Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by TheMagicianOfPrecision, Jul 14, 2011.
Havent seen any thread discussing this yet...
Maybe because its not thaat interesting...
I'll pick Wimbledon too. The speed of the surface has taken time away from his defence, and the low bounce will probably still cause problems for his back.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if he does win #17, it could well happen at the French Open. The faster balls will be good for his attacking game, and the slower surface will give him more time to defend.
I would say grass.
Federer isn't GOAT, he hasn't had enough grass.
So Sampras is the GOAT?
So what you're saying is someone could win 20 slams (5 of each) but someone else who won 10 of one slam and no others, or 8 of one slam and one each of the others, would be better than the guy with 9 or 10 more slams than him?
Is this the latest attempt to redifine GOATness because someone hopes Nadal might get 8 French Opens?
Either that or you rate winning Wimbledon the most amount of times so high that it outranks winning the most overall. In which case Federer is the second greatest and Nadal is a long way behind, with just 2.
Anyway, in regards to the question of the thread, grass is my pick. 2 quarterfinals in the last 2 years at Wimbledon, compared to a semi and a final at the US Open, semi and a win at the Australian Open, and a final and quarter at the French.
He's doing just fine on clay though. Very interesting.
Definitely grass which is weird.
Fast HC. He used to be an automatic to win those events, but now he's just a contender.
Its funny though...clay is a young mans game, and Federer played (imo) 2 of his best matches in his career in the FO-SF and Final this year.
And the surface where he was lightyears before everyone else and dominated like crazy (grass) he has declined the most at...
Any theories on this? Why?
I think he is still very good at fast HC like Cincy and the USO.
I don't think it's necessarily grass. If it were a choice between the 4 slams, then yes, Wimbledon would be the one he's been underperforming at the most. But if there were more tournies on grass, I don't think he would overall perform the worst there. For example, I think Fed has better chances against Nadal on grass, than on slow HC, for example.
I think it's close between grass and slow HC.
Maybe clay still gives him time to chase and return the ball whereas grass he doesn't?
Last slam he won is on slow HC while the same year he almost went in the first round at Wimbledon and this year he loses 2-0 set lead there for the first time in his career, sorry but there's no comparison.
It's not just about where he has a better shot against Nadal but rather where he does worse/better against the field.
The GOAT(RaFael) has only slightly declined on carpet over the last few years.
The GOAT (Laver) hasnt played competitive tennis in decades. Thus I have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry have to disagree here. If you're going to point out that he won AO last year, then we are heading into slam territory again, which was precisely my point. If you only consider slams, then of course Fed has underperformed the most at Wimbledon. Fed hasn't the chance on more grass tournaments to prove his worth, and right now his track record on grass the last two years may just be anecdotal, who knows.
Overall, if Fed played the same amount of tournaments (slams and other tournaments) on both slow HC and grass, I think his overall success against the field would be about equal, Nadal or not. Fed has a greater shot to go deep or win tournies on hard courts in general because he has many more chances to.
As for crapping out a 2-0 sets lead to Tsonga, that was a mental cramp more than anything. He had the game to take out Tsonga fairly easily (which was why he even got a 2 sets lead in the first place).
The GOAT (Djokovic) is just entering his prime. We can't say that he has declined on anything yet. He is simply laying down the standards he plans to meet/overtake for the next half-decade.
grass since he was so good back in his prime.
I think grass, but slow HC is a close second.
Federer lost to Hewitt in the final of last year's Halle, too...so I'm not so sure.
If he's going down 2 sets to Falla (and having to break to keep from losing in 4), blowing a 2 set lead against Tsonga, losing back-to-back years in the QF at Wimbledon, and losing the final to an over-the-hill Hewitt, that's not very encouraging for his shot against strong fields in hypothetical "grass 1,000's."
The level Nadal and Djokovic played in the Wimbledon final this year, Federer would've been steamrolled going against either of them on grass. And if it were fast enough to just be a serve-and-return contest, Federer's mediocre returning and tendency to have a bad game every now and then during the match on his serve would seal his fate against guys who excel in serve/return contests.
Either way, Federer used to be virtually unbeatable on grass for the field...the courts have definitely continued to slow down since Federer won his first 3-4 Wimbledons, and his once breathtaking grass court ground game is completely non-imposing. He looks like a pusher on grass.
Sadly, it's spot on.
Yup, green clay is not much fun to watch.
yeah, keep telling yourself that one, lmao
Good points and I agree for the most part. It's just that I don't feel Fed these days is secure on just about any surface. He could lose on any given day to decent opponents, especially on grass and slow HC, imo. I don't feel any more confident when Roger is on slow HC than when he's on grass, is my point. I can usually count on him to make things "interesting" (or even lose) on those two surfaces in particular.
LOL Nadal Agassi
This poll is invalid as Federer isn't the GOAT. He did have a great run though.
Yeah since Tsonga and Berdych are the ultimate clay courters.
Don't be a hypocrite. You post garbage about surface speeds all the time when you assume that it favors Nadal.
I don't even like Nadal. I just find it funny that those complaining about the speed of surface should really be hoping for the courts to slow down more like at the French Open for the sake of Federer. He just couldn't get enough returns back against Tsonga. Simple as that.
You have, in the past, insinuated that court speeds were slowed down in order to favor Nadal over Djokovic/Murray, who apparently thrive on faster surfaces according to you. I mean how can you be wrong? Djokovic and Murray certainly possess a US Open trophy to justify your claim.
Djokovic just won Wimbledon. I never said I thought US Open was the fastest. And what is good for Nadal doesn't mean it isn't good for Federer as well. Federer's biggest decline is his return of serve. It is most noticeable on fast surfaces.
Could you repeat that,plz?
Because Federer won all his Wimbledon titles on "green clay"? Yes, you are absolutely right, I don't like watching Federer either regardless of the colour of clay.
Interesting. I bet none here thought Federer had another Wimbledon in him.
To be fair, nor did I.
I didn't either. The big difference was that he suddenly refound a return when he needed to this wimbledon. His reflex skills on the return had greatly diminished, yet he made A LOT of them WITH INTEREST against both Murray and Djokovi
He's declined the most on grass.
A good run at Wimbledon one year where the Earth was moved for him doesn't mean he has not declined the most on grass. On hard courts he generally always makes the semifinals (apart from the US Open this year) and on grass he's only made it to the quarters for a couple of years before his win this year.
The past 3 years
AO : W, SF, SF = 17 wins, 2 losses => win ratio of 89.5%
USO : SF, SF, QF = 14 wins, 3 losses => win ratio of 82.4%
W : QF, QF, W = 15 wins, 2 losses => win ratio of 88.2%
Average out his win% at the AO and the USO and it comes up to less than his win% at Wimbledon.
If this poll had been created after Wimbledon this year, I would've chosen clay (obvious), but I can't say I can blame anyone for picking grass last year.
slow HC for sure
Ken Rosewall says "Hi".
Separate names with a comma.