Who had a better ground game?

[Raining hopes]

2015 Nole overrated. Peak serve, lacking ground game. High percentage game was good tho



07-09 very peak Nole I agree

Sometimes I really get puzzled if people do watch matches or not,You are asking if Fed can hit through Djokovic

Forgive the caps lock because it is from another thread.


FED COULD HIT THROUGH PEAK NADAL DEFENCE,HE LOST THOSE MATCHES BECAUSE HE COULDN'T DO IT CONSTANTLY, AND EVEN AFTER HITTING WINNERS NADAL WAS BETTER PLAYER( THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HITTING WINNERS AND BEING A BETTER PLAYER.)

HECK WATCH HAMBURG 2007,2008 FIRST SET, ROME 2006,MONTE CARLO 2006 LAST 3 SETS, 2006WTF SF,2007 WTF SF,2012 IW,2013 CINCY MATCHES,2009 AO first four sets,

( Here I mean hit winners consistently over a period)85℅ of their matches had significant such stretches.he lost those matches because Nadal was





If you think Fred can't hit through Djokovic please just watch:

2004 USO F
2003 WTF FINAL
2003 WIMBLEDON SF/F
2002 Hamburg final
2004 WTF against Safin
2005 AO SF Against Safin
2005 Hamburg
2005 Wimbledon SF/F
2005 USO F( some amount of muggery but pure ball striking)

2006 Clay season
2006 Wimbledon(Ancic,Rafa especially)
2006 USO( Davydenko especially)
2006 WTF (entirely)
2007AO( All matches especially the SF)
2007 WTF SF( Against Rafa)
2007 Hamburg(""")
2008 Hamburg ( completely)
2008 USO F/SF
2009 AO( entirely)
2009 USO ( SEMI)
2009 Wimbledon (semifinals)
2010 AO(SF/F)
2010 WTF F




All of the above matches or tournaments in its entirety had level of aggression to hit through any defense.Federer isn't Stan he doesn't need to be too.





NOTE THAT I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS MEANS FED IS BETTER THAN DJOKOVIC,JUST THAT HE CAN HIT THROUGH ANY DEFENSE AT HIS BEST.



Next time please do your homework and research before making ridiculous claims.

 

[Winners or Errors]

There are several versions of Djokovic. The 2011-2015 version is the one I'd compare against Fed. Fed didn't rely on his ground game like Djokovic did. He relied on variety, that serve, and a willingness to come forward. All Djokovic has ever had were great groundstrokes. Yes, at times the placement of his serve was exceptional, but it was never the weapon Fed's was. If neither guy was allowed to come forward and each point started with a rally instead of a serve, Djokovic would win more than Fed. Real tennis doesn't happen that way, but if it did...

 

[Standaa]

There are several versions of Djokovic. The 2011-2015 version is the one I'd compare against Fed. Fed didn't rely on his ground game like Djokovic did. He relied on variety, that serve, and a willingness to come forward. All Djokovic has ever had were great groundstrokes. Yes, at times the placement of his serve was exceptional, but it was never the weapon Fed's was. If neither guy was allowed to come forward and each point started with a rally instead of a serve, Djokovic would win more than Fed. Real tennis doesn't happen that way, but if it did...

I think you hit a nail on the head with this one.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Agassi and Lendl at their peaks both had better groundies than either Fed or Djoker. Neither had the enormous and innate talent of Fed and neither had the mental strength of Djoker post-2010. But both had superior groundstrokes.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Agassi and Lendl at their peaks both had better groundies than either Fed or Djoker. Neither had the enormous and innate talent of Fed and neither had the mental strength of Djoker post-2010. But both had superior groundstrokes.

That's debatable. Hard to compare the eras, as always.

 

[Julian Houston]

Djokovic 2015 had better ground game than 2011. More aggressive forehand and better serve and volleys. Taught by becker to shorten points.

It can be argued wall tennis is dead, aggressive and heavy shots redefine the game.

 

[justasport]

just groundstrokes alone Djokovic in my opinion is the best ever followed closely by nadal and agassi

 

[Devin]

Roddick Wim 03 SF
Scud Wim 03 F
Roddick Wim 05 F

Agassi TMC 03 F
Hewitt TMC 04 F

Hewitt USO 04 F (BH wasn't on-fire per se, but it was working well in sets 1&3)

just some matches on top of my head.

What about the 4R/SF in Wimbledon 2005, 4R/QF in Wimbledon 2006, and some of his matches from USO 2006? I feel like those are contenders as well. Maybe USO 2007 QF too?

 

[abmk]

What about the 4R/SF in Wimbledon 2005, 4R/QF in Wimbledon 2006, and some of his matches from USO 2006? I feel like those are contenders as well. Maybe USO 2007 QF too?

Just named a few.

Wim 05 SF - yes.
Wim 04 4R - have just watched the highlights, not the full match

Wim 06 4R/QF - yes
USO 06 final, I'd say yes.
USO 06 semi - would need to watch the full match again.

 

[metsman]

Just named a few.

Wim 05 SF - yes.
Wim 04 4R - have just watched the highlights, not the full match

Wim 06 4R/QF - yes
USO 06 final, I'd say yes.
USO 06 semi - would need to watch the full match again.

serving wasn't quite up to par in 05 Wimby SF.

USO 06 semi was a very tight performance but I wouldn't put it among his all time best matches.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

So much this.

Old Fed wasn't as good at avoiding Djokovic like 2009-early 2010 Djokovic was at avoiding Federer.

Federer until Indian Wells 2009 had a 8-19 score against Nadal and Murray, since 2014 he is 9-0 winning 20 sets out of 23.

In 2015 from february to september he lost only 2 sets out of 82 outside clay, excluding his losses to Djokovic.

Between 2014 and 2017 he had a 15-0 score outside clay against Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic.

In 2017-18 he had a 53-3 streak in big tournaments.

Federer improved year after year, his problems were the opponents, mainly Djokovic but not only. Look at the spin rate of Thiem and Sock, or the incoming of two top asian players, Chung and Nishikori. If only I could show you a match between 2015-17's Federer and 2005-06's to shut you down once for all...

 

[Checkmate]

Djokovic always lacked guile and creativity required to break Federer's weakness into pieces whenever he has played him at Challenging conditions aka cincy, Dubai, RG 2011(you mention)

That being said, Djokovic sticks to his bread and butter and simply montonous style yet Federer(TM, GOAT, BEST EXAMPLE OF AGGRESSIVE TENNIS, SHARPEST REFLEXES etc etc) has found him impregnable 24 times.

I have laid down his weakness and strength. Pick your choice.

 

[axlrose]

This.

Novak is a more complete baseliner than Federer, but Federer is the more complete player as a full package.

This.

A much better serve also makes it easier to set up ground game.

I doubt Fed's game would look that flashy if he had mediocre serve like Djoko.

Overall he's clearly better. His resume tells it all.

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer until Indian Wells 2009 had a 8-19 score against Nadal and Murray, since 2014 he is 9-0 winning 20 sets out of 23.

In 2015 from february to september he lost only 2 sets out of 82 outside clay, excluding his losses to Djokovic.

Between 2014 and 2017 he had a 15-0 score outside clay against Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic.

In 2017-18 he had a 53-3 streak in big tournaments.

Federer improved year after year, his problems were the opponents, mainly Djokovic but not only. Look at the spin rate of Thiem and Sock, or the incoming of two top asian players, Chung and Nishikori. If only I could show you a match between 2015-17's Federer and 2005-06's to shut you down once for all...

Question, do you think Federer’s FH was better in 2014-2015, and do you think he moved or defended as well as he did in his early to mid 20s? Cheers.

 

[mike danny]

serving wasn't quite up to par in 05 Wimby SF.

USO 06 semi was a very tight performance but I wouldn't put it among his all time best matches.

Not quite. Only the 2nd set was tight. It was a routine victory for Federer.

 

[metsman]

Not quite. Only the 2nd set was tight. It was a routine victory for Federer.

by tight I meant on his end not the match.

 

[abmk]

serving wasn't quite up to par in 05 Wimby SF.

USO 06 semi was a very tight performance but I wouldn't put it among his all time best matches.

Been long time since I saw it, but yeah, you are probably right. In particular, the 1st set, where he served at 37%.
Adequate level serving, but not on fire/excellent serving.

Edit :
Assuming these stats are accurate : http://voodemar.com/wb05_federer-hewitt/
32 % Federer – 31 of 94

that's adequate % of unreturned serves for Fed, not great, but not below par either.

 

[abmk]

Federer until Indian Wells 2009 had a 8-19 score against Nadal and Murray, since 2014 he is 9-0 winning 20 sets out of 23.


Between 2014 and 2017 he had a 15-0 score outside clay against Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic.

Firstly on top of my head, I can tell you that Federer lost to delpo at USO in 2017, to Cilic in USO 2014, to Nadal in AO 14.
So he couldn't have gone unbeaten vs them outside of clay from 2014-17.

Secondly, federer is 5-1 vs Nadal from 2014 and 5-0 vs Murray.

So basically you are full of sh*t and can't even get some basic facts right.

Delpo wasn't even much on tour in 14/15 and fed-delpo didn't even meet from 2014-16.
Stan has never beaten Federer outside of clay.

Federer improved year after year, his problems were the opponents, mainly Djokovic but not only. Look at the spin rate of Thiem and Sock, or the incoming of two top asian players, Chung and Nishikori. If only I could show you a match between 2015-17's Federer and 2005-06's to shut you down once for all...

oh please, us fans of federer have seen federer in 05-06 and in 15-17. Clearly better in 05-06 , not even a question. But then you haven't seen much of tennis before 2011 or so, so you should shut it regarding that.

spin rate of Sock and Thiem ? ha ha ha ..........

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Firstly on top of my head, I can tell you that Federer lost to delpo at USO in 2017, to Cilic in USO 2014, to Nadal in AO 14.
So he couldn't have gone unbeaten vs them outside of clay from 2014-17.

Secondly, federer is 5-1 vs Nadal from 2014 and 5-0 vs Murray.

So basically you are full of sh*t and can't even get some basic facts right.

15-0 from the Finals 2014 to Wimbledon 2017.

9-0 since Cincinnati 2014.

This is what I meant.

 

[sarmpas]

"Novak has better ground game on slower courts"

What that means to me is the slower court slows down his opponents shots giving Novak a better chance to run them down, that is he uses his superior fitness as part of his groundgame. Then when he's attacking on slower courts where hitting a winner is harder so more shots need to be hit then again his fitness allows to to hit ball after ball better than Federer because he is fitter. If we call that a ground game then ok. He does have a better BH than Federer though in some respects.

 

[Standaa]

Delete

 

[abmk]

15-0 from the Finals 2014 to Wimbledon 2017.

9-0 since Cincinnati 2014.

This is what I meant.

again, shifting the boundaries when you want to.

he also lost to frickin' seppi in a slam in that time period - AO 15
also lost to Raonic in Brisbane final in 2016
etc. etc.

now coming back to that 15-0 outside of clay ...

stan has not beaten him outside of clay ever. so that 5-0 in that time frame would be similar in another time frame. The closest he came was in YEC 2014 SF, where he had 4 MPs.

Delpo was a single match (miami 17)

cilic was 2 matches - he's only lost 1 match to Cilic in total (USO 14), conveniently just outside of your time-frame. And out of those 2 matches, he had to save MPs in one of them (Wim 16 QF)

murray - one of them was YEC 14 where Murray was burnt out and played pathetically.
other 2 were at Wimbledon and Cincy - 2 of federer's fav hunting grounds (granted the wim 15 semi perf. was a really good one from fed)

that leaves us with Nadal ...win in Basel in 15 - indoors, fed was favorite. in 2017, 4 wins - had got completely used to the bigger racquet, clearly better than 2014 and slightly better than 2015, but no more so than he was in 2012. Nadal had also declined to an extent from his prime level which helped Fed in 17.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Djokovic 2011=Best baseline tennis in history.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

again, shifting the boundaries when you want to.

he also lost to frickin' seppi in a slam in that time period - AO 15
also lost to Raonic in Brisbane final in 2016
etc. etc.

now coming back to that 15-0 outside of clay ...

stan has not beaten him outside of clay ever. so that 5-0 in that time frame would be similar in another time frame. The closest he came was in YEC 2014 SF, where he had 4 MPs.

Delpo was a single match (miami 17)

cilic was 2 matches - he's only lost 1 match to Cilic in total (USO 14), conveniently just outside of your time-frame. And out of those 2 matches, he had to save MPs in one of them (Wim 16 QF)

murray - one of them was YEC 14 where Murray was burnt out and played pathetically.
other 2 were at Wimbledon and Cincy - 2 of federer's fav hunting grounds (granted the wim 15 semi perf. was a really good one from fed)

that leaves us with Nadal ...win in Basel in 15 - indoors, fed was favorite. in 2017, 4 wins - had got completely used to the bigger racquet, clearly better than 2014 and slightly better than 2015, but no more so than he was in 2012. Nadal had also declined to an extent from his prime level which helped Fed in 17.

Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic are 2014-17's best players except Federer and Djokovic. This is why that stat is important.

Don't underestimate Seppi or Raonic. You couldn't find players like that in 2005 in the second round or in a 250 tournament. This is why a better field is tougher, every match is harder.

Anyway I already know nothing will work with you, so goodbye. Keep thinking the best Federer is the prehistoric one who beat his ridicolous generation, whose best player reached 5 slam finals in his career, and lost to teenager big4.

 

[abmk]

Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic are 2014-17's best players except Federer and Djokovic. This is why that stat is important.

except you cherrypicked and left out most of 2014 and 2nd half of 2017, because it didn't suit you. also you left out clay because it didn't suit you.
Also you missed taking the context of those years, as I explained in detail.

Don't underestimate Seppi or Raonic. You didn't find players like that in 2005 in the second round or in a 250 tournament. This is why a better field is tougher, every match is harder.

Anyway I already know nothing will work with you, so goodbye. Keep thinking the best Federer is the one who beat his ridicolous generation and lost to teenager big4.

oh hell yeah, you did get players like that in 2005 . (in fact better ones)
Federer beat Safin (AO 2005 champ) in Halle 05 final for instance. (a considerably better player than Roanic)

AO 2015 loss was in 3rd round, not 2nd round.
For instance, Federer met Fernando Gonzalez in 3R of RG 2005 (a clearly better player than Seppi)
He met Nicolas Kiefer in 3R of Wim 2005 (again, a clearly better player than Seppi)


Also Federer is 14-1 vs Seppi with 13 of those wins being in straight sets :
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/andreas-seppi-vs-roger-federer/SA93/F324

so that loss was a real shock one and wouldn't have happened if Federer was playing anywhere near decent in that match.

Bold part is utter BS. 2004/05 were both considerably stronger than 2014/2015/16/17/18.

again , you are sh*t clueless about tennis before 2011 and keep on making absolute bullsh*t statements. Keep doing that and you'll just keep getting embarassed further by being shown facts and reality.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Fed's offense was great ofc. But no one's offense is hitting through Nole 100% of the time. Plus Djokovic is the best at turning offense into defense.

How does Nadal win then?

Even the worst guys can hit winners against Novak. So yes, no offense is hitting through Novak 100%. What's your point?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Between players born from 1972 to 1985 the one who reached the most slam finals excluding Federer is Roddick with 5.

LOL how bad was this generation.

@abmk

 

[abmk]

Between players born from 1972 to 1985 the one who reached the most slam finals excluding Federer is Roddick with 5.

LOL how bad was this generation.

@abmk

ha ha, LOL, again, crappy try at diversion after being owned so massively.

just from Fed's generation :

# of slam finals for Roddick = 5
# of slam finals for Safin = 4
# of slam finals for Hewitt = 4
# of slam finals for Ferrero = 3

# of slam finals combined = 15
# of slam wins combined = 6

from fail gen (dimi, nishi, raonic) , which was to supposed to be Djokovic's competition in 14 and beyond (after his own gen)

combined # of slam finals so far = 2
# of slam wins combined = 0

unlike Fed who had pretty good competition from the next generation with the Nadal-Djoko-Murray gen.
(with Nadal being there from 05 and Djoko from 07)

 

[Deleted member 757377]

(with Nadal being there from 05 and Djoko from 07)

Nadal and Djokovic "were there" because they were too good for the previous generation even as teenagers. But they were still teenagers.

You can't change the stats showing that Federer's coetaneous and previous generation were garbage, while in 1985-88 many great players were born.

Maybe 90s generation is garbage too, we don't know yet, but the one who is taking advantage of it the most is still Federer.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Honestly I thought that even sureshs jokes would die before peak Federer loses a poll here convincingly. Guess I was wrong...

Both were so awesome.

 

[abmk]

Nadal and Djokovic "were there" because they were too good for the previous generation even as teenagers. But they were still teenagers.

You can't change the stats showing that Federer's coetaneous and previous generation were garbage, while in 1985-88 many great players were born.

Maybe 90s generation is garbage too, we don't know yet, but the one who is taking advantage of it the most is still Federer.

Except fed's generation was hardly garbage. 15 slam finals among the other 4 guys (6 slam wins).... there are others as well, but I chose to stick to those 4.

Just because 85-88 gen was better doesn't mean fed's gen was bad.
Many great players ? I count just 2 --- Nadal, Djokovic. For me, "greatness" is ATG level (which is Becker, Edberg, Wilander level).

Djokovic turned 20 in May 2007.
The only really teenage precocious talent was Nadal. And guy was clearly better on clay in 2005-07 than he was in 2014-16.
Clearly better on grass in 2006-07 compared to 2014-16.
He was better on HC in 2005-07 than in 15-16 (2014 being the only exception year here)

^^ mentioning 14-16 because that was the time when your guy Djokovic was winning.

Like I said (and proved for instance about 05), you are utterly clueless about tennis before 2011.

@ the bold part, incorrect.

Djokovic has won 6 slams from 2014-current and been YE#1 twice
Federer has won 3 slams from 2014-current and not ended YE as #1 even once.

Djoko is the one who has taken most advantage of the fail gen.

and yes, we do know the dimi, nishi, raonic gen is fail gen. Their level of tennis till now (at the very least) is clearly lesser than any generation in the open era.
(Oh but wait, you don't sh*t about tennis before 2011. )

Even if they do something now, it doesn't change their level in 14-current.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

@abmk

in 2014-16 the top players set every record of atp points. It was an era of champions. In 2017-18 the top players had the lowest amount of atp points since 2006.

Anyway a bad generation after 1985-88 is normal. What is not normal are 14 years like 1972-85, with no real champion except Federer.

 

[abmk]

@abmk

in 2014-16 the top players set every record of atp points.

It was an era of champions. In 2017-18 the top players had the lowest amount of atp points since 2006.

Anyway a bad generation after 1985-88 is normal. What is not normal are 14 years like 1972-85, with no real champion except Federer.

If there no real champion except federer born in 72-85, then there is no real champion except nadal and djokovic in 85-88.

@ the bold part : what ? It was only Djokovic who got a record # of ATP points.
14-16 ? an era of champions ?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

@abmk

players with most wins over top-10

underlined players who had their best results in the 2000s
in bold players who had their best results in the 2010s


1) Federer
2) Djokovic
3) Nadal
4) Sampras
5) Becker
6) Lendl
7) Agassi
8) Murray
9) Edberg
10) McEnroe
11) Connors
12) Hewitt
13) Borg
14) Ivanisevic
15) Wilander
16) Courier
17) Ferrer
18) Berdych
19) Chang
20) Del Potro
21) Wawrinka

 

[robthai]

Lew you have been owned by abmk. Save the embarrassment.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Lew you have been owned by abmk. Save the embarrassment.

Go Roger, right?

 

[abmk]

@abmk

players with most wins over top-10

underlined players who had their best results in the 2000s
in bold players who had their best results in the 2010s


1) Federer
2) Djokovic
3) Nadal
4) Sampras
5) Becker
6) Lendl
7) Agassi
8) Murray
9) Edberg
10) McEnroe
11) Connors
12) Hewitt
13) Borg
14) Ivanisevic
15) Wilander
16) Courier
17) Ferrer
18) Berdych
19) Chang
20) Del Potro
21) Wawrinka

so ?
Ferrer and Berdych are quite clearly inferior to Roddick, Safin and Ferrero who aren't in the list. They just happened to have played vs more top 10 players (quite a few more and hence won more). Look at their %s vs top 10 . Just about 30%. Doesn't mean they are anywhere great.

and while delpo has played more from 2011 onwards than before, his best year was by far 2009. no other year of his comes close. also he was a non-factor in 14/15 ---2 of the 3 years from 2014-16 which is what we're talking about.

Nadal was there in the first half of 2014. But he didn't even reach the semi of a GS from mid-2014 to end of 2016 , let alone a final.

2011-13 were strong years. Never said otherwise.
So were 2004-05 and 2007-09.

06,10,14-current were/are relatively weaker.

Edit : Also , Nadal's career splits b/w 2005-10 and from 2011 onwards (when Djoko hit his peak). he won 9 of his 16 slams from 2005-10 and 7 slams after that. was YE #1 twice in each period.
etc. etc.

P.S. Another piece of rubbish bullsh*t from you cutting it at #21 stan. Safin is at 49 top 10 wins, just 1 less than both Stan and delpo who are at 50 each.

 

[abmk]

Go Roger, right?

nope, go and get a clue about tennis before 2011.
Stop with BS blind pro-Djokovic and anti-Federer agenda.
You'll continue to be contradicted with facts and reality if you continue.

 

[sarmpas]

Djokovic 2011=Best baseline tennis in history.

Fitness and athleticism is a big part of having a great groundgame.

 

[Sport]

Off course I love Federer’s game and he’s definitely a more complete player than anyone.

No he is not. Federer is not more complete than Nadal. Nadal has his GS more evenly distributed by surface than Federer with at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay), while Federer only has 1 GS on clay. Therefore, Nadal is more complete than Federer in outdoor surfaces. Federer is only more complete than Nadal on indoor surfaces.

To be more complete than Nadal, Federer should be more complete than him both in outdoor and indoor courts, not only indoor. Therefore, Federer needs to win 3 Roland Garros to be more complete than Nadal. In that case, he would have won 3 GS on each surface (grass, hard and clay), and so he would be more complete than Nadal both in outdoor and indoor courts.

 

[NatF]

No he is not. Federer is not more complete than Nadal. Nadal has his GS more evenly distributed by surface than Fedefer with at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay), while Federer only has 1 GS on clay. Therefore, Nadal is more complete than Federer in outdoor surfaces. Federer is only more complete than Nadal on indoor surfaces.

To be more complete than Nadal, Federer should be more complete than him both in outdoor and indoor courts, not only indoor. Therefore, Federer needs to win 3 Roland Garros to be more complete than Nadal. In that case, he would have won 3 GS on each surface (grass, hard and clay), and so he would be more compelte than Nadal both in outdoor an indoor courts.

I see this type of nonsensical argument alot. For one the AO and USO play differently so grouping them together comes across as disingenuous to me, at Nadal's weakest major he only has 1 slam just like Federer, if the USO was replaced by a clay surface - like the one from the 70's (which had a lower bounce and played faster) then it would likely be the other way round with Federer having more clay majors than Nadal HC. I'd also argue that a distribution of 10-4-2 being more even than 11-8-1 is highly debatable, if we break it down by slam it's pretty obvious who's more evenly distributed with 10-3-2-1 versus 8-6-5-1.

You saying that Federer needs to win 3 FO to be more complete than Nadal is sadly more of your typical BS. I suppose Wilander is more complete than Federer as well...

 

[Deleted member 757377]

They're both complete, as well as Djokovic.

Hell, they won almost every big tournament at least twice or three times...

 

[Zhilady]

Best groundstrokes? Agassi.
Best groundgame? Early 2011 Djokovic.

 

[Zhilady]

Fed ain't Stan. How is Federer supposed to hit through Nole? He can do it, but you're making it seem like it would be easy

Shouldn't this be the other way around? Stan ain't Fed. Is Stan could do it, so could Fed.

 

[PMChambers]

I went Djokovic, surprised he was winning poll TBO
Anyway Djokovic has the best ground game I've ever seen for consistency off the ground Some of which is due to poly allowing him to work a ball in. Nadal is much more reliant on spin and work. Later years of Agassi and little purple period in 94/95 but nothing to the level of Djokovic Lendl was the benchmark for while but could be flaky under nerves, hence his Major final losses.

 

[Rogerjohnson81]

.

 

[FHtennisman]

Nah, Fed at 37 is not going to beat Djokodal in consecutive matches at 37 to win a GS on a very slow HC. That's mission impossible.

Which very slow HC?

 

[mike danny]

Which very slow HC?

USO.

 

[Rogerjohnson81]

.

 

[mike danny]

There is something wrong with the USO when Federer has more Australian Open crowns with half on plexicushion and despite winning 5 USO’s in a row not winning one since despite multiple Australian Open crowns.

The new fast court of the AO did play into Fed's hands. I'm glad he chose to stick around to take advantage of a fast court slam since he hadn't been able to that in a long time.