, unless you are 6'10" and have no movement whatsoever. This is Raonic's first SF at a GS. Djoker has more Wimbledon GS's than FO GS's. Just because your idol got crushed by a player ranked #144 in the world because of his lack of serve and return of serve required for true grass court tennis, doesn't mean that Fed, who has so far defeated #6 and #9, faced poor grass court players. It's just that if you go by his record, Fed is the best grass court player of his time. I reserve the best for Sampras in his prime.

Stop assuming I'm a Nadal fan, I'm not.

Yeah, becasue Muller hates grass, hahahahhahahaa. This thread is ridiculous.

Yawn. 12-20 record on grass. I assume you have never seen him play, otherwise you wouldn't come up with things like this. I'm not exaggerating when I say his ground game is worse than Isner's on grass.

What drug is op on, grass is just about everyone's worst surface these days...

I agree. However I don't think that the OP's statement about grass being the worse surface for all of Feds opponents holds much weight. Grass may very well be their worse surface but in today's game there aren't many players where grass is going to be their best surface. There's only a few tournaments played on grass now a days.

Read the first page, where fifteen or so players are named who have grass as their best surface.

 

[henryshli]

Out of the top players, lets look at who has grass as their weakest surface: (not including Del Potro who isn't active right now)

- Nadal
- Novak
- Ferrer
- Wawrinka
- Gulbis
- Nishikori
- Raonic?
- Isner

So 8 of the top 11 have grass as their weakest surface. And Murray sucks this year. That's what happens when the top 10 is made up entirely of baseliners or serve bots with poor movement.

It takes talent to be good on grass.

That's because the tour rewards slow court players. Like you said 8 of top 11 can't play on grass.

Thanks you just proved that Fed is the most versatile player on tour right now at age 32. Despite his best surface being grass with very little ranking points available he is still in the top 5. Amazing achievement.

 

[jg153040]

That's because the tour rewards slow court players. Like you said 8 of top 11 can't play on grass.

Thanks you just proved that Fed is the most versatile player on tour right now at age 32. Despite his best surface being grass with very little ranking points available he is still in the top 5. Amazing achievement.

Isn't Fed now top 3? Which is even crazier.

That just proves that Fed dominates any era. The only reason that he wins less is Djokovic and Rafa are all time greats and improved since 2006 and also because he declined.

That proves that peak Fed dominates any era. If past prime Fed is nr.3, then surely peak Fed would be nr.1.

 

[AngieB]

John McEnroe vs Chris Lewis 1983 Wimbledon Final. Oddest final I ever witnessed for many reasons.

AngieB

 

[Fedinkum]

...Read the first page, where fifteen or so players are named who have grass as their best surface.

So you are only talking about approx 11% of a 128-players field. Chances of bumping into one is not exactly overwhelming!! What is the big deal if you don't bump into one?

 

[henryshli]

By the way my mums favorite surface is grass. Does that mean Fed's route to the final would have been more credible had he played her? Don't get this thread. Even if grass isn't Wawrinka or Djokovic's best surface, they are still better than Mahut.

 

[Gustavo Kuerten]

So you are only talking about approx 11% of a 128-players field. Chances of bumping into one is not exactly overwhelming!! What is the big deal if you don't bump into one?

Yawn, troll. First of all, not all players were named and second of all it's not always either someone's worst or best surface, since there are more than two.

By the way my mums favorite surface is grass. Does that mean Fed's route to the final would have been more credible had he played her? Don't get this thread. Even if grass isn't Wawrinka or Djokovic's best surface, they are still better than Mahut.

You don't get this thread since you automatically assume I'm being critical of Federer, while I merely asked a question (which still hasn't been answered, so assume my suspicion is true and it indeed is the first time). Djokovic is of course still a top 5 player on grass despite it being his worst surface.

 

[jg153040]

Yawn, troll. First of all, not all players were named and second of all it's not always either someone's worst or best surface, since there are more than two.You don't get this thread since you automatically assume I'm being critical of Federer, while I merely asked a question (which still hasn't been answered, so assume my suspicion is true and it indeed is the first time). Djokovic is of course still a top 5 player on grass despite it being his worst surface.

Isn't Nole's worse surface clay? No GS wins and lower win % than on grass.
Also he has 3 W finals, on clay he only has 2 finals.

Also isn't Raonic best surface grass?

 

[Gustavo Kuerten]

Isn't Nole's worse surface clay? No GS wins and lower win % than on grass.
Also he has 3 W finals, on clay he only has 2 finals.

Also isn't Raonic best surface grass?

This has already been debunked as uninformed demagogue nonsense, read the thread before replying.

 

[drm025]

Isn't Fed now top 3? Which is even crazier.

That just proves that Fed dominates any era. The only reason that he wins less is Djokovic and Rafa are all time greats and improved since 2006 and also because he declined.

That proves that peak Fed dominates any era. If past prime Fed is nr.3, then surely peak Fed would be nr.1.

Well the difference between Fed at nr. 3 and the top 2 right now is over 6000 points, so hard to state that with any certainty. While peak Fed was better physically, remember that he would have less experience and maturity in his game and not as much time to develop his serve which continued to improve past his peak.

 

[cknobman]

This has already been debunked as uninformed demagogue nonsense, read the thread before replying.

No it hasnt, I think you are trolling.

Nole has a GS on grass, more finals appearances, and a higher winning percentage.

Grass is not his worst surface. Maybe you want it to be to support your crap claims but its not.

You claimed Novak does not have a FO title because hes facing the best clay courter of all time, well guess what, it was the same situation for Federer!!! No one gave Federer a "BUT he played Nadal" pass when talking about his lack of a FO title.

 

[KtM]

Doesn't Nadal regularly face guys who's worst surface is clay?

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Well the difference between Fed at nr. 3 and the top 2 right now is over 6000 points, so hard to state that with any certainty. While peak Fed was better physically, remember that he would have less experience and maturity in his game and not as much time to develop his serve which continued to improve past his peak.

physicality dictates the ability to play defense. Defense has been paramount to the success of the top players for the past 15 years. Federer in his physical prime, who was still able to put serves on a dime, beats out more experienced (experienced at losing too) Federer almost every time.

 

[Gustavo Kuerten]

No it hasnt, I think you are trolling.

Nole has a GS on grass, more finals appearances, and a higher winning percentage.

Grass is not his worst surface. Maybe you want it to be to support your crap claims but its not.

You claimed Novak does not have a FO title because hes facing the best clay courter of all time, well guess what, it was the same situation for Federer!!! No one gave Federer a "BUT he played Nadal" pass when talking about his lack of a FO title.

I honestly don't care, it just shows that you lack the ability to actually analyze the sport.

You think that if Federer didn't have a Roland Garros title it would be that big of a deal? He would still be a top 10 all time clay courter. Nadal is by far the greatest player of all time on a single surface. Nobody cares about Sampras never winning Roland Garros.