Such a pity what the powers the be have done to Federer

SublimeTennis

Professional
First, some definitions, when I say "Fast Court" in reference to the last 10 years, I mean "Faster Courts in a SUPER SLOW COURT ERA", I'm NOT referring to fast courts of all of tennis history, "Of all time", sound familiar?

The sponsors have slowed down the courts so they can get longer matches, more advertising.

Now if you don't understand the basics, that is Nadal, Novak, etc. play BETTER on very slow courts, and Federer and others play better on FASTER courts, please don't respond if you don't know that.

Fed started in the 80's and 90's on fast courts, all-court but mainly serve and volley. He becomes pro, the courts are still relatively fast, and (By the way these are indisputable facts), every year the courts slow down, IE they've changed the sand and grass at Wimbledon, added sand to AO and US Open courts, bottom line courts are slow, this gives guys like Nadal, Novak TIME, and I freely admit, you give them time, let them get into a groove from the baseline, they are unbeatable. Likewise, you put Fed on a faster court where they do not have time and it's not even close. The fact that a 34 year old Fed can still compete in Finals against Nadal and Djokovich on slow courts is a testament to his versatility.

Now if they would have kept the courts FAST, as in 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's fast, Fed would be in the high 20's GS's. I always say GS's are not the determining factor, that's like saying Rocky Marciano was the GOAT because he was undefeated, it's your competition and what you do against them, it's your ability to play on fast and slow courts.

Has everyone not noticed that on FASTER courts like Dubai and Cincinnati, Fed PLAYS with Djokovich? Bottom line Federer has been screwed by the universal slowing down of courts, if they were simply kept the same way Federer would be in the deep 20's GS's, and THAT DOES mean something.

I think Nadal is the greatest modern slow court player of all time, with Novak second, but OF ALL TIME? Why? Because being injured doesn't mean you are less talented, it just means you can't compete because you are injured, he would be past 18 GS's if not for injuries. Get real, Nadal with a 65" wood racquet, Gut, no time to set up, you'd never hear of him. We KNOW Fed could play great under the same circumstances.

Here is my proof once again the GS wins do not matter that much. A 20 year old player starts lets say 2005, his winning percentage is 100%, he plays for two years, wins all eight Grand Slams, then at 22 retires. Do we say he's not the best player of all time because he retired? Of course not, for we know if he continued he'd probably continue this for some time.

So this is why Fed is the GOAT, it's OF ALL TIME my friends. And please don't bring up Agassi, he used a 107 Inch racquet with Gut yes, but used very compact, short shots.

I think the best example is the GOAT, Sampras until Federer, when Fed beat him on super fast Wimbledon both with PS85's and Gut, then give Fed a 90 with Gut and Luxilon, PLUS GROWING INTO A PLAYER and you have a Sampras who got better.

Don't worry Fed fans, He's the GOAT, but watch how many respond in ignorance of court speed.
 
Last edited:

90's Clay

Banned
I don't know if Wimbledon is as slow today as the French was in the 90s. If it was, Fed wouldn't still be reaching Wimbledon finals because he doesn't do too well on slow courts anymore .

The French in the 90s was very slow. More like Monte Carlo today
 

90's Clay

Banned
Fed would obviously have more slams if they sped the courts up but then his competition would be absolute trash because all the top players are nothing but slow court specialists today


Lets add in the fact, literally no one has an all court game today. No one knows how to volley, no one is good with approach shots, no one is really comfortable anywhere except the baseline


So he would essentially be playing in an era with NO fast court specialists with no all court games and playing a bunch of slow grinder specialists under HIS conditions? Sounds weak to me.

ANd really they haven't done much to Federer. Federer still got plenty of years to inflate his resume under faster conditions in the early-mid 2000's. IF he was playing all these slow court grinders under their conditions his entire career, his resume wouldn't be so nice.
 

billboard

Rookie
Fred has only shown up to get his scraps of dessert. Novak isn't letting him and mirka marcos enjoy anything. Novak has collected his ranking points and won't cry like the moping Swiss did at 2009 Australian open.
Fact is, Fred was struggling against his muppet Roddick, Blake, fish and Isner on "non injury-causing" courts. The clown never had the chance to dominate the tour even when he was gifted slams in 2009. it's a desperate attempt on your part to create Fred floon excitement.
CJwlqVHWEAQnLC8.jpg
 

billboard

Rookie
Novak is not a grinder. He'd be desperate to win every match if he was grinding like Rafa. Novak can't risk injury or fake a back injury, as Fred did on the fast court on which Novak humiliated him. Novak has many more ranking points than in 2011 but the Fred fiends don't like to accept it. In 2006, Fred got most his ranking points when cows were grazing on hard courts and couldn't get out of the stadium fast enough to cry.
Fed would obviously have more slams if they sped the courts up but then his competition would be absolute trash because all the top players are nothing but slow court specialists today


Lets add in the fact, literally no one has an all court game today. No one knows how to volley, no one is good with approach shots, no one is really comfortable anywhere except the baseline


So he would essentially be playing in an era with NO fast court specialists with no all court games and playing a bunch of slow grinder specialists under HIS conditions? Sounds weak to me.

ANd really they haven't done much to Federer. Federer still got plenty of years to inflate his resume under faster conditions in the early-mid 2000's. IF he was playing all these slow court grinders under their conditions his entire career, his resume wouldn't be so nice.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Fred has only shown up to get his scraps of dessert. Novak isn't letting him and mirka marcos enjoy anything. Novak has collected his ranking points and won't cry like the moping Swiss did at 2009 Australian open.
Fact is, Fred was struggling against his muppet Roddick, Blake, fish and Isner on "non injury-causing" courts. The clown never had the chance to dominate the tour even when he was gifted slams in 2009. it's a desperate attempt on your part to create Fred floon excitement.
CJwlqVHWEAQnLC8.jpg
Winning 3 slams a year isn't dominating? Which old troll are you by the way?
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
Apart from ATP's own estimates?

No

:D

No joking, don't respond to people who don't have a clue. Here is what Novak said himself today:
"I think he's more aggressive here than in any other tournament because the surface and conditions allow him to play very fast," said Djokovic. "He generally copes well with the fast balls, the fast game. He likes this rhythm.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Fred has only shown up to get his scraps of dessert. Novak isn't letting him and mirka marcos enjoy anything. Novak has collected his ranking points and won't cry like the moping Swiss did at 2009 Australian open.
Fact is, Fred was struggling against his muppet Roddick, Blake, fish and Isner on "non injury-causing" courts. The clown never had the chance to dominate the tour even when he was gifted slams in 2009. it's a desperate attempt on your part to create Fred floon excitement.
CJwlqVHWEAQnLC8.jpg
Utter joke of a poster.
What are you still doing here?

Enjoy the defeat today?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Today Wimbledon is as slow as FO in the 90's, this is FACT. The sponsors have slowed down the courts so they can get longer matches, more advertising.

Now if you don't understand the basics, that is Nadal, Novak, etc.
I'm not sure you've got it all right here. The networks who pay for TV rights apparently want shorter matches - we're told this ALL the time. They're easier to schedule.

While understanding the basics sounds like a good highlight point I'm afraid you're 10 years too late with this opinion.
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
Fed would obviously have more slams if they sped the courts up but then his competition would be absolute trash because all the top players are nothing but slow court specialists today


Lets add in the fact, literally no one has an all court game today. No one knows how to volley, no one is good with approach shots, no one is really comfortable anywhere except the baseline


So he would essentially be playing in an era with NO fast court specialists with no all court games and playing a bunch of slow grinder specialists under HIS conditions? Sounds weak to me.

ANd really they haven't done much to Federer. Federer still got plenty of years to inflate his resume under faster conditions in the early-mid 2000's. IF he was playing all these slow court grinders under their conditions his entire career, his resume wouldn't be so nice.

Minus that fact that Federer superseded your idol, I don't see why you aren't a fan of Federer's :confused:. He has all the traits in his game that you so long for.. I don't really get it :confused::confused:
 
Minus that fact that Federer superseded your idol, I don't see why you aren't a fan of Federer's :confused:. He has all the traits in his game that you so long for.. I don't really get it :confused::confused:

That is because he wasn't a fan of the said player in the first place.

OK, OK, that was just a wild guess on my part.

:)
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
Yes, poor Roger. 17 Grand Slams, 7 Wimbledons, Career Grand Slam, Davis Cup, all time weeks at world #1 record...

How will that clown sleep at night with his pathetic resume?
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
If the court speeds were comparable to prior eras, perhaps folks like Tsonga etc. would've taken some of those "faster" slams from Fed. It's not like Federer wins every slam Nadal and Djokovic theoretically lose if the courts were faster/more variable (though he'd surely win some, though as well I'm not convinced that fellow greats of this era would automatically lose 'em).

Let's not also ignore the move to 32 seeds in 2001, which has surely helped prop up all the sudden consecutive QF/SF streaks of the 21st century.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
If the court speeds were comparable to prior eras, perhaps folks like Tsonga etc. would've taken some of those "faster" slams from Fed. It's not like Federer wins every slam Nadal and Djokovic theoretically lose if the courts were faster/more variable (though he'd surely win some, though as well I'm not convinced that fellow greats of this era would automatically lose 'em).

Let's not also ignore the move to 32 seeds in 2001, which has surely helped prop up all the sudden consecutive QF/SF streaks of the 21st century.

I agree. Good post. I still think if courts were generally faster though, Federer would be better off than Djokovic, Nadal or Murray. It's essentially a trade off between how many tournaments you think Federer would lose at the hands of guys like Tsonga or Berdych or a few other fast court guys in a "fast court" era and how many he's lost to the other "Big 4" members in the "slower" court era. That said, he'd still lose a few (most of them) to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic even under "faster" court conditions because those guys would still be, consistently, the best and are still awesome players, but I would still take the "faster" court option as favouring Federer more than the conditions of today. He's always been more of an attacking player than the other 3 and that would help more on fast courts. In fact, I always felt that the courts slowed down more as the years went by.

If I watch a video from Wimbledon 2003 or 2004 and then watch one from Wimbledon 2007 it's like night and day IMO. Same with the USO. I still found the courts pretty fast in the mid 2000's.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing on the "powers that be." Would I like there to be more fast courts and variety? Yes, but I'm not going to cry for a 17 time slam champion.
 
Last edited:

Wilander Fan

Hall of Fame
Federer, IMO, is a victim of his own success in that tournaments started slowing down their tournament hoping to get a Fedal showdown. Back in 2007, Federer had been thrashing everyone for over 3 years with the exception of Nadal on very slow surfaces. It was the only thing even resembling a rivalry back then. Even as a Federer fan, it was getting tedious. So on the one hand, its too bad Federer didn't get to stack onto his nintendo like stats and records. On the other hand, Federer has nintendo like stats and record. Also, its not just the surfaces that were slowed. The tennis balls are bigger and fluffier than they were 10 years ago.
 

Steve132

Professional
The move to 32 seeds may have helped certain players, but it's hard to see how it affected peak Federer's performance. Here is a complete list of all Federer's losses in Grand Slam events between 2004 and 2009:

2004: French Open - Kuerten (third round)
2005: Australian Open - Safin (semi-final), French Open - Nadal (semi-final)
2006: French Open - Nadal (final)
2007: French Open - Nadal (final)
2008: Australian Open - Djokovic (semi-final), French Open - Nadal (final) Wimbledon - Nadal (final)
2009: Australian Open - Nadal (final), U.S. Open - del Potro (final)

With the sole exception of Kuerten all of these players were ranked in the Top 10 when these matches were played. Peak Federer was virtually invulnerable against all but the best players in the majors, which is why he was able to reach 18 of 19 consecutive finals and 23 straight semi-finals. These streaks did not depend on seeding changes.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
The move to 32 seeds may have helped certain players, but it's hard to see how it affected peak Federer's performance. Here is a complete list of all Federer's losses in Grand Slam events between 2004 and 2009:

2004: French Open - Kuerten (third round)
2005: Australian Open - Safin (semi-final), French Open - Nadal (semi-final)
2006: French Open - Nadal (final)
2007: French Open - Nadal (final)
2008: Australian Open - Djokovic (semi-final), French Open - Nadal (final) Wimbledon - Nadal (final)
2009: Australian Open - Nadal (final), U.S. Open - del Potro (final)

With the sole exception of Kuerten all of these players were ranked in the Top 10 when these matches were played. Peak Federer was virtually invulnerable against all but the best players in the majors, which is why he was able to reach 18 of 19 consecutive finals and 23 straight semi-finals. These streaks did not depend on seeding changes.

I have no doubt that peak Fed would have put together an exceptional run of consistency under any seeding system. But the point stands that he and the other recent top guys are reaching the latter stages of events facing fewer dangerous floaters than in prior eras. Several players capable of zoning on a given day and cratering the next - names like Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Gonzalez, etc. - were seeded 17-32 in GS draws throughout the mid-2000s. There's just a lot less volatility in the early rounds with those types locked into the draw.

Anyway, the broader point I'm making is that these results don't exist in a vacuum - if GS surface speeds were more variable and attacking tennis was a greater part of the modern game, lots of different things could've happened. Maybe Safin wins a few more majors early on and dedicates himself more to the game after the sweet smell of consistent success; maybe Del Potro's wrist issues don't flare up because points are on the whole shorter; maybe Nadal develops the flatter hitting he displayed at times in '04 and '05; maybe Roddick busts through Fed in the '04 Wimbledon final, or Henman snatches a late Wimbledon crown on the old grass during his brief '03-'04 revival; maybe Tsonga wins a major around when Novak won his first and proceeds forward with the confidence of a slam winner.

My favorite Federer season (and therefore one of my favorites of any player) is 2004, because he flat out demoralized his peers, and paved the way for his brilliant '05 and '06 and great '07. Does that gathering of momentum and accumulated aura still come to pass under less homogenized conditions? Maybe (I certainly wouldn't put anything past '04 Rog). But maybe not.
 

Steve132

Professional
Eldanger 25: "Dangerous floaters" posed very few problems for peak Federer. Players like Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt could challenge him, but only when they were playing well - that is, when they were in the Top 10. We are not talking about a small sample set, since there were 24 majors played from 2004 to 2009 inclusive. Federer was rarely threatened by anyone outside the Top ten in majors played during that period. He might have been pushed to a fifth set on occasion, but by and large lost only to clay GOAT Nadal on clay or to a great player playing exceptional tennis (Safin and Djokovic at AO 2005 and 2008 respectively). I'm still at a loss to see how seeding played a significant role in his results.

Obviously, no one can say definitively what would have happened if surface homogenization had not occurred. But let's take a look at the form that this homogenization took. It did not consist of a movement to some neutral court speed, but rather involved primarily the slowing of the surfaces at the two fastest majors, Wimbledon and the U.S Open. The fall and summer hard courts were also slowed, and indoor carpet, a very fast surface, has been replaced by slow to medium hard courts. The slower surfaces - clay, the Australian Open and the spring Masters events - have not changed much, if at all.

These changes have produced losers as well as winners. The losers are the players who prefer faster surfaces. This category includes Hewitt, Roddick, and more recently players such as Stepanek and Tsonga. Federer very much belongs there, but Safin, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray do not. You can speculate all you want about what might have happened in this alternate universe, but analysts and players more or less universally agree that Federer would win more rather than less in a world in which faster surfaces had not been slowed. Peter Bodo, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick have all said as much. I don't believe that this would have made a huge difference to Federer's slam count, for the simple reason that at his peak he won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open every year anyway. The chances are that post-peak Federer would have picked up another major or two, but I'm not prepared to award hypothetical majors to players as lavishly as some fanboys do. The bottom line, however, is that it's not plausible to consider Federer a beneficiary of surface homogenization, at least in the form in which this homogenization has occurred over the past fifteen years.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I would have had more sympathy for Fed in this regard if he spoke against the elimination of carpet instead of agreeing with it (when in 2007 Paris switched from carpet to a medium slow HC to attract top players).

Anyway, the broader point I'm making is that these results don't exist in a vacuum - if GS surface speeds were more variable and attacking tennis was a greater part of the modern game, lots of different things could've happened. Maybe Safin wins a few more majors early on and dedicates himself more to the game after the sweet smell of consistent success; maybe Del Potro's wrist issues don't flare up because points are on the whole shorter; maybe Nadal develops the flatter hitting he displayed at times in '04 and '05; maybe Roddick busts through Fed in the '04 Wimbledon final, or Henman snatches a late Wimbledon crown on the old grass during his brief '03-'04 revival; maybe Tsonga wins a major around when Novak won his first and proceeds forward with the confidence of a slam winner.

All good points but you forget that Fed also might have developed into more of an all-courter. We saw recently how much success he had on a fast surface against younger rivals (that have excellent defense) even in an advanced age by playing aggressive all-court tennis, just imagine if the conditions were such that he saw the benefit earlier and focused on that part of his game (instead of letting it rust) when he had faster feet and could hit a bigger FH (and thus a better approach shot). He might have had even better results in the 2nd half of his career (say from the age of 28-29 onward) even if he wouldn't have had that period of extreme dominance when he was the best baseliner in the world (aside from Nadal on clay).

Heck, I'd say he would have definitely been even more fun to watch at the very least.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
All good points but you forget that Fed also might have developed into more of an all-courter. We saw recently how much success he had on a fast surface against younger rivals (that have excellent defense) even in an advanced age by playing aggressive all-court tennis, just imagine if the conditions were such that he saw the benefit earlier and focused on that part of his game (instead of letting it rust) when he had faster feet and could hit a bigger FH (and thus a better approach shot). He might have had even better results in the 2nd half of his career (say from the age of 28-29 onward) even if he wouldn't have had that period of extreme dominance when he was the best baseliner in the world (aside from Nadal on clay).

Heck, I'd say he would have definitely been even more fun to watch at the very least.

Very true - I just wanted to broaden the view beyond Nadal/Djokovic -5 majors, Federer +5 majors. I agree with just about all of this (including that he'd have been a blast to watch).
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Eldanger 25: "Dangerous floaters" posed very few problems for peak Federer. Players like Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt could challenge him, but only when they were playing well - that is, when they were in the Top 10. We are not talking about a small sample set, since there were 24 majors played from 2004 to 2009 inclusive. Federer was rarely threatened by anyone outside the Top ten in majors played during that period. He might have been pushed to a fifth set on occasion, but by and large lost only to clay GOAT Nadal on clay or to a great player playing exceptional tennis (Safin and Djokovic at AO 2005 and 2008 respectively). I'm still at a loss to see how seeding played a significant role in his results.

Obviously, no one can say definitively what would have happened if surface homogenization had not occurred. But let's take a look at the form that this homogenization took. It did not consist of a movement to some neutral court speed, but rather involved primarily the slowing of the surfaces at the two fastest majors, Wimbledon and the U.S Open. The fall and summer hard courts were also slowed, and indoor carpet, a very fast surface, has been replaced by slow to medium hard courts. The slower surfaces - clay, the Australian Open and the spring Masters events - have not changed much, if at all.

These changes have produced losers as well as winners. The losers are the players who prefer faster surfaces. This category includes Hewitt, Roddick, and more recently players such as Stepanek and Tsonga. Federer very much belongs there, but Safin, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray do not. You can speculate all you want about what might have happened in this alternate universe, but analysts and players more or less universally agree that Federer would win more rather than less in a world in which faster surfaces had not been slowed. Peter Bodo, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick have all said as much. I don't believe that this would have made a huge difference to Federer's slam count, for the simple reason that at his peak he won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open every year anyway. The chances are that post-peak Federer would have picked up another major or two, but I'm not prepared to award hypothetical majors to players as lavishly as some fanboys do. The bottom line, however, is that it's not plausible to consider Federer a beneficiary of surface homogenization, at least in the form in which this homogenization has occurred over the past fifteen years.

There's a momentum to a career, and conditions/seeding play a role in that. Fed is one of the most adaptable players of all time, so I agree that he'd have been just fine overall, but there are folks out there who may've flourished under more variable conditions even with peak Fed in the mix. He might still have had 17 majors (or more) plus all the other stats, but those may've been earned in a different way, and we may've seen a few more guys win 1-3 slams than we currently have - that's about the long and the short of what I'm trying to say.
 
There's a momentum to a career, and conditions/seeding play a role in that. Fed is one of the most adaptable players of all time, so I agree that he'd have been just fine overall, but there are folks out there who may've flourished under more variable conditions even with peak Fed in the mix. He might still have had 17 majors (or more) plus all the other stats, but those may've been earned in a different way, and we may've seen a few more guys win 1-3 slams than we currently have - that's about the long and the short of what I'm trying to say.
Guga had his "prime"career cut short by injuries etc. By the time he achieved YE #1 he hadbecome a serious threat on HC and would have posed serious problems at AO and USO for anyone had he not been curtailed.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
They've been speeding up all pro circuit courts all over the world every year since Miami 2004.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Guga had his "prime"career cut short by injuries etc. By the time he achieved YE #1 he hadbecome a serious threat on HC and would have posed serious problems at AO and USO for anyone had he not been curtailed.

Yes, Kuerten's hip issues are one of the most disappointing/frustrating injuries I can remember. He was really tremendous, and had some great runs on HCs (I remember well his amazing run through a tough draw at the '01 edition of Cincinnati - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_Masters_–_Singles)
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
Roger Federer dominated tennis like nobody has ever dominated tennis before on slow courts. Up till 2011 he could go toe to toe with just about anybody just about anywhere. If the argument is that they should have sped the courts up when he got old then that's not much of an argument.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
One other note about faster surfaces/conditions, it's not always easy to tell on first sight who would benefit. Many mentioned Tsonga here for his big all-court game yet his record at AO and FO is much better than his record at USO, he also regularly gets bounced early at Cincy (which many consider to be the among the fastest masters title). A counter-puncher like Murray who gets called out on supposedly being a boring pusher actually has better results on some faster surfaces compared to Jo and anyone who followed Hewitt for example (another counter-puncher) knows his preference for faster courts.

I think two players that I'm pretty sure would benefit from faster courts are Nalbandian and Davydenko.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
High 20s is a tad much. The simple math tells you he wouldn't be getting that far.

Add in the slower courts have allowed the older legs to carry forth. To that end, what Federer did in 2012 for example may not have been possible with 90s fast courts.

A 3 Slam average over 7 seasons would net you 21. That's obscene in it of itself. To pretend like 28 or 29 are mathematically possible is a tad presumptions in today's era. Next generation conditioning and medicine may make it possible though.
 

Numero Uno

Semi-Pro
First, some definitions, when I say "Fast Court" in reference to the last 10 years, I mean "Faster Courts in a SUPER SLOW COURT ERA", I'm NOT referring to fast courts of all of tennis history, "Of all time", sound familiar?

Today Wimbledon is as slow as FO in the 90's, this is FACT. The sponsors have slowed down the courts so they can get longer matches, more advertising.

Now if you don't understand the basics, that is Nadal, Novak, etc. play BETTER on very slow courts, and Federer and others play better on FASTER courts, please don't respond if you don't know that.

Fed started in the 80's and 90's on fast courts, all-court but mainly serve and volley. He becomes pro, the courts are still relatively fast, and (By the way these are indisputable facts), every year the courts slow down, IE they've changed the sand and grass at Wimbledon, added sand to AO and US Open courts, bottom line courts are slow, this gives guys like Nadal, Novak TIME, and I freely admit, you give them time, let them get into a groove from the baseline, they are unbeatable. Likewise, you put Fed on a faster court where they do not have time and it's not even close. The fact that a 34 year old Fed can still compete in Finals against Nadal and Djokovich on slow courts is a testament to his versatility.

Now if they would have kept the courts FAST, as in 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's fast, Fed would be in the high 20's GS's. I always say GS's are not the determining factor, that's like saying Rocky Marciano was the GOAT because he was undefeated, it's your competition and what you do against them, it's your ability to play on fast and slow courts.

Has everyone not noticed that on FASTER courts like Dubai and Cincinnati, Fed PLAYS with Djokovich? Bottom line Federer has been screwed by the universal slowing down of courts, if they were simply kept the same way Federer would be in the deep 20's GS's, and THAT DOES mean something.

I think Nadal is the greatest modern slow court player of all time, with Novak second, but OF ALL TIME? Why? Because being injured doesn't mean you are less talented, it just means you can't compete because you are injured, he would be past 18 GS's if not for injuries. Get real, Nadal with a 65" wood racquet, Gut, no time to set up, you'd never hear of him. We KNOW Fed could play great under the same circumstances.

Here is my proof once again the GS wins do not matter that much. A 20 year old player starts lets say 2005, his winning percentage is 100%, he plays for two years, wins all eight Grand Slams, then at 22 retires. Do we say he's not the best player of all time because he retired? Of course not, for we know if he continued he'd probably continue this for some time.

So this is why Fed is the GOAT, it's OF ALL TIME my friends. And please don't bring up Agassi, he used a 107 Inch racquet with Gut yes, but used very compact, short shots.

I think the best example is the GOAT, Sampras until Federer, when Fed beat him on super fast Wimbledon both with PS85's and Gut, then give Fed a 90 with Gut and Luxilon, PLUS GROWING INTO A PLAYER and you have a Sampras who got better.

Don't worry Fed fans, He's the GOAT, but watch how many respond in ignorance of court speed.
Why do to you think that tennis should be played on fast courts? The game is evolving, new racquets and strings give players mkre spin and power and you have yo slow the courts down or every point will be finished after serve.. And i dont think that courts are too slow, there is nice blend of everything, slow hard, fast hard, clay, grass... There is a need for a masters tournament on grass though..
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Guga had his "prime"career cut short by injuries etc. By the time he achieved YE #1 he hadbecome a serious threat on HC and would have posed serious problems at AO and USO for anyone had he not been curtailed.

Guga played great in 2000 Masters Cup to clinch #1 (over Safin), beat Sampras in SF and Agassi in F. Damn shame his career was cut short by injuries, he was the only guy that made CC tennis entertaining to watch.

You think Roddick would be a fair witness? He played in all the slams in 2002 and played on the same courts until he retired. In his radio show, he said, "No contest. Courts when I started were super fast, later on, not so much. By 2007 or '08, courts that were once slick had turned into molasses."

Argue with that,

Did you hear it yourself on the radio or saw it written if some article? If it's the latter, could you post a link?
 
Yes, Kuerten's hip issues are one of the most disappointing/frustrating injuries I can remember. He was really tremendous, and had some great runs on HCs (I remember well his amazing run through a tough draw at the '01 edition of Cincinnati - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_Masters_–_Singles)
Yeah, Fed even said of him something like "the most stylish player ever" ... what an amazing game he had. Indomitable and when he was on you really had to appreciate it. Played the net well too with fantastic point construction even at the French.
 
Top