Why Fed is GOAT-It's in the courts

[Goosehead]

i dont agree with this 'fast courts suit federer' theory..

ok federer probably prefers them, but slower courts would allow a slightly slower fed more time to get into position to execute a particular shot which would benefit him. :neutral:

 

[OrangePower]

Dunno. Fed has done pretty well on slow courts also. For example, last 8 FO's he has 1W, 4F, 2SF and his worst result is 1QF. Not bad. Were it not for Nadal, he would probably be considered one of the best FO players ever.

Against the rest of the field, other than Nadal, he has been pretty much as dominant on clay as he has on fast hard.

 

[veroniquem]

Yes he has but not so much recently. It's not a coincidence if his biggest wins this season have been W and Cincy.

 

[OrangePower]

Yes he has but not so much recently. It's not a coincidence if his biggest wins this season have been W and Cincy.

He is getting old, and has lost a step. So keeping points short is more important later in his career, and fast courts help with that. But until the last few years he was also the best slow court player in the world, with the exception of Nadal.

 

[veroniquem]

He's always done better on fast courts, come on now. No Rome title is not because of Nadal, they've only played once there. When was the last time Fed made the Rome final? When was the last time he made the Miami final? Fed has always prefered fast courts.

 

[TMF]

OP suddenly finds the courts are slower all of sudden....viola

All these complaints popup only when Fed starts to lose. I'm glad we still don't have Hewitt's, Safin's and Roddicks around. Otherwise these threads wold be non-existent!

Hewitt complain about the slow court too, despite Roger owned him.

 

[OrangePower]

He's always done better on fast courts, come on now. No Rome title is not because of Nadal, they've only played once there. When was the last time Fed made the Rome final? When was the last time he made the Miami final? Fed has always prefered fast courts.

True, but there are always going to be anomalies. For example, you cite Miami... sure it's slow for a hard court, but do you really think it's slower then Madrid? Speaking of which, Fed has had *better* results in Madrid over the last 4 years since it moved to clay than in the previous 7 when it was indoor hard, which is purportedly his best surface (of course Fed didn't play 2 of those, but still played 5 with worse results than 4 on clay). Not saying he is better clay player than indoor of course, just pointing out that anomalies happen.

 

[Mick3391]

Such a dumb statement, we saw Fed on fast grass in Halle, against fresh newcomer Haas.

You are forgetting that grass has slowed down. One example of anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me, sorry.

I mean this should be so obvious. Try to think of it this way, if all matches were on clay, Nadal would be the GOAT, no one would doubt that. On the other hand fast courts are Nadal's slow courts, so logic would dictate that if the courts were faster, he'd have even more wins, how can someone not understand this?

I mean I could be wrong, but I don't see how.

 

[Mick3391]

I think you have to be careful not to get carried away with this. Court speed is a hot topic right now because a journalist asked Fed about it at the WTF. But the majority of the tournaments slowed down their courts quite a few years ago. There were a few, like Paris indoors, that kept a fast court as everyone else slowed down, and one or two others - Cincy - that have kept their courts fast, but most of the courts slowed down a long time ago. So to say that Fed's decline was caused by the slowing of the courts is inaccurate. Now, if half of those courts that got slowed down got sped up again, Fed's decline might not be a decline at all, but like Murray said in Dubai, he might actually rise to the top again.

I'd bet that some tournament directors are starting to think about that.

Well yea I'm sorry if my facts are inaccurate, but I read much more than Feds statement, I read about the slowing of Tennis courts in general. The reason was to give the fans much longer rallies, more entertainment, and of course more money.

But yea if they haven't progressively and incremendally slowed down like I've read then of course I'm wrong. But it seems everyone acknowledges slower courts, every year progresivelly slowing the game down, no wonder kids are all trained to be baseliners, and no wonder everyone says "The game has changed".

It would be great if they had the traditional slow courts for baseliners, and keep the fast courts fast so we have variety.

Those who say "In the past it was terrible, quick serve and volleying", I would point to what was it, 1984 Wimbledon, just one match I know but it is generally regarded as the best GS final ever, a S&V against a baseliner.

 

[Federer20042006]

I thought I remembered Goran saying Wimbledon was slower in 2001 than it had been, even though he won it and broke his own record for aces. I think he specifically mentioned the second week was really slow.

Regardless, anyone who watches video of 03 and 04 Wimbledon can see that it was still much faster then than it's been the past several years, especially since 2007. Just the height of the bounce alone was so much lower back then.

The thing about fast surfaces, though, is they make the margins smaller, and Federer himself has acknowledged this. One break and the set is usually over. What nearly happened with Falla in 2010, and what happened with Rosol this year...that's the kind of thing you expect to happen on truly fast courts.

It would help Federer with the Nadal problem, but it would also make him much more vulnerable to a Tsonga or a journeyman. Heck, remember Paris 2010, which was delightfully fast? He lost to Monfils, although granted he had 5 match points.

It would be a double-edged sword for Federer, I think.

 

[abmk]

He's always done better on fast courts, come on now. No Rome title is not because of Nadal, they've only played once there. When was the last time Fed made the Rome final? When was the last time he made the Miami final? Fed has always prefered fast courts.

he also won IW this year ....the 4th time he's won IW ....

the miami HC somehow is the worst possible HC for him ....

he made 3 consecutive finals at monte carlo from 2006-08, which is slower than rome ...

he also won hamburg 4 times, and hamburg was slower than rome ...(though bounce was lower )

 

[abmk]

The thing about fast surfaces, though, is they make the margins smaller, and Federer himself has acknowledged this. One break and the set is usually over. What nearly happened with Falla in 2010, and what happened with Rosol this year...that's the kind of thing you expect to happen on truly fast courts.

It would help Federer with the Nadal problem, but it would also make him much more vulnerable to a Tsonga or a journeyman. Heck, remember Paris 2010, which was delightfully fast? He lost to Monfils, although granted he had 5 match points.

It would be a double-edged sword for Federer, I think.

the speed of the court had nothing to do with the falla match in 2010 , federer was just playing cr*p tennis and playing that sort of tennis, he'd have lost on many courts and to many players ...

the more even bounce of today actually helped falla ( who favours slower courts ) to get into a rhythm ...

 

[Mustard]

I thought I remembered Goran saying Wimbledon was slower in 2001 than it had been, even though he won it and broke his own record for aces. I think he specifically mentioned the second week was really slow.

Compared to 1992 when he served 206 aces in the tournament, yes. Back in 1992, they had hard tennis balls. At 1992 Wimbledon, Goran served 36 aces in beating Sampras in 4 sets in the semi finals and didn't even face a break point in the entire match. They started softening the balls up around 1995, making it harder to hit service winners. After the complete dud of a final between Sampras and Ivanisevic in 1994, that's hardly surprising.

Regardless, anyone who watches video of 03 and 04 Wimbledon can see that it was still much faster then than it's been the past several years, especially since 2007. Just the height of the bounce alone was so much lower back then.

There's not that much difference. External factors, like the weather, can also affect surface conditions. And the slowest Wimbledon was 2002, quite clearly.

 

[Mick3391]

I thought I remembered Goran saying Wimbledon was slower in 2001 than it had been, even though he won it and broke his own record for aces. I think he specifically mentioned the second week was really slow.

Regardless, anyone who watches video of 03 and 04 Wimbledon can see that it was still much faster then than it's been the past several years, especially since 2007. Just the height of the bounce alone was so much lower back then.

The thing about fast surfaces, though, is they make the margins smaller, and Federer himself has acknowledged this. One break and the set is usually over. What nearly happened with Falla in 2010, and what happened with Rosol this year...that's the kind of thing you expect to happen on truly fast courts.

It would help Federer with the Nadal problem, but it would also make him much more vulnerable to a Tsonga or a journeyman. Heck, remember Paris 2010, which was delightfully fast? He lost to Monfils, although granted he had 5 match points.

It would be a double-edged sword for Federer, I think.

Great point! Yea perhaps Tsonga and others would be Feds Nadal if courts were faster, great point!