Some Peak Fed Gems

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
The fact that an absolute and an utter scrub like Fernando Gonzalez is winning 3 or more games per set is pathetic and laughable for the supposed greatest of all time tennis player, much less an athlete.
You mean the guy who was ranked as high as No 5 and was capable of beating a Nadal reaching his peak in straight sets (AO 2007 QF)?

By your criteria every single ATG and potential GOAT is completely useless.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Lol. Not impressed with 'peak Fed' based on the gap between him and his opponents in those supposed 'peak' performance being too small. He should be able to win his return games, as easily as his service games. The fact that an absolute and an utter scrub like Fernando Gonzalez is winning 3 or more games per set is pathetic and laughable for the supposed greatest of all time tennis player, much less an athlete.

Not sure what exactly is there to be impressed about! Winning by such small margins against such caliber of opposition, is really not impressive for someone as overrated as Federer.

When 'peak' Federer can win 6 games in a row against a clown like Gonzalez whilst returning serve every one of those 6 games without being allowed to serve once, then we'll talk about the 'greatness' of 'peak' Federer in a global scale, relative to all athletes.
What a load of nonsense. Gonzalez was a decent player when he was on it. Especially on a quicker court. Look how he destroyed Nadal.
 

Breakpointerer

Hall of Fame
Lol. Not impressed with 'peak Fed' based on the gap between him and his opponents in those supposed 'peak' performance being too small. He should be able to win his return games, as easily as his service games. The fact that an absolute and an utter scrub like Fernando Gonzalez is winning 3 or more games per set is pathetic and laughable for the supposed greatest of all time tennis player, much less an athlete.

Not sure what exactly is there to be impressed about! Winning by such small margins against such caliber of opposition, is really not impressive for someone as overrated as Federer.

When 'peak' Federer can win 6 games in a row against a clown like Gonzalez whilst returning serve every one of those 6 games without being allowed to serve once, then we'll talk about the 'greatness' of 'peak' Federer in a global scale, relative to all athletes.
Lmao
 

ForehandRF

Professional

Beautiful display of shotmaking from both players.Agassi was at the end of his career, but he was still hitting the ball clean as always.Court looks as fast as in 2017 I think.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nadal was injured and wasn't fully healthy when he lost to Gonzalez.

Gonzalez is literally a nobody in the grand scheme of things, irrespective of how hard you Federer fanatics want to skyrocket his status, just to justify the pathetically horrible era Federer competed in against utter scrubs and sub-par players like Gonzalez.

If Federer was worthy of being a true great like Nadal on clay, he'd be bread sticking and bagelling an utter clown like Gonzalez, left, right and center. The fact that he couldn't even manage that in his supposed 'peak' is an utter embarrassment and a disgrace.

The gap between Federer and his peers, especially those at the embarrassing level that Gonzalez was, has to be siginificantly greater for Federer to be a true great like Nadal is on clay.

The fact that Gonzalez was top 5 in that rubbish era is totally irrelevant.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player-classic.cgi?p=RafaelNadal&f=ACareerqqB1&q=FernandoGonzalez

But Nadal never bagelled or breadsticked Gonzalez on clay :unsure:

;)
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Nadal was injured and wasn't fully healthy when he lost to Gonzalez.

Gonzalez is literally a nobody in the grand scheme of things, irrespective of how hard you Federer fanatics want to skyrocket his status, just to justify the pathetically horrible era Federer competed in against utter scrubs and sub-par players like Gonzalez.

If Federer was worthy of being a true great like Nadal on clay, he'd be bread sticking and bagelling an utter clown like Gonzalez, left, right and center. The fact that he couldn't even manage that in his supposed 'peak' is an utter embarrassment and a disgrace.

The gap between Federer and his peers, especially those at the embarrassing level that Gonzalez was, has to be siginificantly greater for Federer to be a true great like Nadal is on clay.

The fact that Gonzalez was top 5 in that rubbish era is totally irrelevant.
I suspect rationality is useless but.....

Tennis gives a big advantage to the server and therefore anyone with a half-decent serve is going to have a good chance of not being bagelled or breadsticked. Demanding that Fed breadsticks or bagels a decent server on a fast court to prove he's a great player is ludicrous.

Your hero agrees. He was actually on camera at the Laver Cup telling Fed to stay very aggressive on his returns against Isner BECAUSE he already had the break and it would prevent Isner from getting into rhythm on his forehand. So Fed isn't going to go for a double break a lot of the time IF he is confident in his own serve - and he has the backing of Nadal in that logic.

And yes, Nadal on clay is the most dominant force we have ever seen on a single surface, everyone should agree with that.
 
Last edited:
I love the fast paced attacking rallies in these old videos, and that's not up to the court speed, it's the balls.
They should really revert the balls back to being lighter/faster. You can't really hit through the ball and play decent attacking tennis today when every player hits with 4000+ RPM which makes controlling the ball so difficult. It would be suicide today to try some of those shots these two are making in this video.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
I love the fast paced attacking rallies in these old videos, and that's not up to the court speed, it's the balls.
They should really revert the balls back to being lighter/faster. You can't really hit through the ball and play decent attacking tennis today when every player hits with 4000+ RPM which makes controlling the ball so difficult. It would be suicide today to try some of those shots these two are making in this video.
True.That's why those balls favored Fed's style of play back in those days.Had balls remained lighter/faster, he would have won even more slams imo.
 

ForumMember

Hall of Fame

Beautiful display of shotmaking from both players.Agassi was at the end of his career, but he was still hitting the ball clean as always.Court looks as fast as in 2017 I think.
Agassi had lost to a teenage clay courter on hard courts just a few weeks before this match happened. The only reason this completely over the hill Agassi was in final because he was still better than likes of Roddick, Hewitts, Gonzales and Bagdatis..
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
No, because he never played Gonzalez at Roland Garros. But he definitely did Federer on clay at Roland Garros.
Why is that relevant? You claimed that Federer "ought" to be breadsticking and bagelling Gonzalez even on a fast court. It's been pointed out to you that even the greatest clay court player ever was not able to breadstick and bagel Gonzalez ON CLAY.

You can carry on believing Fed is useless if you want but you should admit that by YOUR criteria Nadal is also useless.

I daresay this is all just a wind-up but there are ways of winding up Fed fans that don't involve you making obviously stupid arguments. Have a bit of pride!
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Agassi had lost to a teenage clay courter on hard courts just a few weeks before this match happened. The only reason this completely over the hill Agassi was in final because he was still better than likes of Roddick, Hewitts, Gonzales and Bagdatis..
Actually here is the QF.Fed went on to loose in the SF against Safin.

Why you keep on mentioning Baghdatis ? He was not one of his main rivals.

Agassi was like Fed these days, in the twilight of his career, but still better than most of the field.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
True.That's why those balls favored Fed's style of play back in those days.Had balls remained lighter/faster, he would have won even more slams imo.
Rebound Ace was not that fast. It was the playing styles which made it look faster. It was like medium paced or so.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi had lost to a teenage clay courter on hard courts just a few weeks before this match happened. The only reason this completely over the hill Agassi was in final because he was still better than likes of Roddick, Hewitts, Gonzales and Bagdatis..
Guy doesn't even know who was in the final of what slam in 2005 but still sees fit to comment and flaunt his lack of knowledge :-D
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Rebound Ace was not that fast. It was the playing styles which made it look faster. It was like medium paced or so.
I would say that it was still faster than AO 2011 & 2012 for example.I think that the main difference is how it took the spin compared to Plexi.Balls were lighter too, as I was saying.
 
Last edited:

tonylg

Professional
True.That's why those balls favored Fed's style of play back in those days.Had balls remained lighter/faster, he would have won even more slams imo.
A mate pulled out a can of Dunlop AO 2019 balls for a game of doubles this week and the rest of us all agreed he should keep them for his dog.

Just terrible balls.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
I would say that it was still faster than AO 2011 & 2012 for example.I think that the main difference is how it took the spin compared to Plexi.
AO was slower than usual in 2011/2012. But it was not that much faster than AO of 2008/2009 say.
Plexi was lower bouncing and RA was more sticky....
 

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
Guy doesn't even know who was in the final of what slam in 2005 but still sees fit to comment and flaunt his lack of knowledge :-D
It is case of an error and not case of not knowing who played GS finals in 2005. Your eagerness to pick on my mistake and then twisting it exposes your insecurities.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
A mate pulled out a can of Dunlop AO 2019 balls for a game of doubles this week and the rest of us all agreed he should keep them for his dog.

Just terrible balls.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Terrible in which sense ? Too slow ? Too heavy ?
 

ForehandRF

Professional
AO was slower than usual in 2011/2012. But it was not that much faster than AO of 2008/2009 say.
Plexi was lower bouncing and RA was more sticky....
Great points :)

My original point was that Fed's game thrived with the lighter balls back in those days.What are your thoughts here ?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It is case of an error and not case of not knowing who played GS finals in 2005. Your eagerness to pick on my mistake and then twisting it exposes your insecurities.
Insecurities? Says the guy that jumps on any chance to denigrate Federer. Think you're projecting here.

I simply enjoy it when posters like you shoot yourselves in the foot.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Great points :)

My original point was that Fed's game thrived with the lighter balls back in those days.What are your thoughts here ?
I don't really know much about the balls but if they were really faster and lighter then i guess it helped Federer offensive game. I recall a ball switch in 2000 when the homogenization started to happen but i did not hear much after that.
 

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
Insecurities? Says the guy that jumps on any chance to denigrate Federer. Think you're projecting here.

I simply enjoy it when posters like you shoot yourselves in the foot.
Happy to see that one error from me gave so much joy to you. Proud to know that even in error I make some lives better.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Baghdatis just might be the most shat on player on this forum, in terms of ratio. Everytime he's bought up, it's always negative. He's pretty much a meme at this point. He played superbly at the AO and especially Wimbledon back in 06, so much so that I bought a lot of his matches from those events to rewatch. Certainly better than many performances from the last few years in majors.

I suppose Anderson is similar these days. What's hilarious is that you don't get that much talk about him being one of Rafa's "main rivals" :rolleyes: like Marcos to Fed. Even though Fed/Marcos met like five times in 5 years (the 04-07 weak era of course ;)) to Rafa/Kev's 4 times in 3 years lol... You just gotta wonder how many more times they would have faced off as well, if not for injury problems, especially the big man...
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Actually here is the QF.Fed went on to loose in the SF against Safin.

Why you keep on mentioning Baghdatis ? He was not one of his main rivals.

Agassi was like Fed these days, in the twilight of his career, but still better than most of the field.
Nope.

Ranking position:

2004-09 Agassi: 8, 7, 150, retired
2014-19 Federer: 2, 3, 16, 2, 3, 3
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Baghdatis just might be the most shat on player on this forum, in terms of ratio. Everytime he's bought up, it's always negative. He's pretty much a meme at this point. He played superbly at the AO and especially Wimbledon back in 06, so much so that I bought a lot of his matches from those events to rewatch. Certainly better than many performances from the last few years in majors.

I suppose Anderson is similar these days. What's hilarious is that you don't get that much talk about him being one of Rafa's "main rivals" :rolleyes: like Marcos to Fed. Even though Fed/Marcos met like five times in 5 years (the 04-07 weak era of course ;)) to Rafa/Kev's 4 times in 3 years lol... You just gotta wonder how many more times they would have faced off as well, if not for injury problems, especially the big man...
Don't expect balance and objectivity from those people man. Baggy was basically a talented underachiever, Anderson is kinda the opposite...
 
Why is that relevant? You claimed that Federer "ought" to be breadsticking and bagelling Gonzalez even on a fast court. It's been pointed out to you that even the greatest clay court player ever was not able to breadstick and bagel Gonzalez ON CLAY.

You can carry on believing Fed is useless if you want but you should admit that by YOUR criteria Nadal is also useless.

I daresay this is all just a wind-up but there are ways of winding up Fed fans that don't involve you making obviously stupid arguments. Have a bit of pride!
It's irrelevant because I am attributing Nadal's greatness to Roland Garros, nothing else. Thus, Nadal being unable to breadstick and bagel Gonzalez outside of Roland Garros is totally irrelevant.
 
I suspect rationality is useless but.....

Tennis gives a big advantage to the server and therefore anyone with a half-decent serve is going to have a good chance of not being bagelled or breadsticked. Demanding that Fed breadsticks or bagels a decent server on a fast court to prove he's a great player is ludicrous.

Your hero agrees. He was actually on camera at the Laver Cup telling Fed to stay very aggressive on his returns against Isner BECAUSE he already had the break and it would prevent Isner from getting into rhythm on his forehand. So Fed isn't going to go for a double break a lot of the time IF he is confident in his own serve - and he has the backing of Nadal in that logic.

And yes, Nadal on clay is the most dominant force we have ever seen on a single surface, everyone should agree with that.
Well then if Fed isn't capable of doing this, then he isn't that special to warrant such threads of such low standards for such a supposed 'great' player. Since Fed's 'peak' performances as mentioned in this thread, such as against the likes of Gonzalez are far from impressive or special enough to warrant such threads. Since again, the margin between him and his opponents in his supposed 'peak' is far too small for his performances to even be noteworthy for such discussions.

A supposed 'great' player, barely beating sub-par opposition like Gonzalez by such small a margin during his 'peak', really isn't evidence of anything too 'great'. It really isn't something to be impressed with.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Don't expect balance and objectivity from those people man. Baggy was basically a talented underachiever, Anderson is kinda the opposite...
Anderson is much more dedicated than Baghdatis and played at a higher level IMO.

They're both mugs and easy opponents for a Slam final by the way.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Anderson is much more dedicated than Baghdatis and played at a higher level IMO.

They're both mugs and easy opponents for a Slam final by the way.
Baghdatis was more talented. He made a slam final at age 20. Anderson has been a journey man almost all his career. His recent success came off the back of generation useless.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Baghdatis was more talented. He made a slam final at age 20. Anderson has been a journey man almost all his career. His recent success came off the back of generation useless.
Anderson looks like an athlete. Baghdatis looks like a hobo.




 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Anderson looks like an athlete. Baghdatis looks like a hobo.




irrelevant and very convenient of you to choose a photo of Baghdatis in the twilight of his career. The Brazilian Ronaldo also looked like a fat hobo in his latter years, doesn't take anything away from how good he was in his prime.
 

ForehandRF

Professional

Yeah, Nadal was in his first WImbledon final, but we don't have to overlook the mental aspect of the game.Nadal beat Fed earlier that year in Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome & RG and their h2h before the match was 6-1 in Rafa's favor.Fed wasn't "pleased" to face Rafa here and I think he didn't play as freely as he could have otherwise.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame

Yeah, Nadal was in his first WImbledon final, but we don't have to overlook the mental aspect of the game.Nadal beat Fed earlier that year in Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome & RG and their h2h before the match was 6-1 in Rafa's favor.Fed wasn't "pleased" to face Rafa here and I think he didn't play as freely as he could have otherwise.
It is incredible how much both player improved over the years. Compare 2007 footage with 2019 one

 
Top