What type of a player is best suited to beat Federer in Grand Slams?

tenniscp

Semi-Pro
First of, I am not a *******, or any other epithet that people use to describe
die hard Federer fans.

Fed's 2010 Australian Open draw was more interesting than ever before, for it offered a wide variety of different playing styles from Roger's opponents. With the exception of Hanescu and Montanes, other five matches represented five different playing styles.

1R) Andreev, a player with a big weapon (i hope nobody will argue that Igor possesses one of the top 5 biggest forehands in tennis today). Takes Federer to 4 sets, has chances to go uup 2 sets to 1. Did not get it done!
R16) Hewitt. A classical counterpuncher with no weapons, except for his movement and high percentage tennis. Federer beats him in three routine sets.
Quarters) Davydenko. An ultra aggressive baseliner, who takes away your time and can hurt you on both sides. Was destroying Federer, unsettled him and almost made him look ordinary for first set and a half and second half of the fourth set. Definitely, the sort of game to beat Roger, yet found it hard to maintain the level for best of 5. Federer wavers the storm and beats him soundly. Federer was definitely panicking way more than he would like to admit.
Semis) Tsonga. Powerful, physically intimidating, yet free flowing, aggressive baseliner with a big serve and sound net game (not so much for crisp volleys, as for his ability to move into the court quickly and cover the net). Granted, did not play his best tennis against Roger, yet it was obvious that his ball did not bother Roger and when Federer has time he will not lose.
Finals) Murray. A physical counterpuncher, great tactician with pretty much all the feel and shots in his repertoire. Played high level for two sets 1&3 and yet fell in three.

So, Roger had to face pretty much every type of a modern player with the exception of S&V game and yet came away with a title.

I want to know what style of a player (obviously playing at a high level) is best suited to beat Federer, or plainly put, be a nightmare match up?

I do expect many to say Nadal, and that we all know that he was able to do it against Fed. But something tells me that the way Roger was hitting his backhand against Murray and Davydenko, and throughout the whole tournament (with the exception of the first set against Davy), he would have had a good chance to prevail even against Nadal.
 

Gaudio2004

Semi-Pro
Going very deep into analysis here, but Murray (on his best form) is a harder player to beat than Nadal (on his best form) for Federer, because Nadal is extremely defensive against Federer, thus every time they play Federer attacks and sometimes it works, sometimes not - the matches are usually on Federer's hands.

Against Murray, Federer cannot be aggressive neither can he be passive, too passive - Murray's backhand dominates, too aggressive - Federer makes errors.

To beat Federer you need a huge forehand - Nadal and Djokovic's victories in AO 2008 and 2009 show this, you need a great tactician's mind (Murray) and you need to mix your shots between flat and topspin (Andreev).

That's the kind of player who would really get on Federer's nerve.
 
1. Why didn't you make this a poll
2. Davydenko or Murray. I'd say Davydenko has better odds than Murray solely because Davydenko can really hurt federer from both sides.
 

Gaudio2004

Semi-Pro
1. Why didn't you make this a poll
2. Davydenko or Murray. I'd say Davydenko has better odds than Murray solely because Davydenko can really hurt federer from both sides.
Federer 13-2 Davydenko.

Ridiculous.

Federer beat Davydenko 12 times in a row by the way.

Davydenko is hopeless against Federer, the 13-2 record proves it.

Murray has a 6-5 record against Federer, Nadal 13-7, those 2 players are better equipped to deal damage.
 

xrxpapi12

Rookie
A healthy Nadal or any other lefty with a powerful forehand and a good tactician with it mixing up between topspin and flats.
 

tenniscp

Semi-Pro
Going very deep into analysis here, but Murray (on his best form) is a harder player to beat than Nadal (on his best form) for Federer, because Nadal is extremely defensive against Federer, thus every time they play Federer attacks and sometimes it works, sometimes not - the matches are usually on Federer's hands.

Against Murray, Federer cannot be aggressive neither can he be passive, too passive - Murray's backhand dominates, too aggressive - Federer makes errors.

To beat Federer you need a huge forehand - Nadal and Djokovic's victories in AO 2008 and 2009 show this, you need a great tactician's mind (Murray) and you need to mix your shots between flat and topspin (Andreev).

That's the kind of player who would really get on Federer's nerve.

Good points! So are you saying that one has to combine four players into one jsut to have a chance to beat Federer?

Maybe the question should be whose best is better than Federer's best? Ithought that Safin's was, I think Murray's could be, Tsonga's best could beat Fed's maybe.
 

prjacobs

Hall of Fame
Going very deep into analysis here, but Murray (on his best form) is a harder player to beat than Nadal (on his best form) for Federer, because Nadal is extremely defensive against Federer, thus every time they play Federer attacks and sometimes it works, sometimes not - the matches are usually on Federer's hands.

Against Murray, Federer cannot be aggressive neither can he be passive, too passive - Murray's backhand dominates, too aggressive - Federer makes errors.

To beat Federer you need a huge forehand - Nadal and Djokovic's victories in AO 2008 and 2009 show this, you need a great tactician's mind (Murray) and you need to mix your shots between flat and topspin (Andreev).

That's the kind of player who would really get on Federer's nerve.

Am I wrong here... Didn't Federer go for his shots and basically crush Murray. Yes, Murray came back out of desperation in the 3rd set, but Federer also tightened up when he saw the end in sight. And Murray still couldn't win that 3rd set. It seems to me that a big player like Del Potro who can bash forehands at Federer has the best chance. However, if Federer keeps up his current level of play, no one will beat him in the slams... In my opinion:).
 

Tony48

Legend
Nadal. Not only does he have the game, but psychology plays a huge role in their Grand Slam match-ups, too. Nadal has beaten Federer on all 3 surfaces and that alone is enough plant the seeds of doubt.

Nadal has superior defense as well as incredible offense and that topspin just drives Fed nuts.
 

DoubleDeuce

Hall of Fame
"best suited"

You would have to add these 3:

  1. Nadal's fighting spirits
  2. Murray's fitness
  3. Davydenko's game style

There you have it.
 

Ledigs

Legend
Nadal dp and Murray. Fed was just on fire. Not murrays fault. But when Feds on fire nadal can fight his way back into the match and often takes a mental advantage from the getgo
 

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
The answer is very simple: Nadal at the top. Leftie, huge, high topspin to bother Fed.

That doesn't bother Murray as much with Nadal, as he's taller and physically stronger than Fed.

However, Murray doesn't have the initiative, the originality and the artistry of Federer. No one, for that matter, does.
 

sh@de

Hall of Fame
Delpo on fire is definitely a hard matchup for Fed. So is Nadal. I actually don't see Murray as that much of a threat (right now anyways) because even if Murray is aggressive, he'll make errors. The reason I say that is because Murray is not used to playing that type of game, so in the big points, he's going to make mistakes. Murray simply doesn't have the experience in playing aggressive on big points, whereas Delpo and Nadal do.
 

Rorsach

Hall of Fame
The most important thing a player needs against Federer is to have his head screwed on right.They need to be on fire for 3 sets in a row and not be intimidated by him.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
A player that can get back so many balls Fed has to hit too many. Then also Federer needs to have a shanking day. A BIG hitter like Safin or Del Potro stands a chance, but you gotta be so red hot in form that it's unlikely to happen. You basically have to hit every groundstroke 200 mph and hit 0 unforced errors.
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
I don't Federer can be beaten by Del Potro/Söderling/Verdasco when he has a more or less good day. Murray's Chances are way higher, maybe not as high as Nadals but still.

Nadal's topspin on Federers backhand is not to compare with the shots Murray gave him on the backhand.

Davydenko, I don't know. For six years the matches always have been kinda close and almost everytime Federer won. 12 times in a row. And I think he should've beaten him in London too. I really do.
The only match davydenko really earned was the Doha win. But there again it was "only" preparation for the AO...
 

namelessone

Legend
I'd say a combination of Murray and Verdasco

A guy who plays passive tennis(at least against fed) and a renowned choker are the best combination to beat Fed? Brilliant.:)

Federer gets frustrated by guys that can keep the ball in play and mess up his natural game. With Federer you need to glitch his game with a mega-weapon like Nadal's spin or DelPo's forehand. I believe that Fed should have won USO but no one can deny the big guy's progress against the swiss.

Nadal basically ties Roger's hands by molesting his BH and going for the open court while Roger is pinned down. This has happened time and time again. He glitches Fed's game when he hits deep and with spin. When DelPo woke up in the USO final he hit some of the biggest forehands I have ever seen,he was literally making fed shank left and right because there was too much power on that shot. I though Fed did very well to win a set after the second one,just show how resilient he is. People forget that even the guys that match-up very well against Roger usually need 4 sets or more to dispatch him.

So basically you need to have something to bother him,you need to stay in there mentally and you must not let up while you are leading or he will make you pay. And you must really take your chances when you can. See Davydenko and Andreev at this AO. Like any big player Fed is genuinely shocked when he is shaken but with him you need to keep shaking him or else he won't crumble.

It is very tough to beat Roger Federer in a Slam.
 

downdaline

Professional
I also notice that at the slams, Roger's winning percentage on the second serve is noticeably higher.

I think a good player that can attack his second serve would also hurt Federer in the slams. I'm thinking Nalbandian, but that hasnt happened in reality so far... hehe...
 

defrule

Professional
Be able to maintain intensity for 3 straight sets. Going beyond that things can start to tip in Federer's favour.
 

raging

Professional
Be able to maintain intensity for 3 straight sets. Going beyond that things can start to tip in Federer's favour.

it isn't enough for 3 sets, even if you play great, that won't get it done.
Blasting Federer off the court in a Grand Slam final hasn't been done in 3 sets, yet! The intensity has to be there for all 5 sets(like nadal) or you survive long enough and have enough weapons(Delpo) to finish him. This sustained pressure may make fed wilt but you have to pull the trigger in a GS Final and that is so tough for anyone to do.
Big servers with big groundies obviously have the best chance but they have to get through to a final first with that sort of tennis. The best chance is obviously to get federer in an early round where he isn't set and maybe not 100%. He is that tough.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
it isn't enough for 3 sets, even if you play great, that won't get it done.
Blasting Federer off the court in a Grand Slam final hasn't been done in 3 sets, yet! The intensity has to be there for all 5 sets(like nadal) or you survive long enough and have enough weapons(Delpo) to finish him. This sustained pressure may make fed wilt but you have to pull the trigger in a GS Final and that is so tough for anyone to do.
Big servers with big groundies obviously have the best chance but they have to get through to a final first with that sort of tennis. The best chance is obviously to get federer in an early round where he isn't set and maybe not 100%. He is that tough.

so RG 08 did not happen right?
 

tenniscp

Semi-Pro
Be able to maintain intensity for 3 straight sets. Going beyond that things can start to tip in Federer's favour.

It does not have to be three straight sets. It could be just three good sets in no particular order. Obviously it would help to be leading a set or two just to unsettle Fed even more
 

BlewByU

Semi-Pro
Someone who can serve (1st & 2nd serve) like Pete Sampras.
Someone who can do anything with backhand like Justine Henin.
Someone who can hit forehand a little better than Federer like ,, hum,, like ,, hum.
Someone who can occupy the net & demoralize Federer like Pete Sampras.
Someone who can crush lobs with devastating overhead like Pete Sampras.

------------------------------------------------------

Amongst the past lot, I think Pete Sampras can still beat Federer on regular basis.
Of course, I acknowledge that Federer boasts greater historical achievements.
But, Peter Sampras on best day vs Roger Federer on best day is another story !
I really believe Sampras would regularly beat Federer.

Among the current lot, I think if Nicolas Almagro goes thru inspirational change, he can mount a serious challenge to Federer.

What do ya think ?
 
Top