Who is the most frustrating player to play against?

[P_Agony]

I choose Nadal. He's like a wall out there. returns everything and most of the time either extremely deep or an outright winner. Federer is very frustrating because even when he's in shank mode he'll still most likely win. Karlovic is probably extremely frustrating because most of the time you can't even get the ball back in play. Davy too, because he takes the ball so early and putting your fitness to test.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Federer when he's unbeatable?

 

[Changmaster]

Federer when he's unbeatable?

It's probably not Fed. Why? If Fed is in god mode, the other player has no reason to be frustrated, because he's getting a total beatdown. That player knows he's been outplayed, knows that he's lost to the better player, and just accepts that he's lost fair and square (just generalizing here).

The most frustrating player to play against would theoretically be one that you feel you should beat/have the ability to beat, but just end up losing, or winning but with very frustrating moments. The first player that comes to mind is Brad Gilbert (not a current player though). In other words, a player with poor-looking strokes that looks terrible, but to whom you somehow end up losing.

 

[icedevil0289]

interesting question. I'd probably be frustratred playing against karlovic and I guess nadal as well since he'd make me run so much.

 

[OJ ROD]

Santoro. You never know what's coming. Active Nadal, he doesn't seem to give his opponets any rhythm.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Murray too.

 

[Zefer]

Federer.

I've seen him do some unholy shots in the most difficult situations leaving his opponent with no more options, just to give up and lose the point. Sometimes there is no way to break his excellence so it must be really frustrating to give your all and still fail. Of course, that could be said about most pros, but no one else comes to mind as so unbeatable and flawless as Fed. :')

 

[P_Agony]

interesting question. I'd probably be frustratred playing against karlovic and I guess nadal as well since he'd make me run so much.

The thing with Nadal is that no matter how much you attack, you are almost never rewarded. You can dominate a rally, go for brilliant shots, and he'll still get everything back until you make an error or he starts dictating. This is part of the reason I dislike his game, I love to watch attackers get rewarded for their effort and risk taking.

 

[icedevil0289]

The thing with Nadal is that no matter how much you attack, you are almost never rewarded. You can dominate a rally, go for brilliant shots, and he'll still get everything back until you make an error or he starts dictating. This is part of the reason I dislike his game, I love to watch attackers get rewarded for their effort and risk taking.

thats true. he is just a beast in that aspect. sometimes I'm amazed when he gets a shot back and I'm like wait, this is nadal.

 

[jelle v]

I voted Nadal.. he's the kind of player where you get the feeling that you can beat him, because you get a lot of chances to attack. But then when you attack he passes you or comes up with some sort of other winner. You find yourself attacking a lot but losing a lot of points where you have the initiative. Also because you attack so much and Nadal retrieves so much, you will probably hit quite a few unforced errors, which will only add to the frustration.

I don't think Federer gives you that idea that you are the dominant player (like Nadal does a lot I think), while probably he retrieves just as much as Nadal. It's just that Federer has you playing a lot more defense than offense so you never get the notion that you are the dominant player who should win the match.

 

[ATLANTIS]

this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX-RpkDimpg

 

[Serendipitous]

Mun

10 chars

 

[Cantankersore]

This thread would probably work better if it were specified which pro were playing. There would be somewhat different choices for mediocre grinders, mediocre attacking baseliners, mediocre all-courters and mediocre serve and volleyers.

For a mediocre attacking baseliner, which is kind of your generic player, I would probably say Murray. His defense is good enough to get a lot of otherwise good shots, he is consistent enough to have a better B game than most players' A game, and he moves you around an annoying amount. Plus he is annoying.

 

[kishnabe]

Nadal...he will beat with his physical abiility to run every ball down and annoying topspin to my backhand!

 

[big bang]

The thing with Nadal is that no matter how much you attack, you are almost never rewarded. You can dominate a rally, go for brilliant shots, and he'll still get everything back until you make an error or he starts dictating. This is part of the reason I dislike his game, I love to watch attackers get rewarded for their effort and risk taking.

I agree, Rafa seems to hit the most ridiculous shots when he is under most pressure. he just looks so much sharper than anyone in these situations.
actually thats what I like about his game because its something you dont see very often, sure you see guys like Murray do it in some degree, but Rafa is just in a league of his own when it comes to pulling out winners from impossible positions!
I dont think most of the guys enjoy playing him, they know whats coming most of the time, but as soon as they go for a winner they dont, that must be kinda scary..

 

[YodaKnowsBest]

You know hes playing crappy and you know you can win, but still in the end he somehow manages to pass trough.

 

[P_Agony]

I agree, Rafa seems to hit the most ridiculous shots when he is under most pressure. he just looks so much sharper than anyone in these situations.
actually thats what I like about his game because its something you dont see very often, sure you see guys like Murray do it in some degree, but Rafa is just in a league of his own when it comes to pulling out winners from impossible positions!
I dont think most of the guys enjoy playing him, they know whats coming most of the time, but as soon as they go for a winner they dont, that must be kinda scary..

Actually Federer is on a league of his own at impossible winners from impossible spots. However, Federer is an attacking player, which is why I like is game. With Nadal, he just returns everything with great depth until the opnent makes an error. Probably frustrating to play against (it's frustrating to watch, for me).

 

[boredone3456]

Murray. For me the counterpuncher style is probably the most difficult to play against. Murray's patient and sometimes war of attrition style would frustrate me. Its the sort of style where you know that you have to be completely on your own game because its all on you many times to step up and hit the winner the put the point away. If your game isn't clicking but your opponent isn't doing anything to spectacular and if your still losing pretty badly that, for me, would be a tough experience. Knowing you have to do all this extra work and your opponent is simply trying to draw you to make an error, that would annoy me big time. Wozniacki is probably the type of player that would aggravate me, Murray is sort of a less extreme male version of her, and fits that model the best out of the ones on this list.

On Federer- you know even at his worst he is amazing and will be almost impossible to beat unless you playing spotless tennis. Frustrating to get him in your draw early on? Maybe, but you know he is hard to beat anyway, so for me it would just be an experience to play him.

 

[big bang]

Actually Federer is on a league of his own at impossible winners from impossible spots. However, Federer is an attacking player, which is why I like is game. With Nadal, he just returns everything with great depth until the opnent makes an error. Probably frustrating to play against (it's frustrating to watch, for me).

so you are saying Nadal doesnt hit winners out of nowhere when under pressure?? thats exactly when he hits most winners..
Fed does it when rallying from all parts of the court, Nadal does it from the weirdest position when fully stretched! thats why he is so dangerous when you try to finish the point, other than that he just keeps the ball in play and push you back with heavy spin and wait for the opening..

 

[P_Agony]

so you are saying Nadal doesnt hit winners out of nowhere when under pressure?? thats exactly when he hits most winners..
Fed does it when rallying from all parts of the court, Nadal does it from the weirdest position when fully stretched! thats why he is so dangerous when you try to finish the point, other than that he just keeps the ball in play and push you back with heavy spin and wait for the opening..

He does, but its mostly the FH banana shot DTL and sometimes a cc BH. Not a lot of variety if you ask me. Fed can hit tweeners winners, returns of overheads, heck - even headshots ;-).

Nadal just kills the mood for the attackers, slowly but surely killing their hope of survival. Countless time I've watched players brilliantly attack Nadal, getting him to the corner out of balance, only so he could hit a deep shot to the middle that would barely get a piece of the line and from there he starts dictating. This is why I think he's the most frustrating player to play against, but it's also a reason why I don't enjoy his matches.

 

[jodd]

I don't agree with that. Rafa's comfort with the banana shot and crosscourt backhand under pressure does not mean that he CAN'T hit/place the ball/winners with a great deal of variety - it just means that these are shots that he's comfortable with. I've seen Nadal hit all of the Fed shots you mentioned - it's not as if the two you mentioned are the only way he wins points, or even frequently used enough to make him one-dimensional. The man has some of the best passing-shots in the business - case closed.

Maybe I'm weird in this, but I tend to value defensive-minded (or at least very good transition-game) players equally as much as, if not more than, attackers. I think the two types complement each other, and for me, it's difficult to enjoy an attacker if the person on the opposite side of the net is not challenging him with good defense. You make it sound as if Nadal wins simply by demoralizing opponents with consistent deep shots - but shouldn't they be able to hit well enough to blow Nadal off the court? or shouldn't they have the mental strength to stay in points until they're on top of a rally again?

Hitting consistent deep shots off flat, well-placed returns/staying in rallies that SHOULD have been finished is something to be appreciated, and honestly, what I think separates the top, TOP players in the men's and women's tours from the rest of their respective fields.

The problem with a lot of attacking players I've seen, is that they have no plan B. When their shots aren't nicking the lines, or are coming back when they shouldn't, they don't know how to win points. I think Verdasco is a great example of this - someone who doesn't seem to know how to hit a truly solid rally ball, he's either successfully attacking or shooting himself in the foot. They seem to have less natural versatility in hitting winners from all over the court ('cept Fed) - or perhaps it's that they play low-percentage tennis, so they pull the trigger when smarter players wouldn't and fail - so when they're out of position - they're screwed.

But beyond that, I'd say Murray - watching him on tv frustrates me. I want to like him, but I can't get into his game - he's just TOO defensive...and it's sickening when you think about how much potential he's shown. Also, his forehand is just atrocious, and when he's not on the move, he's a quite flat player - watch how little happens when someone decides to keep him on the middle of the baseline. I keep hearing he's a talented tactician, but I guess I'm too dense to see it...(aus open final).

 

[Bloodshed]

I fort one would love to play vs Nalbandian but it would be tremendous torture if he would play his A-game vs me. I would never play tennis again (I believe Nalbandian's god mode is better than Federer's god mode).

But as far as playing a frustrating player either Nadal, Murray or Simon would annoy me to death.

 

[P_Agony]

I don't agree with that. Rafa's comfort with the banana shot and crosscourt backhand under pressure does not mean that he CAN'T hit/place the ball/winners with a great deal of variety - it just means that these are shots that he's comfortable with. I've seen Nadal hit all of the Fed shots you mentioned - it's not as if the two you mentioned are the only way he wins points, or even frequently used enough to make him one-dimensional. The man has some of the best passing-shots in the business - case closed.

Maybe I'm weird in this, but I tend to value defensive-minded (or at least very good transition-game) players equally as much as, if not more than, attackers. I think the two types complement each other, and for me, it's difficult to enjoy an attacker if the person on the opposite side of the net is not challenging him with good defense. You make it sound as if Nadal wins simply by demoralizing opponents with consistent deep shots - but shouldn't they be able to hit well enough to blow Nadal off the court? or shouldn't they have the mental strength to stay in points until they're on top of a rally again?

Hitting consistent deep shots off flat, well-placed returns/staying in rallies that SHOULD have been finished is something to be appreciated, and honestly, what I think separates the top, TOP players in the men's and women's tours from the rest of their respective fields.

The problem with a lot of attacking players I've seen, is that they have no plan B. When their shots aren't nicking the lines, or are coming back when they shouldn't, they don't know how to win points. I think Verdasco is a great example of this - someone who doesn't seem to know how to hit a truly solid rally ball, he's either successfully attacking or shooting himself in the foot. They seem to have less natural versatility in hitting winners from all over the court ('cept Fed) - or perhaps it's that they play low-percentage tennis, so they pull the trigger when smarter players wouldn't and fail - so when they're out of position - they're screwed.

But beyond that, I'd say Murray - watching him on tv frustrates me. I want to like him, but I can't get into his game - he's just TOO defensive...and it's sickening when you think about how much potential he's shown. Also, his forehand is just atrocious, and when he's not on the move, he's a quite flat player - watch how little happens when someone decides to keep him on the middle of the baseline. I keep hearing he's a talented tactician, but I guess I'm too dense to see it...(aus open final).

I have never seen Nadal hit a lob return of overhead winner like Fed did quite a few times. I don't think Nadal is one-dimensional, but I don't think his variety is great. I also never said Nadal's game was not legitimate. Of course I can appreciate great defense, and Nadal's defense is indeed great, perhaps the best ever. I just said I don't enjoy it personally. I said I would rather watch the attackers get rewarded for risk taking, that's all. Everyone likes their own style.

 

[cknobman]

I would be in such awe playing against Fed or Nadal no matter how bad my beating was I couldnt get frustrated.

 

[TMF]

It depends on which player we are talking about.

Federer it would be -> Rafa

Rafa -> Davy

Roddick -> Federer

Serena -> any player that pisses her off!!!

 

[jackson vile]

Roger, because he likes to leave for fake bathroom breaks to kill a players momentum.

 

[All-rounder]

Roger, because he likes to leave for fake bathroom breaks to kill a players momentum.

Example.........???????

 

[Bloodshed]

Example.........???????

I imagine he meant @ AO 10 when he was vs Davydenko after Davydenko dominated the first set that Fed took a bathroom break and some silly users believed that Fed cheated to kill Davydenko's momentum (like seriously it sounds stupid explaining it so imagine those who actually believes it was gamesmanship lol)

 

[lessthanjake]

I really dont think it can be Federer. It's not frustrating if you dont expect to win and just get totally outplayed by the greatest player ever.

I think Nadal is somewhat similar in that it wouldnt be that frustrating to lose to such an all time great, especially on clay.

So my vote goes to Murray. Playing him, you lose because of your own mistakes, and you feel like your opponent hasnt done that much to deserve to win.

 

[TMF]

I imagine he meant @ AO 10 when he was vs Davydenko after Davydenko dominated the first set that Fed took a bathroom break and some silly users believed that Fed cheated to kill Davydenko's momentum (like seriously it sounds stupid explaining it so imagine those who actually believes it was gamesmanship lol)

Right. And if they actually saw the match, the momentum didn't swing toward roger side. Davy was still playing great and had chances to break Roger in the 3rd game of the 2nd set. He couldn't capitalized it and it backfire him the next game. Roger played himself into the match and amp up his game.

 

[niff]

Murray. It's frustrating enough watching him, let alone playing.

 

[Talker]

I would have to say Nadal and Fed.

With Nadal it's so hard to get a ball past him, and he can do it all day long.

Fed plays to the weaknesses of opponents, they're waiting for a decent ball but it comes so infrequently.

Karlovic comes in next, if he's on with the serve you hardly get any chances no matter what. A lot of pressure to hold serve.

 

[reversef]

Santoro. You never know what's coming. Active Nadal, he doesn't seem to give his opponets any rhythm.

Do you think that Nadal doesn't give any rythm? He's the opposite for me. He's a rythm player. He's frustrating to play against because of his wall side and the way he goes from defense to offense (watch the second point of this : 2 minutes of the best points from his match vs Ancic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=932SoqPBxAA) but he gives rythm. He loves rallies. What happens is that most players now refuse to go to rallies with Nadal because they know it's synonymous to death. So they break the rythm.

I don't know who is the most frustrating player to play against. Nadal for the reasons I gave, yeah. Federer because nothing works against him. Murray, for me, doesn't give rythm. He's not as passive as some of you want to present him. One doesn't know what to expect from him. And Karlovic is there to represent the big servers. He gets my vote. Nothing is worse IMO. So unfair.

 

[YodaKnowsBest]

I imagine he meant @ AO 10 when he was vs Davydenko after Davydenko dominated the first set that Fed took a bathroom break and some silly users believed that Fed cheated to kill Davydenko's momentum (like seriously it sounds stupid explaining it so imagine those who actually believes it was gamesmanship lol)

He also left the court against Del Potro. (FO semi-final)
But whats really bothering me is, when he comes back he suddenly plays his best tennis. Thats kinda strange because he did this couple of times and it saved his ass. What i want to say is... maybe Federer isnt so clean afteral.

 

[YodaKnowsBest]

I choose Nadal. He's like a wall out there. returns everything and most of the time either extremely deep or an outright winner. Federer is very frustrating because even when he's in shank mode he'll still most likely win. Karlovic is probably extremely frustrating because most of the time you can't even get the ball back in play. Davy too, because he takes the ball so early and putting your fitness to test.

Why did you choose Davy over Djokovic?

 

[35ft6]

I think Nadal. Especially on clay. Karlovic would be second, but at least when you're serving (in this hypothetical, we're top pros, right?), you would be in control, so half the match wouldn't be as frustrating.

Murray is more of a mental case, you can see him stressing out, which always makes you feel better.

 

[P_Agony]

Why did you choose Davy over Djokovic?

Because Djokovic is not as consistent and scary from the baseline as Davy IMO. Plus, Davy takes the ball extremely early, perhaps more than anyone (along with Fed), and hits insane angles. Djokovic is not that frustrating to play against IMO. He doesn't have the biggest serve, makes quite a few DFs per match, he doesn't have a killer FH, he does have a great BH and a great defense game, but unlike Nadal, Djokovic makes quite a few unforced errors and losses his focus in most matches. When was the last time you've seen Djokovic totally destroy someone?

 

[P_Agony]

He also left the court against Del Potro. (FO semi-final)
But whats really bothering me is, when he comes back he suddenly plays his best tennis. Thats kinda strange because he did this couple of times and it saved his ass. What i want to say is... maybe Federer isnt so clean afteral.

Or maybe he just needed to pee?

 

[halalula1234]

santoro. he plays with strange spins and rhythm its very hard i would imagine to consistently rally with him

 

[DavidGarcia]

No way that Federer is the most frustrating pro to play against. He has all the shots, won 16 GS, how can anyone be frustrated playing against that? Frustrating to get him on your part of the draw but not to play against.

I think some people do not understand the question. Perhaps they do not play tennis themselves.

It gotta be Murray.I totally hate playing people like Murray in my club or other clubs. That style kills me slowly.....it is so frustrating to play against. They hardly attack the ball, they take the pace off your ball, they slice all the time, they hit awkward short balls all the time, they lob pretty well when you go to the net, they get crazy sloppy angles, they do amazing drop shots, they use your power and pace, etc.
In the other hand, I love playing people with Federer's style. It matches up so well with my style of tennis. I play Fed any day over Murray. No doubt!
This is my personal opinion.

 

[dropshot winner]

No way that Federer is the most frustrating pro to play against. He has all the shots, won 16 GS, how can anyone be frustrated playing against that? Frustrating to get him on your part of the draw but not to play against.

I think some people do not understand the question. Perhaps they do not play tennis themselves.

It gotta be Murray.I totally hate playing people like Murray in my club or other clubs. That style kills me slowly.....it is so frustrating to play against. They hardly attack the ball, they take the pace off your ball, they slice all the time, they hit awkward short balls all the time, they lob pretty well when you go to the net, they get crazy sloppy angles, they do amazing drop shots, they use your power and pace, etc.
In the other hand, I love playing people with Federer's style. It matches up so well with my style of tennis. I play Fed any day over Murray. No doubt!
This is my personal opinion.

I agree, but I doubt that Federer's type of game matches up well against yours.

You probably prefer to play someone that hits with pace, so do I.
But playing someone that can run down every shot, serves great, returns well and can hit a winner of almost every short ball doesn't suit anyone's game.
Even Nadal who probably has the best possible game to play Federer needs to work his ass off most of the time.

 

[DavidGarcia]

I agree, but I doubt that Federer's type of game matches up well against yours.

You probably prefer to play someone that hits with pace, so do I.
But playing someone that can run down every shot, serves great, returns well and can hit a winner of almost every short ball doesn't suit anyone's game.
Even Nadal who probably has the best possible game to play Federer needs to work his ass off most of the time.

What I meant by "matches up well against my style" is that I enjoy playing against someone who hits winners, gives me pace, etc......because it is more enjoyable to get points, games, etc. When I play some with Murray's style no matter whether I win or not, it is not enjoyable tennis for me, IMO.

 

[YodaKnowsBest]

Because Djokovic is not as consistent and scary from the baseline as Davy IMO. Plus, Davy takes the ball extremely early, perhaps more than anyone (along with Fed), and hits insane angles. Djokovic is not that frustrating to play against IMO. He doesn't have the biggest serve, makes quite a few DFs per match, he doesn't have a killer FH, he does have a great BH and a great defense game, but unlike Nadal, Djokovic makes quite a few unforced errors and losses his focus in most matches. When was the last time you've seen Djokovic totally destroy someone?

If you are talking about Djokovic's latest form then you're right. But we know he can serve better than Davydenko he's no.2 for a reason,
even when hes playing poor he can be very frustrating to play against.
Here is a good example of what i mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9X48FqmoJI
Federer said that Djokovic was playing very poor, but he played even worse and thats what made Federer angry.

 

[YodaKnowsBest]

Or maybe he just needed to pee?

Davydenko and Del Porto wer both on fire that day untill Federer decided to visit the toilet. Maybe thats why Federer almost peed in his pants... yes it all makes sense now.

 

[P_Agony]

If you are talking about Djokovic's latest form then you're right. But we know he can serve better than Davydenko he's no.2 for a reason,
even when hes playing poor he can be very frustrating to play against.
Here is a good example of what i mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9X48FqmoJI
Federer said that Djokovic was playing very poor, but he played even worse and thats what made Federer angry.

His game is very consistent, but I think most players are comfortable with his style. Let me explain, not being frustrating to play against does not mean you're not a good or even great player. Obviously Djokovic is a great player, he won quite a few big titles including a grand slam, something Davydenko has yet to achieve. He's #2 because he's that good and he's been a top 3 player for a while now. However, his style of play, and I mean purley his style, is not that frustrating because nothing "stands out" there. He doesn't usually come up with impossible winners from impossible spots ala Fed and Nadal, he doesn't hit those crazy angles like Davydenko or takes the ball as early like him, rushing you in every point, he doesn't have the biggest or best serve in the game (not even close), he can't play the patient game a lot like Murray can to frustrate opponents. He's beatable by the common folk, and it's been proven time and time again. He's just a very good aggressive baseliner which will surely beat most players but not neccesarily frustate them with his style.

Again, a great player does not neccesarily equal a frustrating player. Santoro was always frustrating to play against yet he was never in the caliber of the top guys.

 

[P_Agony]

Davydenko and Del Porto wer both on fire that day untill Federer decided to visit the toilet. Maybe thats why Federer almost peed in his pants... yes it all makes sense now.

If they "stopped" being on fire it's their own fault, not his. Your momentum shouldn't slip away because of a short bathroom break. Federer is more experienced than both in grand slams and knows how to win. Truth is, he beat DP that day because he was better. DP was on fire but it was clear Federer is the fitter player and once DP stopped serving out of his mind, the better player won. With Davy it was one easy shot that he missed that made him go insnae. After that Fed gained confidence and Davy continued his downfall.

You talk as if Federer has never won against any of them. Lets remind you that Fed is 6-2 against DP and 13-2 against Davy and his combined H2H against both in slams is 8-1(!!!) with a single loss that souldn't have been a loss in the first place.

 

[dropshot winner]

What I meant by "matches up well against my style" is that I enjoy playing against someone who hits winners, gives me pace, etc......because it is more enjoyable to get points, games, etc. When I play some with Murray's style no matter whether I win or not, it is not enjoyable tennis for me, IMO.

I too hate it when I'm the only one on the court that generates some pace and takes risks.

 

[YodaKnowsBest]

If they "stopped" being on fire it's their own fault, not his. Your momentum shouldn't slip away because of a short bathroom break. Federer is more experienced than both in grand slams and knows how to win. Truth is, he beat DP that day because he was better. DP was on fire but it was clear Federer is the fitter player and once DP stopped serving out of his mind, the better player won. With Davy it was one easy shot that he missed that made him go insnae. After that Fed gained confidence and Davy continued his downfall.

You talk as if Federer has never won against any of them. Lets remind you that Fed is 6-2 against DP and 13-2 against Davy and his combined H2H against both in slams is 8-1(!!!) with a single loss that souldn't have been a loss in the first place.

You cant compare RG with other slams (in Federers case). That GS was way too important for him. He just couldnt resist and took the easy way out by breaking Del Potro's momentum.
And about Davy, he never stood a chance against Federer. Everyone knew he was gonna lose no matter how good he was playing. But Del potro on the other hand has prooved himself by beating Federer in the US open finals.

 

[reversef]

No way that Federer is the most frustrating pro to play against. He has all the shots, won 16 GS, how can anyone be frustrated playing against that? Frustrating to get him on your part of the draw but not to play against.

I think some people do not understand the question. Perhaps they do not play tennis themselves.

It gotta be Murray.I totally hate playing people like Murray in my club or other clubs. That style kills me slowly.....it is so frustrating to play against. They hardly attack the ball, they take the pace off your ball, they slice all the time, they hit awkward short balls all the time, they lob pretty well when you go to the net, they get crazy sloppy angles, they do amazing drop shots, they use your power and pace, etc.
In the other hand, I love playing people with Federer's style. It matches up so well with my style of tennis. I play Fed any day over Murray. No doubt!
This is my personal opinion.

Your definition of Murray as an opponent made me suffer. Oh God, it's awful to play against someone like that. I broke a racquet and insulted my opponent once. It's so frustrating.

I'm not sure that playing against Federer is not frustrating though. No flaw And that little CC slice backhand would frustrate me a lot too.

 

[KAndersonFan]

Roger, because he likes to leave for fake bathroom breaks to kill a players momentum.

LOL pretty rich coming from a ********, who wastes time like none other. As for the OP, I'm sure Federer is the obvious choice, because you could still lose playing the best tennis of your life. But I'd probably say either Nadal or more likely Murray, who are able to frustrate many players with their excellent retrieving skills, and they are able to take several players out of their comfort zones by forcing them to be aggressive. That is likely to frustrate players like no tomorrow.